Well, my employment history does include on-site technical services…
Although, actually, I guess I’d be there to witness how Starving Artist’s attempt to fuck that paper towel tube came to naught, to demonstrate its impossibility.
Needless to say, a video recording would be mandatory.
SA, Remember your paper towel tube test?
“Just squat down about as far relative to your height as Sandusky would have to for his, and try pumping away at a paper towel tube held in front of you.”
Do you see how you originally “proved” that you couldn’t do it squatting, but now you switched to standing straight up?
Does this mean your original analysis regarding squatting was incorrect?
Thank you. I said pretty much exactly that a couple pages ago and more or less got told a) I was being “dishonest” and b) that these facts were irrelevant. So, although the above makes perfect sense to me, good luck with that.
Okay, I decided to check back in before heading out on my bike and I’m glad I did.
First of all, thank you, pravnik, for the reasoned tone of your post. It’s refreshing and welcome even in its disagreement.
I understand what you’re saying but I think you are misunderstanding me on a couple of key points. Regarding the jury’s findings I believe that what you’re saying is that the jury didn’t find Sandusky ‘innocent,’ they found him ‘not guilty.’ I understand the distinction and even talked about a few days ago. But for my purposes it’s pretty much the same thing I’ve been arguing going back to the beginning of the year – that McQueary’s account in and of itself does not support an absolute certainty that what he saw was rape. Yet that certainty was the basis of what the thread’s posters were using to attach to Joe Paterno, to accuse him of knowing and not caring about (physical pain and suffering of the child included) and covering up for. And that certainty was also the basis for their villification of me as a pedophile enabler, an uncaring monster perfectly all right with the sexual torture of children, and/or a pedophile myself, and every bit of this was predicated on the assumption that the boy in the shower was being horribly and painfully anally raped.
So as information began to emerge and I started to take a look at what McQueary had actually said and I began to learn more about Sandusky’s size and the boy’s size and the postion McQueary said he found them in vs. the hysterical accountings being bandied about here, things began to not make sense. So I began to hint around and hint around to the effect that perhaps things were not as they seemed. But the thread’s posters would have none of it and instead reviled me for deigning even to begin to look too closely into such a disgusting subject. So finally I had to come up with the paper towel tube and accompanying text to get the point I was driving at across.
The thing is, we’re posting on a message board where lots of people come at me from a lot different directions saying a lot of different things, and conversation is casual so things get said in an imprecise way. So while it may have appeared to you that my intent has been to claim the jury found Jerry Sandusky innocent rather than not guilty, or that my position has been that Jerry Sandusky is totally innocent in the shower room incident, neither is the case. It’s just an impression unintentionally created by the imprecise nature of arguing with a lot of people at the same time on a message board.
In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter to me whether Sandusky was found ‘innocent’ or ‘not guilty,’ and neither was required to prove my point. To be in agreement with me it’s only necessary that the jury find McQueary’s testimony, in and of itself, to be insufficient to allow it to determine an act of rape had indeed occurred. And of course that’s exactly what it did.
Now on to your last paragraph. In the early stages of the thread, when I knew far 'less about Sandusky than I do now, I was less certain of what he might have been up to, though I felt it was likely to have been something skeevy and I said so at the time. Since learning more about him, some of which came from his own victims, I’m reasonably sure that he was slipping and sliding back and forth on the kid’s backside…and yes, that’s a felony, and I think that’s probably what the jury was thinking he did when it found him guilty of the charges it found him guilty of.
But a burglary is not a kidnapping is not a shooting, and I am adamantly opposed to people willfully choosing to condemn a man upon absolutely no evidence whatsoever for covering up the murder of innocent people when what really happened was a kidnapping, which, based on prior reports, he very well may have thought was only a burglary.
Look at them goalposts fly!
I’m confident I could prove him wrong sans tube fucking.
What is it with you guys and all these gross, sickening envisionings? I’m so happy to be a conservative and to dwell mentally in the land of here and now and reality and practicality. No wonder you’re all such loons!
Oh, mos def! Another trait of the conservative mind! We see what’s good and are happy about it and we enjoy our lives. You guys are the squeaky wheels, and the insights to your imaginations this thread has given me makes it clear why.
And now, off to glide upon my bike and enjoy the cool breezes wafting in off Lake ___________.
Later, taters! 
You must be on drugs again! They’re right where they’ve been all along.
