Here. We’ll let Marley23 do it from another thread:
In Latin, no less.
Nope, not obsessive, nor mechanics of how to rape a boy. Was mechanics of not raping a little boy.
Winning!
Due process and the truth interest me, as does a desire to fight the unthinking witch hunt mentality. You, on the other hand, are so insanely irrational on the subject that there must be an internal battle with demons of some sort going on. So once again…
Winning!
Wanking!
I’ll challenge you once again to cite one single factually demonstrable lie I’ve told in all my time here. This is a challenge I’ve made before, to you and other posters who’ve accused me of lying, and I happily and confidently predict you’ll once again find yourself holding an empty sack, as have they every single time. So,
Winning!
Yeah, right. This thread is chock full of me running away. :rolleyes:
Winning!
“Win” this.
wedgehed, thanks for both your post and its reasonable tone. As I understand it Sandusky retired from his coaching position at Penn State at Paterno’s request due to the amount of time he was spending in his work with the Second Mile charity. Given that the only offense Sandusky had been accused of at that time was a parent complaining he had hugged their child in the shower and the amount of time football coaches must devote to their programs this explanation seems credible to me. So far as I know there is no factual evidence that Sandusky was forced out due to the shower hug incident, which, frankly, one would not expect anyway given Sandusky’s thirty two years as coach and his popularity on campus at that time. I just don’t believe that an upper level bigtime football coach of long standing would be fired or forced out of his job simply simply because someone accused him of hugging their child in the shower.
So it’s my belief that at the time of the McQueary incident Paterno knew only of the alleged hug and nothing else. As far as Paterno’s not taking action himself or not calling the police, this is something reasonable people can disagree on. I’m not saying no one should believe he should have called the police, but I am saying that he should not have interfered with or tried to influence the outcome of the investigation as typically outsiders are not supposed to participate in or try to influence official investigations. Secondly, and most importantly, I am saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that Paterno sought to cover up the incident, nor that he knew of and allowed Sandusky to sexually abuse children for the sake of his football team, and that any belief he did is based on nothing but supposition and can’t be accepted as fact.
SA, did a bad man touch you before your tickle-place got the bushy hairs? You’re in a safe area here. You can tell us.
I can’t fathom why this thread wasn’t euthanized two dozen pages ago. Surely there are other projects available to occupy the time of a mentally ill sexagenarian? Crosswords, jumbles, putting shoes on the wrong feet, that kind of thing?
There is one (not two, definitely not three) little sick bitch in this thread who has squatted on the floor with a presumably erect (why?) penis stuck into a paper towel tube while imagining how it would be to rape, or not rape, a three foot tall boy.
It is not me.
Way to go mods. Way to go.
You claimed that the “fact” that the lights were out when McQueary entered the locker room was “proof” that Sandusky couldn’t have been raping the boy because obviously once McQueary “turned the lights on,” Sandusky would have backed off from the boy to cover up his rape.
McQueary swore that the lights were on when he entered the locker room, in fact that was what drew his initial attention.
You – a fucking liar – thereby fucking lied.
QED.
While we’re at it – yes or no, no more equivocation, no more tap dancing – you did or did not post that shit on Pennlive?
Go ahead.
I’m waiting.
You hoped it wouldn’t be discovered.
It was.
Man up.
As if.
Oh, I’ve done my little share of apologism – it is fair to say that the RCC scandal was the first widely disseminated instance of a pattern of perverts in positions of authority abusing that authority sexually under the guise of being advocates or volunteers for children. There was a time at which that fact pattern was not necessarily recognized. I am willing to believe that some RCC leadership really did believe stuff that has since been proved just not to be so – that there were cases of pedophilia that were one-time errors in judgment, that pedophiles could change, that “good” people would not do bad things, not really, or if they had one lapse of judgment, they could totally mend their ways after a slap on the wrist.
The reason I read about the RCC scandals is because I felt an obligation to figure out just what the limits of apology were – and they clearly stopped far short of what a lot of very senior clergy were willing to engage in and enable.
And, any apologia based on historical ignorance of these patterns of abuse died on the vine by the 1980s or 1990s, when case after credible case of near-identical custodial/teacher/clergy sex abuse became universally public.
Anyone who is interested in a blueprint of how to rape a child can turn to SA’s droolingly detailed delectations on the subject.
Anyone interested in a blueprint of how evil pedophiles masquerade as selfless champions of children, all the while grooming, psychologically controlling, and raping countless boys, can find every element of the Sandusky case in these two horrifying exposes of a couple of very evil representatives of the RCC (a Church that, sadly, Paterno and Sandusky belonged to):
The statement was that you do not value truth. And you don’t. You weave these nonsensical perceptions and broad worldviews that are simply false and fantastical. Liberals are responsible for everything bad that has happened in America. Conservatives are always nice and polite.
Here in this thread you’ve actually asserted that your fantasies about whether a man can squat low enough to anally penetrate a smaller person have proven something.
These things aren’t true. You value coming up with nonsense and trolling others with it.
I’m impressed by the degree to which you have made yourself universally reviled here. You’re a sadly loathesome person with repugnant views. You’re not interested in exchanging views or thinking about anything. You don’t value truth.
The police are the start of the official investigation.
Calling the police can’t be considered interfering as that is what Paterno, Curly and Schultz are required to do by law. By law none of those three are allowed to investigate, they must pass on the report to the police, and there are no restrictions as to which of them are “allowed” to call the police.
So, if, as you claim, you believe in facts, logic, reason, etc. - then you should drop that line of reasoning as it is factually flawed. But given that you’ve already been told that, I suspect maybe facts, logic and reason may not be at the top of your list.
Please explain if it is just an honest mistake.
Winning!
You lied that I had made “pro Nazi posts” in this thread. I pointed out that, no, I had not, here or anywhere. You then further lied that you seemed to remember me confessing that I was disliked by some here because “I was a Nazi.” I and others pointed out that, no, that too was a complete lie, and challenged you to adduce proof for your assertion. You, a cowardly little bitch, provided nothing, thereby confessing that you had, yet again, lied.
That’s just two complete, utter, and undeniable lies by you. But you only asked for one.
Liar.
Oh don’t encourage it. Even though you’re right, it (SA) needs no feeding to be a troll.
Starving Artist has also said that he has answered whether he was the same person posting on the pennlive boards, for anyone who cared to figure it out. I believe this to be a lie, also.
Prove me wrong, SA; post the answer, yes or no, along with a previous quote that was supposed to make the answer evident.
I think he’s got a cowardly little dodge for you – he’s said something to the effect that his answer was “evident from all [his] posts in this thread.” In other words, what a Warren Court jurist might think of as a penumbra or emanation of an answer, rather than anything, you know, actually discernible from the text of his bullshit answers. And that this penumbra or emanation is so painfully clear to all but the stupid (and we are, all of us, undoubtedly stupid, he’ll claim, not to have discerned it) that it requires no direct answer, and he’s not going to waste his time on it.
He’s really, really, really unhappy I found those posts, and there’ll be some fairly ridiculous vigorous thrashing (rhythmic slapping sounds will once again be heard, but only if he thrashes more than three times) to avoid the issue (or, it will be completely ignored or deflected). The fact that someone with remarkably identical obsessive theories and verbiage was willing to let the mask drop and come out in outright defense of a pedophile (well, he’s worked his way around to this here) and to the outlandish pretense that McQueary made the whole thing up to further his career would destroy whatever shred of credibility he delusionally thinks he enjoys here.