It’s still completely irrelevant to this debate. You fail.
He did?
I think you might mean Paterno. 
The point IS, Starving Artist, that you were so insanely obsessed with the “physicalities” of it to be disturbing. Even when people told they had first hand experience of their own, sadly. You’re a real piece of work.
As far as Paterno, have you read the Freeh report yet?
Yeah, that’s the problem. You “love” the children with ridiculously weak arguments about why they “just couldn’t have been butt-raped” involving paper towel tubes, you speculate on what would happen when you “line up one hundred boys” and what-not, and then insist that it’s all just because of your “love” for children. Try to imagine why we are suspicious of you, idiot. Here’s a helpful hint: NAMBLA. You are sounding suspiciously like them in your arguments (such as they are). And you are doing your damnedest to make it sound even worse than that, whether or not you realize that fact…
You are either an actual “Kiddie-diddler”, or you’re utterly clueless. Take your pick of which group you want to associate yourself with. Neither is particularly admirable, but you are stuck with whichever you choose, either way…
As my father always used to say, when I was a kid, and did something stupid and embarassing: “You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.” Here you go, asshole. You’ve stuck your dick in (the paper towel tube). It’s not defensible.
And no one is going to try to defend an obvious idiot, such as yourself…
I agree that being a parent doesn’t necessarily make you right or wrong in this case and I’m not convinced that insisting SA is a pedophile really helps anything. My view is that he’s not fighting this corner because he thinks this behavior is okay; he’s fighting it because it’s the one he’s chosen and dammit, he’s going to defend it even when the legal system and all the facts are against him.
And he’s grasping at the very thinnest of straws here, claiming that the fact that Sandusky was acquitted on the rape charge means he was right all along, despite the fact that the reason the rape charge was unproven was that the victim wasn’t there to confirm or deny it, and the even in the absence of the victim, as noted above, Sandusky was found guilty of the offenses of indecent assault, unlawful contact with minor, corruption of minors, and endangering a child’s welfare with that child. That’s not even looking at the case with blinders on; that’s looking at it through that very thin straw and claiming all the bits one can’t see don’t exist.
Starving Artist, Sandusky did Very Bad Things with that boy, and the court agreed. That they couldn’t confirm one particular bad thing without the victim’s testimony is not a demonstration that it didn’t happen, only that it couldn’t be proven. You can claim it’s “winning” all you like but it doesn’t prove you right or the rest of us wrong, and the preponderance of evidence is still on our side.
But do cling tightly to that straw as you keep sinking, assuming you haven’t actually hit bottom yet.
Oops. Thanks for the correction!
Look, I’ve got a busy day ahead and am probably not to have time to address every false comment someone makes. But to address a few that have popped up overnight:
No, Guin, there was no obsession with the salacious details. What there was was a stubborn, ongoing refusal on the part of posters such as yourself to look at the facts. Thus I had to keep escalating the point until you and those other posters were forced to come to grips with it.
With regard to the lining up of a hundred boys thing, the context was in regard to the ridiculous assertion that hugging a kid in the shower was just as bad as raping him. My response was to say ‘let’s line up a hundred kids and ask them which they’d think worse,’ with money in the form of a wager to change hands based upon each kid’s answer. It makes more sense in that scenario to have them lined up so they answer one after the other rather than clustered about in a herd, all trying to answer at the same time. There is a reason why people line up at check stands, movies and cafeterias: it’s the most efficient way of dealing with large groups of people one at a time. Again, the idiotic presumption that there’s something erotic or salacious about the use of that phrase speaks only to the perverse thinking of the person making that claim.
With regard to sleeping in the bed I made, I have no problem defending what I’ve said in this thread. What I object to is people being allowed to take potshots at me while my rebuttals are considered hijacks.
