It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Lobohan]

What is the first rule of holes again?

[Starving_Artist]

@RaftPeople

Wait a minute…are you saying that when McQueary said “standing” he could be mistaken?

Sure. He could have been mistaken, exaggerating or lying about the whole thing. But what we’re going by is his testimony.

[Enderw24]

@Starving_Artist

Paterno himself alluded to this very thing as he was close to death and struggling to speak when he rasped out, "I never heard of rape…and a man…"

What he clearly meant was that he never heard of a man raping a boy in the behind, and I’d happily wager that he never had.

Clearly that’s what he meant.

I wonder if he also told us what Rosebud meant. Been dying to figure that one out for some time now.

[RaftPeople]

So how about the fact that I took a bullet for the team and tried your experiment…no problem with feet wide apart and also no problem with feet at normal standing stance width?

[Robot_Arm]

@RaftPeople

SA, I’ve got two recent posts you haven’t responded to, are you going to?

Good God, man, are you actually asking Starving Artist to post more in this thread?

[Jack_Batty]

For the life of me I can’t understand what you people are trying to get Starv to admit to, or concede, or whatever.

Need I remind you, this is the same poster, who in that other linked thread, said the following in all seriousness:

@Starving_Artist

McQueary testified that the famous “rhythmic slapping sounds” he heard only consisted of two or maybe three slaps and that Sandusky was not in fact hugging the boy but was holding him at the waist with both hands. For all we know the kid could have slipped and Sandusky caught him just as the kid put his hands against the wall to steady himself, at which point McQueary looked around the corner and saw what he mistook for anal sex.

You think you’re going put chink in that armor of retardation? Good luck.

[MrDibble]

@Starving_Artist

Well, I suppose if one wants to presume words have a completely different meaning for the sake of this discussion than they usually have, we might assume that by “standing,” McQueary really meant that Sandusky was squatting with his feet and legs spread wide and his pelvis two feet off the ground.

Fallacy of false dichotomy. There’s a wide continuum between standing on tippy-toes and touching your ass to your heels.

Okey-doke. I said absolutely nothing about preferring not to talk about a “real” case,

“even I have no appetite for discussing what happened to you as a real, living person”

and preferring instead my “cosy” thought experiment in its place.

“what I’ve been doing which is engaging in an academic discussion” - if you want to be a pedant, yes, “cozy” is my own gloss.

This was an intentionally dishonest characterization whose intent was to trivialize what I’d said.

It’s like you’re unaware we can all read your previous posts or something…

I suppose that depends on who gets the say, eh?

I suppose it does. Gods know you didn’t consider “hey, what would the effect of what I’m about to post be on a real victim” before you clicked “Reply.”

Given that no insult was intended, I’m not all that inclined to take the blame if you decide to take it that way.

Of course not. Dodging rightful blame is what this whole trainwreck of a thread has been about for you. I don’t see why you should be any different in your personal respect, compared to your attitude to molestor-protectors.

As I said, mistaken eyewitness testimony is a well-known and well-accepted fact of life. You have no logical grounds to infer an insult from my pointing that out, unless you want to take the position that you never make a mistake and everyone should know it to begin with.

No, I can infer an insult from you comparing my broad-daylight, hour-long, life-altering and, dare I say, rather firmly imprinted, ordeal of sodomy, blood and pain with your dark bedtime half-glimpse of a silhouette, all to serve your goal of slightly exonerating a known and confirmed rapist protector.

I submit that your calling it a comparison at all is stupid. I did not compare the crimes, I merely used the break-in to illustrate the fact that eyewitness descriptions can err considerably from reality.

I didn’t say you compared the crimes. Clearly I was saying you compared the circumstances of recollection.

I did not dismiss your experience as misremembering; I did suggest that it was a possiblity.

A distinction of no real difference, as far as I’m concerned. Pedantic backpedalling - your intent was clearly to dismiss my personal experience as flawed and unrelated.

