I have no idea how many support me. The important thing is that they hear the truth.
You did not address him in the opening sentence.
You addressed him as “Finn”, in the first sentence of your second paragraph of that post. And we’re supposed to believe you’re not a liar?
You really believe that the lurkers in this thread are hearing the truth from you? What in the world gives you that idea?
You are referring again to your “three foot tall boy” from your Penlive excursion?
You fucking retard.
Yes, you are right. Jurors are not allowed to fabricate evidence, nor yet to privilege it above sworn eyewitness testimony.
He’s a little bitch making shit up.
Nothing more.
Little Bitch –
Refute my demonstration that your retarded ass never proved that I had made “pro Nazi posts” in this thread, or that I had demonstrated that your retarded post about “McQueary entered the locker room when the lights were off, thus absolving Sandusky” was absolutely a goddamn lie.
Go ahead, do it.
There are several aspects to this issue. For one, people here were getting all het up because because Sandusky was raping boys in the shower and Paterno allegedly knew and didn’t care. However at the time of the alleged incident Sandusky had only been accused of hugging a boy in the shower and that wad three years previous. So in fact Paterno had no reason to think child anal rape was what McQueary saw.
Then we have the fact that passions get more inflamed over the idea that a young boy is being subjected to the often painful, disgusting and deeply traumatizing act of anal rape, and those inflamed passions can give rise to a lynch mob, witch hunt mentality that is clearly wrong for a number of reasons. People are entitled to due process and that mentality clearly couldn’t care less about due process, as we’ve seen time and again in this thread. People should not automatically be deemed guilty of the most heinous crime possible just because it does the best job of feeding lynch mob vigilante attitudes and makes them easier to self-justify.
Then there’s the truth. Not only is truth valuable on its own but this board is supposed to be devoted to fighting ignorance, and jumping to conclusions and latching onto crimes when facts and reasonable doubt leave room for alternative possibilities as to the degree of crime committed or whether a crime was committed at all is not the way people supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance should behave.
And finally there’s justice. People, no matter how vile or reprehensible their other crimes might be, still should be convicted only upon the evidence pertaining to the crime they’re accused of. Otherwise, we might as well find one rapist and assume he’s committed every other unsolved rape too. Everyone deserves due process and to be tried on the crimes they’re accused of based on the facts that support that accusation. Justice is not served and it’s a danger to us all when people begin jumping to conclusions about someone’s guilt based on assumptions, whether because those assumptions are based on superficial appearances or because of other, similar crimes.
It was at the end of the opening sentence of the paragraph you quoted. Works for me.
I don’t have a 7-11 near me, but obviously, I need to find one that still has chocolate covered cherries. Or medical marijuana, whatever.
No really do it.
You missed, of course that I quoted you, with a link to your thread so that all could see I excised your first paragraph. You 1) did not quote the post by FinnAgain that you were responding to, 2) referred to him by “Finn”, and 3) insisted that you had responded to him by name in the first sentence of your post that I quoted.
In what way is 3) not a lie on your part?
snerk And the funny thing is, because of the way you phrased your question, he can’t even remember that his first sentence was addressing the immediately preceding post, which was addressed to FinnAgain, even though it was literally only 45 minutes previously. Fucker’s got the attention span of a 2 year old with ADD. And the memory of a goldfish.
Withholding evidence would be interfering. Tampering with witnesses, yes. What legal principle are you pretending to here, that a resignation in protest might somehow be an interference with an investigation?
The fact that people continue to support you despite the number of times you keep dragging that stupid, blatant lie about the locker room lights shows how deeply lacking in character and honesty they are. You know perfectly well that that was a mistake which I admitted and retracted as soon as it became clear that I was wrong. Yet here you are, pages and pages latet, still proclaiming that I lied about it, as you’ve done over and over since my retraction. You are a deeply and profoundly hysterical and dishonest nitwit. No one with an ounce of intellectual honesty would take your word for anything.
Bit keep it up, dumbass. I have more faith in the thread’s lurkers than you do, and I’m perfectly content to believe they see you for the dishonest, raving crackpot that you really are.
And I mean that with all the respect you deserve. 
Now, as to the ‘Nazi’ thing, you keep lying about it too. Remember when I said:
The same still applies. If you mistakenly characterized yourself as a Nazi, and want to disavow Rommel as a Nazi because technically he wasn’t a member of the Nazi party despite the fact he fought for it for years and almost everyone casually refers to German soldiers as Nazis is fine with me. I’m not wedded to it and will retract (again) without the slightest hesitation or care.
Twice as smart, though.
Yep.
Look, buttpipe! I’m trying to contend with a shitload of petty and dishonest crap here, tapping away one letter at a time on an iPod that sucks when it comes to coding, cutting and pasting (especially from one browser page to another) anf trying squeeze in replies to honest, reasonable posters in the meantime. If it makes you feel like you’ve some significant point with your Frank-esque pettiness then knock yourself out. Me? Couldn’t care less. This place gets more like a schoolyard every day.
I gathered that. I was not asking that you confirm that you said so, that much is clear. You definitely said so, there is no need to clarify the thundering obvious. The question has to do with the basis for such a bald assertion.
Mr. Paterno was not conducting the investigation. He is not an officer of the law, nor an officer of the court. He was not even a witness. Unless he was withholding evidence, he has no actual relevance to the investigation whatsoever. No one requires his permission, nor his guidance.
He might resign, I might write a sternly disapproving letter to the editor, the total sum of our efforts in affecting the investigation would be zero, zilch, zip, nada damn thing. So if you didn’t pluck this idea from your fertile imagination nor pull it right out of your ass, where did you get this?
lol this is still going on
Not sure why you guys are falling for such an obvious troll