And I can prove it! 
And now I’m out.
C’mon SA, I want to see which piece of furniture you jump onto for this one
I didn’t switch, I added, based on trial testimony.
Besides, I got no time for you. You’re a liar.
And now I’m out. 
You’re out more often than a indecisive gay guy, it seems.
Oh thank god we can at least talk about a different topic besides your wholehearted embracing of tube fucking.
And on that other topic, I believe a stupid man once said “it is to laugh.”
dwell in the land of the here and now? No. You dwell in the land of "what II’ve cherry-picked to remember from the '60s and wish were still around today " Your here and now doesn’t come from reality. It comes from television shows that you think are reality, and it frankly amazes me we had to go 50 rounds in another thread just to point that out to you.
Nope nope nope… you’re not getting it. You “began to learn more about Sandusky’s size and the boy’s size and the position McQueary said he found them in”. What did you learn about the boy’s size? 10 to 12 years old means he could be anywhere from about 4’6" to 5’4" and be well within normal height ranges.
This is the internet. There are probably thousands of examples, on video, of a 6’3" or taller man having standing anal sex with a woman under 5’4" tall. They’re not hard to find.
You’re “physical impossibility” thing is what’s so ridiculous, and so wrong. Yes it could have been rape. Yes it’s possible. Yes there are many examples.
Yes we don’t know for sure if it was penetrative intercourse (and as many have pointed out- that doesn’t really matter- what he did in the shower was a terrible crime). But it certainly could have been. And there are plenty of examples out there of similar-sized people out there on the internets.
Takes him a few tries to mount the penny-farthing these days.
Ah, well, guess maybe I’ll have to scratch the bike ride after all. 
You guys are just too precious!
When I first entered the thread, and at the time the paper towel tube made its appearance, the meme was that child whose vicious anal rape Joe Paterno was so heartlessly responsible for and covering up for was but a mere little boy of ten years old. Then, 'lo and behold, as I begin to chip away at that scenario due to the dimensions being way off, all of a sudden you start to realize McQueary actually said the boy was 10-12 years old! And not only that…but maybe a big or tall 10-12 years old!
Hahaha! It is to laugh!
Certainly it’s possible that it could have been an older boy, or a taller than average boy. And unquestionably that would have a bearing on the veracity of the paper towel tube test. But we’ll never know. What we do know is that McQueary said nothing which would lead us to that conclusion.
But we also know that it doesn’t matter how tall the kid was or how old he was or what position Sandusky was in or what McQueary saw or heard, or how many people are fucking in whatever position on the internet. All that matters is that a jury has decided that the only evidence in existence was not persuasive beyond a resonable doubt that what occurred that night was rape!
So try to get that through your heads, okay? Everything else that might have been a mitigating factor has been rendered moot by that verdict! So that’s it! Period! The End! Finis!
Got it?
Yes, I got it. You no longer believe it’s physically impossible that it was rape. That’s good- it suggests that your brain may be working properly.
It doesn’t matter – both are traumatizing to the child, both are felonies, both are evil. A game of “well, this is WORSE” is irrelevant. The child was still harmed. Period. I’m sure if you asked him, he’s not going to say, “Well, yeah, but at least it wasn’t RAPE!”
Why do you keep bringing politics into it? This has nothing to do with right or left, liberal or conservative. Child abuse is wrong. Period. I know it, you know it, and God knows it.
And why you keep claiming to leave, I have no idea. No one cares if you’re going biking, having dinner, or scooping up dogshit. Just say your piece, and then leave. You can either post again, or not. Nobody cares. Really. Unless, of course, you’re just trolling.
Oh, but I’ve never claimed it would be impossible were my opponents’ claims to change.
Well, as I recall, a civil suit is pending (I’m not sure if Paterno would have been named in it, were he still alive, but I can see why he might have been) so it’s clearly not the end, finis, etc.
This opponent is just claiming that according to McQueary’s testimony, it’s ridiculous to rule out rape as impossible. You, comically, ruled it out with absolute certainty. You knew it for sure. I think you’re backing off now.
Sure you did.
First you said it was impossible even if you squat.
Then later you implied that squatting is precisely the reason why it was doable when I did your test, but it’s impossible standing straight up.
Isn’t that a switch regarding whether it’s possible or not to do while squatting?
I’m pretty careful not to lie.
What do you think I lied about?