And now if you’ll all excuse me, it is time for my nightly cherries run plus a stop for groceries. I’ll answer more, including filmore’s post, when I get back.
When you decide on an answer to that question, please let us know.
Did you feel that my statement was in some way impolite, dishonest, or insulting? If so, which?
As it stands, you have made far more accusations of lying in this thread than I have. If that’s all it takes to be considered an insult, then you’ve hurled more than your share.
I’m not about to read much of this travesty, but someone please, please tell me that SA quoting Charlie Sheen’s “Winning!” and talking about how he’s going to go out and get him some cherries is an intentional sarcasm.
He told us a story somewhat earlier about a guy who glared at him when he gave some money for soda to teenagers at the 7-11 while he was there to buy some Christmas chocolate covered cherries. He now occasionally informs us that he won’t be posting because he’s off to the 7-11 to buy some more Christmas chocolate covered cherries, which most of them are sold out of by now, but his isn’t.
I would have thought they’d be stale by now.
Well, I know I was wondering. It’s really good to know.
I wonder if he knows that he is still online and logged in? I can’t wait for him to get back so we can pick up where we left off.
I think you meant “probability” in this instance: AFAIK nobody is seriously contesting the probity of the evidence.
You moved the goalposts here. To conclude that Sandusky might quite possibly or very likely have been committing anal rape is not the same thing as to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he was committing anal rape.
The former is what everyone here except you agrees is a reasonable possible interpretation of the situation, despite your inexplicably and unconvincingly reiterated absurd objections to it. The latter represents quite a high standard of certainty that, AFAICT, nobody here is arguing for.
You haven’t succeeded in explaining it even once. You’ve just been repeating the same illogical arguments that don’t get any less illogical when repeated. You might as well complain about having to keep “explaining” that 2+2=5 because the people you’re “explaining” it to aren’t “understanding” it.
Taking your assertions about the evidence point by point:
[ul]
[li]“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": Nobody but you finds the “physics and physical conditioning” involved to be anything but a perfectly feasible amount of crouching or bending, and your attempts to describe it as something extraordinarily athletic are ridiculous.[/li][li]“the slippery floor and semi-public location accessible at any time to a large number of people”: Child molesters take risks to get what they want: they wouldn’t be committing these crimes in the first place if they weren’t in the grip of an obsession that outweighs a lot of risk aversion. Raping a child in an apparently deserted shower isn’t an implausibly risky activity for a molester. Plenty of testimony in similar cases (like priest sex abuse scandals) reveals similarly risky behavior on the part of child rapists.[/li][li]“no screaming or yelling”: Entirely unconvincing. Plenty of rape victims, especially juvenile ones who know their attackers personally, don’t scream or yell. [/li][li]“no visible insertion ot thrusting observed, etc.”: Also unconvincing. McQueary wasn’t observing this encounter over a long period of time: it was a momentary view of something that was abruptly stopped as soon as Sandusky saw him.[/li][li]“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”: So unconvincingly feeble as to be positively ridiculous. Whatever you imagine a “copulatory expression” to be, there’s no set rule determining the expressions that either rapists or their victims have on their faces during sexual assault. (What floors me is the realization that you probably think a phrase like “copulatory expression” makes your “argument” sound more erudite and well-informed. Golly.)[/li][li]“no apparent erection when Sandusky and the child separated”: Since men can lose erections very quickly under stress, and since we don’t even know whether McQueary had a view of Sandusky’s genitalia at all during this incident, this is simply meaningless.[/li][li]“plus Sandusky’s only history at that time being having hugged a child in the shower three years before”: This is the crowning absurdity that makes me wonder how the hell you can expect anybody to take your “reasoning” seriously at all. As filmore observed, there’s no reason that we have to base our current interpretation of Sandusky’s acts solely on the information that was known ten years ago. Since we now know that Sandusky was a child rapist, it is perfectly reasonable to infer that when he was discovered in a deserted shower pressed up against a child’s back, he might quite possibly have been raping that child. [/li][/ul]
One wonders what he’s doing with all those cherries. 
Oh, I think by now we can safely just assume it’s him. Or else there’s some creep out there who can read his mind and post pretty much the exact same arguments. I’m not going to keep asking him about it, he likes his little game too much.
BTW, I believe Starving Artist’s constant speculations would actually get him kicked off a jury – you’re only supposed to look at the facts in front of you, not come up with a bunch of alternate scenarios on your own. Am I right?
