Well, that and presumably little else to live for.
Perhaps people jumped to conclusions as you doggedly campaigned on behalf of Paterno’s blamelessness. Nonetheless, the conclusion jumped to turned out to be correct, and your theory of Paterno’s innocence turned out to be wrong. Your “very fine man who lived a life of integrity” was an opportunist and a liar, and now everyone knows it.
Sorry, Starvie. Despite your brave face and graveyard-whistling, I know it must sting. Hope your other idols fare better.
Nope. The jury perhaps thought there was reasonable doubt that a rape took place. That’s a loooooooong way from saying “no rape took place”. Unlike the jury, you have expressed certainty. You absolutely know that there was no rape. You’re sure. It’s just… wow.
You cut the bottom out, right?
2 explanations for his bizarre behavior in this thread:
A. SA lacks the intellectual capacity to understand the distinction between the concepts of not provable beyond a reasonable doubt and innocent. Inferior cerebral intellect and moral idiocy often go hand in hand.
B. SA has raped young boys in the past, but in his heart of hearts he knows his actions are contemptible. So in an effort to protect his psyche from the painful reality of his crimes, he uses the psychological self-protective defense mechanism of denial. If it was “impossible” for Sandusky to rape that young boy, then of course it would be impossible for SA to have done the same. After all, there is nothing wrong with giving a naked boy a bare hug in the shower, he rationalizes.
One of the above is clearly true, as evidenced by the obsessive nature by which he tries (unsuccessfully) to prove to everyone that he is right.
So take your pick: SA is either an idiot or a pederest.
*His disturbing reaction to MrDibble leads me to believe both A & B are correct.
Hey, Starving Artist keeps saying McQueary might have been “mistaken” by what he saw? Hey – for all we know, the kid was tall for his age, or he was older than 10. Two can play at that game!
In other words, “I’m biased.”
And thats where you are wrong wrong wrong. You have said repeatedly that the act was impossible. You state that the jury backs you up. WRONG. A jury in fact said that it was possible. The grand jury found probable cause that the act occured. By definition that means they found it wasn’t just possible it was probable. The burden of proof is higher for a conviction. I have not seen anything that says they thought it was impossible, just that without the victim’s testimony they felt it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Some how you take that fact and believe that Sandusky was performing an innocent cock to ass pushing up against a wall with pelvic thrusts hug.
I don’t think anyone would have much of a problem with you if you had said something like “I think its unlikely that penatrative rape occured.” Some would have explained why it could have happened. If you had still said due to his age and bad knees or whatever you still found that rape happened but he was being molested I doubt there would have been a ton of outrage. But your insistance in the face of fact that it is impossible is so ludicrous people just have to keep responding. Somehow you got it in your mind that the physics don’t work. I think you mean physiology but whatever. You don’t take into account that of course Sandusky was moving. That by the testimony the victim was in the “assume the position” position. That there can be a great deal of range in size that a 10-12 year old boy can be. But you are so focused on the impossible you have built a scenario in your head and can not begin to think that it is incorrect at any time.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
I’ve put such energy into this thread mainly because I’m a huge, decades-long admirer of Joe Paterno and I’ve been incensed almost beyond belief at the way people jumped to conclusions and assumed the worst about this very fine man who lived a life of integrity and many good works. Second, because I was astounded at the amount of sheer idiocy and emotionality than people were indulging in in regard to this issue. I have never beforein my life seen a vicious unthinking lynch mob mentality in action and I was so thoroughly repulsed by it that I found myself compelled to fight it as strongly as I could. Third, and probably the strongest motivator of all, being called a pedophile or pedophile enabler for no reason other than for suggesting that people wait until evidence supports it for condemning Joe Paterno and later for coming to the realization that McQueary’s description of Sandusky’s position wasn’t consistent with rape. People didn’t want to look at the evidence and they weren’t interested in trying to get at the truth, they just wanted to crucify Paterno and Penn State and anyone who tried to defend them, and once the pedophile accusations started I decided okay, if you assholes want a fight, I’ll damn well give you one!
And giving them one is the reason for my long and hard fought participation in this thread. Simple as that.
[/QUOTE]
I have not studied the PA law with regards to mandatory reporting. Maybe Paterno followed the letter of the law. But after he told the AD what had happened and then saw Sandusky hanging out in his locker room with kids FOR 10 FUCKING YEARS. Don’t you think he should have maybe had this conversation with the AD? “Hey remember that kid-fucking thing we talked about with Jerry? Anything happen with that?” Was he not at least curious? It was his football program. He was the God of Penn State. His role is nothing to be proud of. He allowed more kids to be raped. In his house. And in the end he knew it and it broke him.
[Cousin Vinny]
Everything that guy just said is bullshit.
Thank you.
[/Cousin Vinny]
I gotta question here, not that this discussion still deserves it, but…where’s the “two feet off the ground” stuff coming from and why is that being accepted without question? I’m 5’7", and my rear exit is about 30 inches off the ground. At those proportions, the person who’s got a two-foot high butthole is about four feet tall. That’s an 8 year old’s average height. Victim 2 was a teenager (edit, OK, not a teenager, but a 10 year old, apparently) in a football program. And not to get graphic, but my fiance is exactly my height, and…well, frankly, stand-up sex would work a little better if he was taller. Just saying, I expect that a 6’3" guy wouldn’t exactly have to do some ridiculous deep squat to accomplish things here. More like bending his knees a couple inches.
You’re preaching to the choir here, sister. But just try telling it to the organist.
Hey, careful there. Once you start compromising the test equipment, somebody could get hurt.
Loach, you bring up a very good point that I’m sorry to say I never thought of. I’ll repeat it anyway even though it’ll fall on blind eyes.
The jury not convicting for the rape of victim 2 doesn’t prove the rape didn’t exist. If there was zero proof, it wouldn’t have made it past a grand jury. If there were zero proof, the charge wouldn’t have been filed by the prosecutor. If there was zero proof, the defense would have moved to dismiss the charge upon the prosecution resting.
Clearly there was some proof. It wasn’t enough to secure a conviction, but there was some proof a rape took place. To claim with 100% certainty that a rape didn’t take place goes against the role of the jury, the judgement of the prosecution, the finding of the grand jury, AND the defense counsel’s own actions.
But SA knows better than all of them.
Of course it’s a good point!
I want to hear more about Loach’s adult girlfriend, who he might have sex with and who is totally not imaginary or anything.
What do you want to hear about? How he gives her “due process”?
Actually, the only thing I knew of Paterno before the scandal broke was that he consistently blocked justice from being done. Telling his players not to cooperate with police, blocking the police from following up on players’ crimes, threatening players if they told the truth and didn’t stonewall the police.
Anybody have a list of what he’d been doing before the Sandusky Affair?
Holy crap, I’ve wondered for *decades *who he was talking about. Ignorance fought!
Is one of them Jimmy Savile? 
The sad thing is that Paterno’s protecting his precious program (How’s that for alliteration?) was pretty much an open secret in Pennsylvania before the Sandusky scandal broke. And as long as Penn State kept racking up the victories, no one seemed to care all that much. Indeed, Paterno was able to cultivate an image of integrity and moral rectitude because he made it look like he was dealing with the problems from the inside, until Jerry Sandusky’s actions became public and it became impossible to pretend that Paterno was acting in anyone’s interests besides his own.
Starving Artist is one of the people who bought into the mythos, and now that his hero has been removed from his pedestal and his very human flaws revealed, can’t accept the truth of what happened. The more he insists that nothing happened because one allegation out of however many wasn’t proven, the more he shows himself as someone with an incomplete grip on reality. That’s pathetic.
She had a “headache.”