I’ll have to say “D”.
I vote B.
But I’d like to do so anonymously.
D.
I can’t remember if I participated or not, but I’ve read a lot of it, so I’ll vote B.
I afraid to vote because I’m cowed by the anti-starving artist gestapo.
B there or B[sup]2[/sup]
What do you do if you agree with a small bit of what SA has said but disagree with most? I voted C for that reason in the original poll but I don’t agree with the vast majority of his positions so maybe I should have voted D. Specifically, I do think that Paterno or whatever his name was has been vilified beyond what he probably did, and some of his actions are frogiveable. The paper tube rubbish not so much…
(I would also want to vote that mr. artist is delusional)
Kimstu provides a good summation here while sparing you the horror of reading Starving Artist’s fantasies about fucking paper towel tubes and giving naked hugs to prepubescent boys.
And put me down as a B.
SA’s main claim in nutshell: through “The Paper Towel Tube” experiment he “proved” that a 6’3" man – Sanduky in particular – cannot possibly rape a 10 year old boy due to some extraneous 'laws of physics" that would impede said action as described by witness Mike McQueary. Moreover, he feels vindicated (“Won!” as he puts it over and over) by the jury’s decision not to charge Sandusky with rape in that particular incident. Note that the Jury never said anything about the “impossibility” of the act itself, but rather absolved him on this charge due to lack of sufficient evidence.
That said, please, I repeat, this is not the thread to rehash the arguments.
ETA: Enola Gay’s link gives a much more precise account of the positions taken.
Some extra words because the site won’t let me post a 1 letter answer.
B
Well, Red, now I need some brain bleach…thanks so much. 
Put me down with D, if that’s the argument. Now, where was that bleach…
I will refrain from voting, as I have only read a few posts in the thread in question.
I just want to note that another thread here on the SDMB introduced me to Carl Tanzler (Wiki), who became obessed with a tuberculosis patient under his care, to the point of keeping her dead body in his bed for some years. Wiki informs me that Tanzler inserted a paper tube into the vaginal area of the decomposing corpse to allow for intercourse.
And that’s pretty much the last time I hope to hear anything about sex and paper tubes.
Clarification: the jury found him guilty on several sexual assault charges against victim #2. They found him not guilty on the count of rape to include penetration. Vctim #2 was not identified at the time or by the time of the trial because nobody who knew about the incident tried to find out. Its not that they didn’t “charge” him. He was indicted on the charge. A grand jury found there was enough evidence to have probable cause for the charge. The trial jury decided there was not enough evidence (without the victim to testify) to sustain a guilty verdict.
Carry on.
B B B BBBBBBBEEEEE!
(it’s that single letter problem, I swear that’s why I did it)
Thank you.
And sorry, XT – you are right, should have warned about the likely need of using brain-bleach after opening this thread.
I’m with Dan, BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
B-The thread is so old and so long, I DON’T KNOW IF I have participated in the thread and I DISAGREE with Starving Artist’s arguments.
B. That thread has left me with a feeling of rising nausea every time I even see SA’s username pop up anywhere on the boards.
I vote B.
D. I’ve lurked in the thread from the start (pity me) and find SA’s ‘arguments’ laughable and SA himself loathsome. I wouldn’t have thought it possible to feel any more repelled by him, but his recent ‘winning!’ schtick is doing the trick nicely.