Given the quotes posted in this thread, the style of the poster on that board matches completely to Starving Artist. I believe that it is him. I don’t see why it matters; I don’t care that he is also that poster.
SA has said more than enough in this thread and on this board to earn every bit of opprobrium he has garnered and has disgraced himself beyond redemption.
Oh, but now he’s logged out. Where did he go? What is he doing? It’s really unlike SA to leave without giving us his itinerary. I think someone should go after him, just to make sure everything’s okay.
Well, at least he didn’t say “O face”.
Anyway, I think we need more data to make a decision on this point. I’m willing to be convinced. Starving Artist, would you mind taking a photo of yourself making a “copulatory expression” and posting it to flickr so we can see what you are talking about? Maybe you could demonstrate the impossible awkwardness of Sandusky’s presumed position at the same time. Have you still got that cardboard tube?
Thanks!
I’d be happy to. Your post is an example of the kind of goalpost moving and verbal sleight of hand that goes on all. the. time. around here. I was addressing wedgehed’s post in which he said Paterno should not have tolerated Sandusky’s presense on campus until the investigation was com
I’d be happy to. Your post is an example of the kind of goalpost moving and verbal sleight of hand that goes on all. the. time. around here. I was addressing wedgehed’s post in which he said Paterno should not have tolerated Sandusky’s presense on campus until the investigation was complete, and failing that to have resigned in protest of the administration’s actions or lack thereof. Each of those clearly would be an attempt at interference with the official investigation. A child of four would know I was not referring to calling the police. :rolleyes:
nm
Sadly, no to both. He’s serious, and thinks he’s actually making a valid point with the first, and with the second, he’s really going to get cherries, and he’s too stupid to realize what saying so like that makes him look like.
No, I’m quite aware of how some of the thread’s perverts pretend to take my cherry excursions.
As far as “Winning” goes, the premise is simple, Finn. As I explained when I first began to use the term, if a person must resort to lies to counter my arguments rather than address them honestly it becomes obvious they have no legitimate counter argument, which then clearly demonstrates that I’m ‘winning’ on that particular point, or at least I am until someone challenges it with an honest rebuttal. Thus when someone lies about something I said, the correct presumption is that they have lost and I can therefore legitimately claim to be “Winning!” that aspect of the argument.
There are occasions when I excuse myself from a thread but still check out what’s going on in other threads and forums before I actually leave. I make no apology for the practice and will continue to do so as I see fit.
Tonight, though, I left immediately. However I stay logged in all the time but but the board’s software still shows me to be gone after ten minutes or so of inactivity.
Given your alleged intelligence (which I presume is the point of your frequent referrals to being a psychologist) and the amount of time you’ve spent on the board all these years I’m astounded you don’t know that.
I’m unclear as to why you didn’t quote FinnAgain’s post that you were replying to. I would hope that it was not in order to avoid him seeing it.
Certainly, I never claimed not to be throwing insults, although the insults I do throw tend to be far more benign and factual than those of my opponents. Plus I don’t do it simply to be insulting; I want people to know for whatever it’s worth that I did not actually say/think/believe/profess whatever it is that [del]**Huerta, et al.[/del] my opponents are trying to claim.
It’s a way of clearing the air, so to speak, for the benefit of lurkers as generally my opponents don’t care about lies as long as the liar is on their side. It’s also one of quite a few reasons why I’ve utterly lost respect and patience with the nature of argumentation on this board and why I couldn’t care less what its large contingent of dishonest and cowardly posters think of me.
But to get back to why it’s okay for me to call people liars where your calling me one here isn’t, the answer is that I only call people liars when I know for a fact they are lying. You on the other hand, are calling me a liar about the PennLive poster on presumption rather than fact, and in a transparently childish effort to get me to answer whether or not I’m the PennLive poster. So when I call somebody a liar it is fact and provable, whereas in this particular case you’re lying because you’re making absolute statements you can’t prove, and you’re doing so simply in an effort to provole me into answering the very question you already profess to know the answer to. It is to laugh.
What makes you think that lurkers support your stance in this thread?
Seriously. How many PMs have you received, how many emails have you recieved supporting you from lurkers who are unwilling to post here? How many have you received from lurkers who say they’re depending on you?
Of course it was! That’s why I specifically addressed him in the opening sentence. :rolleyes:
Besides, why would I want him not to see it? That doesn’t even make sense!
You know once upon a time I thought that while you were clearly an asshole, you were an honest one with at least a modicum of integrity. This thread is rapidly disabusing me of that notion, as that’s a petty and dishonest observation for you to pretend to make! :rolleyes: