I agree. And in my opinion his years of power and influence probably altered his thinking somewhat (natural for most humans) to think he had the authority and wisdom to deal with the situation when in reality it was best left to the people with experience. You might argue that the previous incident was dealt with by the people with experience and nothing came of it, but I would counter that the process isn’t perfect and if the police were aware of the same thing a second time, the probability of action increases especially given the red flags raised by one set of psychiatrists previously.
One of the funny things about your post is that SA will probably agree with it…while at the same time he states that Paterno reported to his superiors and didn’t want to be involved because it wasn’t his job…and he will separately deny and agree with both statements simultaneously.
The Paper Towel Tube was a perfectly cromulent way of illustrating the fact that the scene described by McQueary almost certainly precluded rape as being what he had happened upon, a finding confirmed by the Sandusky jury who knew a great deal more at the time of its deliberations both about what McQueary said and Sandusky’s other crimes than did anyone in this thread.
And it was a perfectly cromulent way of illustrating my assertion that the thread’s posters should rejoice in the fact that that young boy had almost certainly not been subjected to anal rape that night, an assertion that oddly enough brought no comfort nor surcease to the legion of posters allegedly seeking to identify with the horrors the young boy had endured. No, if anything they seemed even more outraged over the idea that rape had not taken place than they were that it had. A bizarre reaction to say the least! But I digress. The Paper Towel Tube served its purpose exceedingly well. It served it so well that for days the threads dingbats were at a loss to debunk it, whereupon they finally gave up and began to settle merely for making fun of it, which is an obvious sign to me that they’d given up entirely on the idea of a 60-year-old, 6’4" man carrying off butt sex two feet off the ground but would be damned if they’d give me the satisfaction of admitting it. So contrary to your obvious belief, each mockage of the Paper Towel Tube is an admission of defeat and amuses rather than annoys me. My objection is when people are allowed to reference it out of context in other forums while I’m not allowed to respond. It appears Marley and I have worked out a solution to that, so no prob. Mention it all you want. As I’ve said before, I’m proud to take a stand for truth, justice and the American way, and all three have been ably served by my friend The Paper Towel Tube. Justice did out, the forces of unthinking hysteria and mindless rage were thwarted, and the bad guy got what was coming to him by virtue of what could be proven in a court of law. I am proud.
The Pedo thing, on the other hand, is a perfectly cromulent example also, but of the over the top dishonesty and utterly chicken shit nature of many of my opponents in this thread. You can believe every word I say when I say I couldn’t care or think less of the opinion or character of anyone who would say or believe any such thing, or find it amusing.
Well you refuse to listen to any argument by any of the 150+ posters who have posted in this thread, not a single one of which agrees with you, SA.
So is there a poster on this message board that you’d at least listen long enough to consider an alternate viewpoint?
My guess is no but I had to ask anyway.
[Quote=Starving Artist]
You can believe every word I say when I say I couldn’t care or think less of the opinion or character of anyone who would say or believe any such thing, or find it amusing
[/Quote]
And yet you expend tens of thousands of words stating precisely the same thoroughly debunked points, over and over and over again, directed at no one but these people you profess not to care about.
But of course, you are mentally disturbed and really can’t help yourself. Just like you were going to abandon the thread but couldn’t stay away more than a few hours.
It was what you said. This is the root of your problem here, Starving Artist: the only way you can keep any semblance of an argument going is by stoutly denying facts, even when it means contradicting your own earlier statements.
This is more denial of fact on your part. The jury did not find that what McQueary described “almost certainly precluded [penetrative] rape”, or in fact precluded penetrative rape to any extent at all. All they found was that McQueary’s evidence wasn’t sufficient to prove the occurrence of penetrative rape—and, as I keep pointing out and you keep failing to acknowledge, nobody in this thread ever asserted the contrary.
Again, this is simply contrary to reality. Everybody here still completely repudiates your bizarrely illogical convoluted reasoning that Sandusky was somehow physically incapable of committing rape in that situation. (And I notice that you’ve sneakily added a few years to Sandusky’s age and at least an inch to his height to try to bolster up your flawed reasoning.)
If you want to go back to discussing the physical geometry of the situation, we’ll explain to you once again why your claims are ridiculous. But imagining that everybody must be secretly agreeing with you is merely delusional.
In other words, the only way you can persuade even yourself that your assertions are valid is by pretending that all rebuttal or ridicule of them means exactly the opposite of what it actually says.
Like I said, this isn’t argument you’re doing here, this is simply stubborn and irrational contradiction.
To be fair, though, calling you a pedophile seems to be about the only way to recall you to any semblance of rational realism in this thread.
Pretty much any other extravagantly speculative or irrational claim seems to receive your enthusiastic endorsement. Whereas any reasonable criticism or refutation inspires you to declare that you will interpret it as meaning the opposite of what it says.
So naturally, it’s a bit of a relief when somebody launches at you the unverified vile insult of being a pedophile and you respond along the lines of “That’s an unverified vile insult!” At least that makes it clear that you’re still capable of rational thought in some circumstances. Believe me, Starving Artist, you sound a LOT saner when you’re angry about being called a pedophile than you do in the rest of the thread.
Leaving aside the specific details of the “physics” defense in general and the Paper Towel test specifically (neither of which I think much of), I agree with this statement.
While on an individual level a guy like Sandusky is obviously worse than posters in this thread (at least based on what we definitively know of them) on an aggregate basis it’s a lot different. The facts-be-damned-it’s-obvious-the-guy’s-guilty-let’s-lynch-him-and-the-horse-he-rode-in-on mentality displayed by most (though not all) posters in this thread is and has been responsible for far more injustice and suffering in the world than all the pedophiles combined.
Wait… are we talking about another Jerry Sandusky, one other than the guy convicted on 45 of 48 charges relating to pedophilia?
No wonder we’re all confused here… You’re right - the rush to judgement that lead to us discussing charges against an innocent man (one who oddly has the same name as a convicted pedophile) is troubling and I do apologize for taking part in this. Consider me corrected and ashamed.
Mr. Sandusky, we apologize. We honestly thought we were talking about this guy, but we were apparently discussing this guy, who is completely innocent of all charges.
