If you people really believed that, you wouldn’t have been so deeply invested in, descriptive of, and defensive about it’s being anal rape.
Um, I didn’t bring it up Guin, nor has it been me but those on your side who’ve tried to tie it to politics.
It’s called “sharing.” I like to share my plans so my legion of opponents will know when to expect a response. We conservatives after all do tend to be a polite, thoughtful and considerate lot. (See how I even took all that annoying white space out of your post in my reply? ;))
Meh, civil suits are bullshit where normal standards of proof are relaxed and emotion rather than logic and fact carries the the day. I’m sure your lot will do very well.
Yes. And that’s ridiculous. There are plenty of videos that show very petite women with tall men in the exact same position as described by McQueary. You have chosen to ignore this incredibly obvious evidence.
But I didn’t rule it out based solely on McQueary’s testimony. I took into what other posters who apperared to know more than I did at the time were saying about the age and size of the boy, the position of the two bodies, the positions of Sandusky’s hands and arms and the boy’s waist. I also took into account conclusions which could reasonably be drawn from McQueary’s grand jury testimony, such as the fact that no mention was made of Sandusky having been in a crouching or squatting position or with his feet spread far apart, and that when the boy turned to look toward McQueary his expression seemed to reflect no distress, embarrassment, or pain. I also took into account Sandusky’s size, age and likely state of physical conditioning in trying to determine the likelihood that he would be able out the necessary movements in the sort of crouching or squatting position he’d have had to have been in in order to facilitate anal rape on a boy the size as was being talked about at the time.
You, on the other hand, looked at McQueary’s testimony and simply said to yourself, “Yup, sounds like rape to me…leastwise I don’t see nuthin’ to rule it out.”
Of course we’re both entitled to our methods, and if you want to continue to laugh at mine…well, you’re certainly free to do just that.
I will guarantee you that you have not seen any videos of a 6’3" man and even a 5’4" woman standing flatfooted on the ground having either anal or vaginal intercourse with the man merely standing behind her in a normal standing position with his legs unbent or unspread.
Where the hell is your critical thinking, my good man? If you keep this up I’m afraid I’m just going to have to stop responding to you.
I see McQueary’s testimony keeps getting more and more precise.
I think you are correct, I think this is an actual quote:
“Sandusky was standing upright, legs unbent and unspread, his posture was perfect, the likes of which I haven’t seen since my Catholic school days, his shoulders were back and his arms at his sides, his chin was tilted up slightly, his temperature was about 98.7 (a little above normal), his hair appeared to have been cut within the last 2 weeks…I could tell he had shaved prior to 7am that morning based on the 5oclock shadow that was present, and I was able to determine he had skipped taking his blood pressure medicine that day based on the combination of about 7 different variables I observed…furthermore, due to the fact that I viewed him for well over 4 seconds, I was able to gather some additional info and determine the following: he had not paid his power bill yet, his front lawn had been mowed recently, the clanking sound in his car was indeed fixed after the last visit to the mechanic, his 401k dipped slightly last quarter and finally, he purchased 2 boxes of cheerios at the store recently, taking advantage of an in-store special”.
Legs “unbent or unspread”? Has someone said that his knees were locked and tight together? My friend, have you been with a woman (or a man) before? I don’t think it’s possible to have sex with any person while standing with your knees locked and tight together.
Based on McQueary’s testimony of the incident in question (which of course is the only eyewitness account of that particular incident) it’s obviously possible that it was rape. Not guaranteed, but plausible and possible. And you are absolutely certain that it is impossible.
You realize that there is a lot of grey area in between standing straight up with knees locked and tight together, and squatting with feet spread wide, that can still reasonably be called “standing” and “upright”?
And your analysis is flawed and ridiculous. It wouldn’t be that difficult. There are plenty of videos online that can demonstrate that (and while the performers legs are at least slightly bent, and at least slightly spread, they’re certainly still “standing” and “upright”). I know you’ll just say “no there’s no videos of this”, but everyone who reads this will laugh and laugh and laugh. This is the internet we’re talking about.
Of course there’s nothing to rule it out! Nothing at all! That doesn’t mean there’s no reasonable doubt- but there’s nothing at all that proves it did not happen- not even close.
I plan to. I’m gaining great enjoyment from this thread.
I read that a little differently. My take on those words is as follows:
1 - Sex did not take place
2 - Sandusky was not present
3 - Neither was the kid
4 - There are no showers at Penn State
5 - McQueary is completely mistaken
6 - McQueary does not even exist
7 - Penn State has been 12 and 0 for the last 80 years
8 - Paterno, therefore, is undefeated
9 - Paterno and Ghandi are brothers
10 - The Most Interesting Man In The World asks Paterno for advice
11 - Jesus could not have run a cleaner program than Paterno
12 - When Paterno created the universe, he placed Penn State at the center
