No no no. It’s like finding the Playboy Bunny on the cover of the magazine. If someone points it out for you, it doesn’t count.
Hell, just point to the specific post number where this supposedly glaringly obvious answer is located.
A little sympathy. He never wanted or expected anyone to find those other posts. He’s been doing the tapdance in the hope the issue will just blow over and be forgotten.
He may be getting to the point where he realizes that ol’ Huerta88, at least, isn’t going to drop it until he gets a real answer. And that others are publicly wondering why it’s proving so hard. And that having this issue alive increases the odds that other posters and lurkers and broswers who haven’t paid too much attention will begin to wonder what I’m talking about, read the other posts, maybe even check out the separate link I found using the same username from Pennlive and minimizing the gravity of Sandusky’s actions by posting about an Orthodox Jewish pedophile story that he found much worse, and wondering why the media (who runs the media, again?) hadn’t given it near the play they gave Sandusky (hint: Orthodox Jews, whatever else he thinks they run, do not run Division I footballs team (now someone’s going to check in and tell me Brandeis is a DIII powerhouse)). So the pressure may be bulding and the kick-the-can-down-the-road tapdance may (or may not) end soon.
I’m moderately curious what form this takes. For sure he can’t admit it’s all the same author. Perhaps he’ll change the story to of course it’s obviously not, that’s what should have been evident all along [CITE – none]. But that just invites more comparison, whereupon I’d imagine almost everyone would conclude he was lying and did post the other stuff. I honestly don’t know that he has a lot of good moves (not that any of his moves herein have approached the non-moronic level).
With respect to those who ask why it matters, I was taught that you can impeach testimony (which he’s been trying to proffer left right and center in this thread) with any material or information that called into question the witness’s veracity or credibility. Posting that a ten year old boy would be three feet tall and only come up to the waist of a 6’+ man and that McQueary had intentionally fabricated the whole shower scene to advance his career demonstrably, to me, demolishes his credibility.
Actually, take back my first line. This sack of shit deserves not a bit of sympathy and the corners he finds himself painted into were painted solely by himself.
To be fair, I think I can let SA have this one: he most definitely has answered the question of whether or not he is that other poster.
Now how, you may ask, has he done that? All he’s done is tapdance coyly around the issue for hundreds of posts.
Well, that last sentence IS the solution to this question. His entire behaviour in this thread, not to mention his stupid avoidance tactics, are a great big bellow into a megaphone “YES I AM THE POSTER OF THOSE OTHER REMARKS ON THE PENNLIVE BOARDS”.
He’s hoping that the whole issue will blow over, and that he can declare himself the winner because everybody else gave up.
Something like, “I haven’t noticed any lies lately; that must mean that they all acknowledge that I am right!”
No, actually it’s that I couldn’t care less whether people think we’re the same person or not. Huerta and the rest of you can pound on it from now on for all I care. The answer is there and easy to easy to recognize for those who care enough to think about it.
What you’ve been indulging in is not “an objective look at factual evidence”: it’s mere wishful thinking based on your very idiosyncratic speculative interpretation of the available subset of factual evidence. The conclusions that you drew from your interpretation are not “apparent” or even slightly persuasive to anybody but yourself.
I repeat: while it is certainly not proven that what Sandusky was doing in that shower was anal rape, you are way, way, way out of line in imagining that you have somehow made a convincing case that it most likely wasn’t anal rape.
It is neither “impossible”, nor “unlikely bordering on impossible”, nor “highly unlikely”, nor “very unlikely” that what McQueary saw happening in the shower was in fact anal rape. Nothing about his testimony is in any way inconsistent with that possible scenario, despite your weirdly prescriptive assertions about what you imagine child sodomizing would involve.
There’s a difference between (a) not prematurely jumping to conclusions and (b) twisting facts and logic into pretzels in an obsessive attempt to rule out or discredit certain possible conclusions which are, in fact, perfectly plausible. You keep doing the latter while trying to claim credit for the former.
Bitch stuck with tapdancing, with a soupcon of the “I don’t have time to post a three letter answer to a direct question” as I’d partly predicted.
Can’t wait for him to rebut the other lies he’s been called out on.
Can’t be bothered, iPhone not working right since Steve Jobs died, winning horseshit. Some combination thereof no doubt.
