Okay. Don’t blame me when my son slaps the snot out of you.
So this is what you’ve chosen to take a stand on, eh? Starv may have been right that there’s no evidence Joe Paterno engaged in any kind of cover up or even knew Sandusky was raping kids, and the jury may have acquitted Jerry Sandusky on the shower room rape charge proving that McQueary’s description doesn’t prove rape just like SA said, but by golly, he doesn’t know it wasn’t rape!
Let’s just say I’m convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. 
Hahaha, fine! If I ever try to naked hug your kid he’s more than welcome to slap the snot out of me!
Naah, Kinkade is dead.
If you’re going to make declarative statements like this, it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with what you’re talking about.
You might want to do a little research on the investiagation into a shower hug two years previous to the McQueary incident.
I just assumed performance.
I’m guessing some sort of Pollockesque drip painting. Watery stool medium on on adult-diaper surface.
Not even close. This is just the one aspect I’ve found most hilarious.
Nope- you’re wrong- hilariously- on this too.
You said it was impossible. That is mind-boggingly stupid. It’s just utterly amazing. I almost can’t believe it- I think there’s a tiny chance you might be doing some sort of performance art.
Surely somewhere there is a performance artist whose act consists of thrusting into various objects. A cardboard tube would not be too far-fetched.
Depends[sup]®[/sup]
Well, whatever turns your crank, I guess.
Cite?
That it is impossible given the size and position of the people involved is indeed my opinion, and you are welcome to make of it what you will. Just remember I’ve been right in all the other major disagreements of the thread.
Oh, the impossibility is a matter of opinion, now, and no longer scientific demonstrable fact? Fair enough.
Okay, now that the thread and my opponents have once again impotently devolved into schoolyard taunts, I think it’s a good time to bail for more healthy pursuits like perhaps another bicycle ride around the lake.
So, until we meet again…
Whoops, we’re meeting sooner than I thought!
No, my opinion is that it’s a scientifically demonstrable fact. 
But since you aren’t here and I can’t prove it, and I’m not there and you can’t prove it isn’t, we’re at a bit of an impasse, yes, no? Still, common sense and a lack of stubborn insistance upon the ridiculous would strongly suggest that the pubic area of a 6’3" man and the anus of a 10-12 year-old-boy are on significantly different horizontal planes than might find themselves in congruence from merely standing one in front of the other.
YMMV.
And now I’m out.
This is the problem. When you say you’re convinced beyond a reasonable of Sandusky’s innocence based on the jury’s verdict, you’re inverting the standard of proof. The jury did not say that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no penetrative sexual assault occurred, they said they weren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a penetrative sexual assault did. They also said, based on McQueary’s testimony about what he saw standing alone, that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a first degree felony sexual offense occurred.
Look, I don’t know you, I have no beef with you, I have no desire to pile on you and prior to all this I wouldn’t have known who Joe Paterno was if he bit me on the ass, but I have worked as both a defense attorney and a sex crimes prosecutor. If everybody on this boeard piled on you and you were in the right, I would be the first to step up and say “lay off of him, he’s right and here’s why.” It is with absolutely no rancor towards you that I tell you your reasoning here is untenable. Take this from a few pages ago:
This is wrong, again because the standard of proof was inverted. A aqcuittal doesn’t say did not say that the jury were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that no penetrative sexual assault occurred, they said they weren’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a penetrative sexual assault did occur, almost certainly because no victim testified nas to penetration, in turn because the instance was never reported. It’s not necessary that they believe that no penetration occurred.
But let’s say for the sake of argument that they did believe no penetration occurred and that they were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky did not commit deviant sexual intercourse. I would bet a not small amount of money that theyr were in no way convinced of such, but let’s say they were. Heck, lets say that one of them brought a paper tube into the jury room, and all 12 of them were convinced that based on McQueary’s description that not only did he not do it that it was physically impossible for Sandusky to have penetrated the boy anally. My experience says otherwise, but let’s assume that they thought so, and let’s assume that they were right.
Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.
It doesn’t matter if Sandusky never penetrated the victim. McQueary still witnessed a felony sex offense against a child. Slapping your penis against a child’s naked buttocks is a felony sex offense even without penetration; in my jurisdiction it’s called Indeceny with a Child by contact at a minimum, and possibly Sexual Assualt depending on the testimony. You may say that Patermno had no way of knowing that from what McQueary told him that he saw, but a moment’s examiniation shows that that’s not the case. Based on what McQueary said he saw and absolutely nothing else, Sandusky was charged, indicted, tried and convicted by a jury of 12 who were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Sandusky was guilty of four sex offenses against that victim. Paterno spoke to exactly the same guy whose testimony convinced the jury that Sandusky was guilty of a first degree sex offense and three other additional sex offenses for what he did to victim 2.
Either this is trolling, or you’re officially now the biggest fucking joke in the history of this board.
That isn’t hyperbole.
Thank you for the fine summary, which again demonstrates the fantasy world **SA **has created for himself.
But wait, he’ll be back, to once more shift the [del]goal posts[/del] – hell, they’re not goal posts, they’re sort of helium balloons, floating around wherever SA’s active imagination and logical disconnects take them.
They said it wasn’t possible. It’s been 11 months and 4,710 responses in this thread and I thought we could not sink lower.
You have spent 538 replies trying to justify rape, molestation, abuse, and the largest academic institutional coverup of rape, molestation and abuse the world has ever seen. Yet I thought we we had hit rock bottom.
We had graphic retellings of the physics of child rape, novella long navel gazings on the justifications of shower huggings, and a circling the drain, merry-go-round of ridiculous self-parody justifying the unjustifyable. But I could handle it all with Vulcanlike resolve.
I believed there was nothing that could shake me to my core. But I was wrong.
For you, dear Starving, have thrown down the gauntlet. “If only **Bryan Ekers ** were here, I’d fuck that paper towel tube like nobody’s business” you proudly proclaim. And now I need to envision that in my mind. And wash the vomit from my mouth.
I hope you’re happy. I HOPE YOU’RE ALL HAPPY.
“Yeah, we happy.”
That’s funny, I seem to recall you describing the cardboard-tube experiment as something anyone could test for themselves, anywhere.
Since repeatability is a major aspect (arguably THE major aspect) of the scientific process, I took note of the claim. It seemed significant.