I would be easier to believe this if you could somehow explain how a 6’3" man’s pelvis could be approximately 34 inches off the ground and 24 inches off the ground simultaneously, concomitant of course with the considerable difference such a shift would make in his ability to balance and the muscular activity required to keep himself upright while also engaging in the act.

You must be charmingly naive in the possibilities for variant stances and the difference in heights that can be achieved just by bending ones legs a little.

Straw man.

That…doesn’t mean what you seem to think it does.

The relevency lies in the fact that these differences are material

No, they’re really not.

The rest is simply wrong.

Says the guy who admits he hasn’t even done his own experiment.

[RaftPeople]

@Robot_Arm

Good God, man, are you actually asking Starving Artist to post more in this thread?

This thread would have been only 2 pages without SA, he is the engine that drives it.

[Starving_Artist]

@RaftPeople

So how about the fact that I took a bullet for the team and tried your experiment…no problem with feet wide apart and also no problem with feet at normal standing stance width?

I think you’re lying. It simply isn’t possible to stand with feet at normal width, lower your pelvis to two feet off the ground, and thrust up and forward and back and down with the thrust beginning at a point sufficiently forward to simulate a person in front of you. Your ass and your balance shifts backwards as you squat and it simply isn’t possible.

I’m also surprised to hear that a man of your alleged height and suggested fitness level would willingly admit to being able to fit inside a paper towel tube. This also gives me pause as to your veracity, as paper towel tubes really aren’t all that wide.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Starving_Artist

Bryan Ekers - The phrase “fondling or doing something of a sexual nature” was not of my creation.

I never said or even implied it was. My point was that you were extracting that specific phrase, taking it as accurate, and extrapolating from it, i.e. as if those eight words were absolutely all that Paterno got from McQueary, then arguing that those eight words alone were so vague that Paterno can’t be blamed for not pusuing it.

It was thrown at me as being McQueary’s description to Joe Paterno of what he saw. My question in regard to it was that if he couldn’t identify whether it was fondling or not, or what of a sexual nature is was exactly, then there was room for error as to whether it was indeed sexual or not. In other words, it could have been a hug like the preceeding one two years earlier.

My case in point. It’s as if you’re assuming the conversation went as follows:

[McQueary shows up at Paterno’s house]

P: What is it?

M: I saw Sandusky fondling or doing something of a sexual nature to a kid in the showers.

P: Got it. I’ll pass that on to the administrators. Thanks.

[McQueary leaves]

It’s easy to pretend Paterno didn’t know any sordid details (allowing him to shrug off this report as just another “hug”) if we assume he never thought to ask for any, but that would make him kind of stupid, wot? Or at least bizarrely and determinedly incurious. Willfully ignorant, we might say.

[RaftPeople]

@Jack_Batty

For the life of me I can’t understand what you people are trying to get Starv to admit to, or concede, or whatever.

The entertainment (for me at least) is to see which direction he goes to try to get out of any contradictions. He’s painting his kitchen floor and right now he’s standing on the kitchen counter, holding onto the microwave for balance and looking for something semi-sturdy that he can jump onto that will get him closer to the door without stepping in the paint.

[El_Kabong]

@Jack_Batty

For the life of me I can’t understand what you people are trying to get Starv to admit to, or concede, or whatever.

You think you’re going put chink in that armor of retardation? Good luck.

I can’t speak for everyone here, but I suspect at this point they’re just posting to see see just how many times he’s going to post the same things over and over and over…

[Starving_Artist]

@Jack_Batty

For the life of me I can’t understand what you people are trying to get Starv to admit to, or concede, or whatever.

Need I remind you, this is the same poster, who in that other linked thread, said the following in all seriousness:

You think you’re going put chink in that armor of retardation? Good luck.

Let’s not forget that I trotted that out as a possible alternative innocent explanation which would fit with what McQueary saw and could be arguable in a court of law. As I’ve said at least a couple of time before, someone other than Sandusky with no previous record of sexual misconduct would most likely never find himself even brought to trial over having been seen as McQueary described, and if he had the scenario described above could serve as a perfectly adequate defense.