The fact that Sandusky committed other crimes means nothing as to my stance having been vindicated in this thread. My position all along has been that what McQueary described was not consistent with what an objective look at the facts would conclude was rape. It’s also by far the point that brought the most strident disagreement and the most personal insults toward me. The jury, separarate and apart from all his other misdeeds, agreed with me that McQueary’s testimony did not support the contention that Sandusky was raping the boy in the shower room that night. So my position has been utterly vindicated in a court of law. To claim I’ve somehow lost this argument because Sandusky still committed other crimes is where the real straw-grasping is taking place.
So, I’ll ask again: “So fucking what”. Do you think the child somehow feels better thinking “well, at least it is possible for a jury to find I was only sexually assaulted, but not anally raped that one time”? Or that suddenly JoePa is blameless because there wasn’t enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky put his penis in a child’s anus when the child didn’t testify, but there was enough evidence that there was a sexual assault?"
Obligatory Youtube link. Black Knight played by Special Guest Star Starving Artist.
I am starting to think SA is trolling. Or can he really be that fucking stupid? If he is not trolling, I think he is actually a danger to the children he says he has. If nothing else, he is to stupid to realize if they are in danger.
No, what you now claim to be “your position” was not in fact what you were asserting when the argument began.
What you were asserting was not merely that it’s not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky committed penetrative anal rape on that boy in the shower (which is what the jury actually concluded, and which nobody in this thread ever denied), but rather that Sandusky in fact couldn’t have done so. (As a sideline, you were also opining that what Sandusky was doing in the shower “was more likely skeevy but not necessarily damaging to the child”; see below.)
The jury found nothing at all to indicate that such anal rape was physically impossible or unlikely, which is the claim that you were arguing yourself blue in the, er, face for.
So no, your position has not in the least been vindicated in a court of law.
Starving Artist, if you had merely been making the uncontroversial point “Hey, it hasn’t been proven that this shower incident involved rape by anal penetration, and we should not jump to the conclusion that must be what was going on”, then you’d be right, and you’d be justified in thinking the verdict bears you out.
Many posters including myself were perfectly willing to acknowledge that at the time:
In fact, you were trying repeatedly and at great length to persuade us that there were specific and convincing reasons to believe that the shower incident definitely wasn’t anal rape. And there’s nothing in the verdict to bear that out at all.
What you’re doing now, Starving Artist, is retroactively moving your goalposts and then declaring victory. You seem to forget that we can look these things up (if we’ve got suitable protective gear and wash thoroughly afterwards).
Let’s not be hasty… this thread is only 85 pages after all.
Can be and is. But not mutually exclusive.
Have any of the jurors commented after the fact about the McQueary testimony, and what their issues with the testimoney were specifically?
Nicely done Kimstu.
Yes, Kimstu should be canonized.
It is my very great honor to present Kimstu with the inaugural SDMB Golden Paper Towel Tube Award.
Which tradition dictates should be displayed sticking out of your ass.
Same as it ever was.
Here’s what i said to Starving Artist after a similar bout of dishonesty five years ago:
Keep fucking that towel tube, SA.
Oh, horseshit. She took a collection of posts that were addressed to different postets in regard to different questions or scenarios and is attempting to make it look like my positions were shifting on a whim. Yes, I do think anal rape is impossible based upon McQueary’s description of what he saw. It is an opinion I came to gradually as more time went by and I was able to glean more fact from all the thread’s noise and began to consider the physics involved.
And sorry, Kimstu, you can stamp your feet and point to some post or another that has nothing to do with the central issue and claim for whatever reason I’ve not been vindicated, but the fact remains that I determined that what McQueary saw was not consistent with anal rape and the jury agreed. I was reviled, excoriated and accused of pedophilia myself for having arrived at this conclusion and yet there was nary a peep of acknowledgement or apology when the Sandusky jury arrived at the same conclusion.
Face it, you people were wrong. And now, instead of admitting that you let your emotions run away with you, you’ve decided to ignore reality and cast about instead for some straw to grasp that will keep you from having to admit it. You are cowardly, dishonest, scurrilous and reprehensible people and I’m thankful you represent only a small fraction of the board’s postership, and, hopefully, humanity at large.
So again, I was right, you were wrong; I win, you lose; finis!