Well, to be sure, I don’t envy his position as the sole defender against a legion of opponents. Of course, the obvious (to all except SA, it seems) point would be that maybe there’s a reason why you’re the sole defender…
This is a real ringing endorsement of the mods here, I’d say.
Now watch, they’ll warn me.
Oh he will, but the thought will be “Quick – where’s my lube and paper towel tube?”
Show me where I did that. A post number or cite will suffice.
Fucking liar.
No one with an education refers to German soldiers as Nazi party members or supporters anymore than any educated person would refer to a current member of the U.S. military as necessarily a Democrat because there’s a Democratic President in office. Only an illiterate retard would do this.
And to make it clear, my reference to Rommel (who killed himself over his inability to reconcile his honor with Nazi policies) was – as every other member of this thread understood because they are not Fucking Retards like you – solely for the purpose of the salutary lesson that there are honorable alternatives to a disgusting existence in which one has become aligned with a disgusting ideology and set of disgusting fellow travelers.
Hint hint hint.
Not that you have the slightest tinge of honor, but still, hint hint hint.
I’m going to borrow from my own link above which [caveat] is the heavily excerpted USA Today version [/caveat] but does contain direct quotes from McQueary:
So it remains possible that McQueary did not witness anal rape but some other “sexual” behavior instead. The problem that certain people in this thread keep avoiding, of course, is that even if what McQueary saw was an entirely non-sexual game of soap keepaway, it was still HIGHLY inappropriate and - yes - more than warranted police investigation. Maybe Sandusky was giving the kid the Heimlich manoeuvre (“Pedo bear says: Don’t eat in the shower, kids!”) and saved his life; it doesn’t matter. Let the police ask the questions.
I also have to say that although I understand why McQueary fled the scene here (“Gaah! Gay child rape! Must…avert…eyes…lest I see an erection and become gay too!”) he comes out of this looking pretty chickenshit as well.
Gah, sorry about the typos in my previous post; was under time pressure and didn’t proofread it adequately.
Corrected version:
Some excellent points made by q78; I’ll just add that of course it’s hard for SA to keep track of everything he said, when, as I believe someone said a while back, he is responsible for more than ten percent of all the posts to an enormous thread such as this one, many of them little more than tedious, excessively wordy restatements of information previously provided. He really does seem to think that repetition somehow increases the validity of something he says, but he’s like the guy at the party who, say, won’t shut up about how we should go back on the gold standard; eventually everyone just rolls their eyes and drifts away. I suppose such a guy thinks he’s won the argument when really, he’s just being ignored.
I accused you of lying when you said you have already provided an answer (to those who care enough to look), which clearly implied that I don’t know.
I think it’s because you’re trying to avoid the question. Which, as I’ve said, is debating in very poor faith and a discourtesy to everyone else in this thread.
Oooh! I wanna play the SA lied game, too. I just spotted one.
Translation into SA-speak: “He didn’t have an erection, so no rape occurred.”
Lie! Losing!
Impossible. Ridiculous. A man is standing far enough away so that you can take him in at a glance, and you don’t notice if he is erect? Now, 'struth, I cannot claim to peer into his mind and ascertain the contents, but I don’t buy that one for a second.
At Sandusky’s age, he might not be able to - did McQueary spot any little blue pills around? No? Then he couldn’t possibly have been doing anything sexual…right?
What gets me is SA’a assertion that because Sandusky had previously been caught hugging a child in the shower that this was presumably only a case of hugging and therefore not a problem. If you are caught naked hugging a child in the shower and the child is so upset that he complains to his mother who tells the campus police who investigate because the action is suspicious enough to provoke an investigation than if you are not a child molester you make darn sure that you are never in that situation again. Nobody wants to be accused of child molestation and if you find that what you think is an innocent action is in fact highly suspicious for molestation than you don’t do it again. In fact, if you don’t want to be suspected of child molestation you make sure that there is not a possibility that any suspicion could attach to you in the future as the last thing you want is to look like you were stupid enough to do the same suspicious (if not legally criminal) thing twice.
If Sandusky was innocent of child molestation he would never have been in a shower with an unrelated child again.
So, do you still believe that calling the police would have been interfering with the investigation? (you previously held this position)
And with all we know about Sandusky, we can say with a high degree of certainty that the earlier hug was not an innocent hug. Sandusky was doing it for some sort of sexual purpose. It was probably part of his pattern of grooming. Put the kid in increasingly more inappropriate situations and gauge how he reacts. If he doesn’t mind a pat on the back, try putting an arm around his shoulder. Wrestle with him and see how he reacts to “accidental” contact on his genitals. Invite him to a shower and kid around with him. Try touching him in some sort of “innocent” way in the shower. See if he can get away with a hug. Each step along the way doesn’t seem too much worse than the last one. It’s not even clear when the line was crossed. And if he’s called on it, he can refer back to the previous step and say the kid didn’t seem to mind when that other transgression happened.
The earlier hug highlights how even more inappropriate the administration’s response was to this victim #2.
For every winning…
The contention or suggestion that the presence of foreplay is near-conclusive proof of the absence of sex should be self-evidently ridiculous to anyone here who’s ever engaged in either or both.
I’d like to find one with rum myself. I need it after reading some of SA’s posts.
Tequila and bongwater. Not for the amateur, but you won’t remember a word.
The best way to understand SA’s posts is to go back in time and get your mom super drunk while she was pregnant with you.
Isn’t that what his mother did in the first place?
Rum-filled chocolate covered cherries.