[Robot_Arm]

@RaftPeople

The entertainment (for me at least) is to see which direction he goes to try to get out of any contradictions. He’s painting his kitchen floor and right now he’s standing on the kitchen counter, holding onto the microwave for balance and looking for something semi-sturdy that he can jump onto that will get him closer to the door without stepping in the paint.

You think this is Starving Artist?

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m here for my own amusement, helped along whenever SA talks about howling lynch mobs or the blind fury of the enraged liberal masses or whatnot, as though he’s a lone voice braving all in defense of reason.

My point being it’s fun to demolish his arguments in a calm manner. So far, I think I’ve used exactly one exclamation point in this thread.

[Starving_Artist]

And so MrDibble, as we finally learn from your last post, you are not able to discuss what happened to you as dispassionately and as untroublingly as you said in the beginning. Now you expect, after having implied that you could discuss the subject rationally and without undue emotional reaction, that I should have considered your feelings as a victim in positing that your recollections may have been in error, and further than you seem to have expected me to divine such details as length of time and other ugly details despite my having never discussed your assault with you in detail. Both seem unreasonable and emotionally based to me. I’m very sorry for what happened to you and believe me if it were in my power to reverse it so it never happened I’d be delighted beyond words to be able to do just that. But I can’t, and frankly, this thread is basically an abstract discussion amongst people not involved with any of the participants, and as you’ve shown in the post you just made, to try to discuss it with actual rape victims is fraught with emotional pitfalls that lie outside the realm of both fact and such things as are common knowledge in forensics and evidence gathering, such as flaws in eyewitness testimony. So I’m sorry, but I’m simply not going to discuss this with you any further.

[Gyrate]

@Starving_Artist

I’m also surprised to hear that a man of your alleged height and suggested fitness level would willingly admit to being able to fit inside a paper towel tube.

There’s a reason all the girls call him “Brawny”.

This also gives me pause as to your veracity, as paper towel tubes really aren’t all that wide.

I’ve got a bag full of paper towel tubes at home (not for this purpose - they’re useful for school art projects) and either your paper towel rolls are quite narrow or you have a hard time finding condoms that fit.

[Starving_Artist]

@Bryan_Ekers

I’m here for my own amusement, helped along whenever SA talks about howling lynch mobs or the blind fury of the enraged liberal masses or whatnot, as though he’s a lone voice braving all in defense of reason.

My point being it’s fun to demolish his arguments in a calm manner. So far, I think I’ve used exactly one exclamation point in this thread.

Really haven’t seen much demolishment there, old chum. Sandusky remains acquitted of the shower room rape charge, and Paterno remains blissfully free of any evidence whatsoever that he engaged in any sort of knowing coverup, long-term or otherwise, of child rape to protect his football program or for any other reason.

As long as those remain in effect it is unquestionable that I have won the thread, and you have put nary a dent…nay, even a scratch, in either.

Lamentations…music…etc…

[Jack_Batty]

@Starving_Artist

Let’s not forget that I trotted that out as a possible alternative innocent explanation which would fit with what McQueary saw and could be arguable in a court of law. As I’ve said at least a couple of time before, someone other than Sandusky with no previous record of sexual misconduct would most likely never find himself even brought to trial over having been seen as McQueary described, and if he had the scenario described above could serve as a perfectly adequate defense.

I mean, really.

You people are reading this, shit, right? “Alternative innocent explanation?” “Perfectly adequate defense?”

This is his rationalization for the “hey, maybe he just caught the boy as he was slipping and that’s why he was holding him by the waist, while they were naked in a deserted shower room in the middle of the night” post.

Bonus points for “no previous record of sexual misconduct.” Chrissakes, by the end of the thread, the creepy fucker will canonize Sandusky.

[RaftPeople]

@Robot_Arm

You think this is Starving Artist?

That’s perfect