Retard bitch – a number of people orders of magnitude smarter than you have “thought about it” and discern no honest or clear answer to the question in any of your horseshit posts. So no, it’s not “easy to recgnize” you cretinous liar.
Sorry, can’t accept that. It has been well established that you are a pathological liar. Put up or shut up.
The question has been asked of you, more than once. And it has been asked in a polite and reasonable way. That you won’t directly answer it is a gesture of poor faith, and demonstrates your lack of courtesy on this board.
No, it isn’t. When you claim that it is, you are lying.
All except conclusive evidence has to be judged for probity. It is my opinion that when all the evidence we have is considered, such as Sandusky’s age, the physics and physical conditioning involved in a 6’3" man attempting anal sex with a ten to twelve year old boy, the slippery floor and semi-public location accessible at any time to a large number of people, no screaming or yelling, no visible insertion ot thrusting observed, etc., combined with the evidence which one would reasonably expect in order to arrive at a conclusion of rape in this instance but which isn’t there despite an otherwise detailed description of the scene, such a copulatory expression on Sandusky’s face and/or a physically or mentally distressed expression on the boy’s face, no apparent erection when Sandusky and the child separated, plus Sandusky’s only history at that time being having hugged a child in the shower three years before, make it make it highly unlikey to virtually impossible IMO for me or anyone else looking at the charge objectively and dispassionately to arrive at the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that what McQueary saw was anal rape. Period. End of story. How many times am I going to have to explain this?
Nope, didn’t say that.
Winning!
Haven’t lied, haven’t been called out on any.
Winning!
Said none of the above.
Winning!
Once was enough for us to know that you are simply making up shit as you go along.
Explain you dumbfuck (putting aside your moronic “reasoning”) where you think he is charged with the crime of “anal rape” (no such separate statute exists you dumbfuck) as opposed to “sexual assault on a child,” which clearly did happen, as did “indecent exposure,” either of which actually-existent statutes exist and are asserted against Sandusky and one of which (sexual assault on a child) is to every sentient person legally and morally no less serious than “anal rape.”
And, you dumbfuck, yes, the sexual assault McQueary did commit almost certainly was an anal rape, you dumbfuck rapist-enabler.
I called you out on your lies that the lights were out when McQueary entered the locker room, that I made “pro Nazi posts” in this thread, and that any reasonable person would in the context of the shower rape take fondling to plausiibly mean something non-sexual.
Your bitch coward ass has not refuted at least those three lies I called you out on.
You have nothing because you are nothing.
This thread is like the nerdiest attempt to summon Kingdom Hearts ever.
I think a major problem in taking your argument seriously is when you weigh it against all we know about Sandusky. He absolutely was sexually assaulting children. To somehow say that this one incident in the shower was innocent is highly unlikely given all the other facts we know. Whether or not he was actually engaged in rape is irrelevant. Given all we know, it is extremely likely he was engaged in some form of sexual assault. There’s no reason to consider the .0001% chance that it really was an innocent encounter.
This is an internet message board. The way things work here, is that people post a series of messages, organized by subject as ‘threads’. Once a message has been posted to a thread, it remains there permanently. Generally one posting of particular piece of information is sufficient.
You have now posted effectively the same information several dozen times in the same thread over the course of at least three months (possibly more). No one seems to have accepted your speculations as reasonable or plausible any of the other times you’ve posted exactly the same repetetive nonsense. You are welcome to try again as many times as you like, but one would think any sensible person could figure out that at this point your arguments are no more likely to to be treated seriously the thousandth time you post them than they were the first, the fifth, or the twentieth.
You may have a point here. Huerta is the one who brought it up originally and he’s been anything but polite and reasonable. The question becomes, do I accomodate secondary posters when the one raising the issue originally doesn’t deserve the answer, or does their request simply piggy-back the original as they didn’t raise the issue in the first place and their curiosity is based solely on accusations made by the original, undeserving poster? And then of course I have to consider the fact many if not most of the secondary questioners have largely behaved in a dishonest and insulting way toward me generally even though they may have been polite in asking that one question. A perfect example can be found in your very next comment:
No, I am not lying. You might legitimatrly question whether the answer is easy to spot or not, but when you accuse me of lying about it you step over the line and cause me to question why I should accomodate you.