You are one sick old demented pervert. You are the only person I have ever encountered, either in real life or on the internet, who gets his jollies and delights in graphically discussing the rape of children.
I sincerely hope that you are posting from prison 
No, you claimed specifically that it is physically impossible for a grown man to rape a little boy (at least, while standing in a shower). I don’t see any evidence that events have proved you correct in that assertion in any manner at all.
That you choose to interpret the results that way is unsurprising, but still disturbing. What’s more disturbing is how pleased as punch you are about the whole thing. " Wooohooo! I know more about theoretical buttsex than anyone!". Score!
Sorry, homes! It wasn’t intentional. Buds? 
So SA, you accused me of being a liar but you never gave me any due process and told me what I lied about.
Are you going to explain your accusation or deny me the due process that you hold so dearly?
No, I get my jollies and delights from making fun of people who think they’re discussing the rape of children, and who insist on it so they can villainize an old man for a decade of behavior he knew nothing about and who call me a pervert and pedophile for suggesting they wait on evidence before jumping to their wild, unsupported conclusions.
People like you in other words. And I fucking love it!
Who gives a fuck about #4950? I want post #5000.
I haven’t said either of the things you’ve attributed to me. If you can’t pose your question honestly, I’m not going to respond.
Well, it had been brought to Paterno’s attention. By your admission - twice.
That he did very little with his knowledge gives his life story a justified asterisk.
And what difference does it make that he was old?
I reiterate: “and villainize an old man for a decade of behavior he knew nothing about.”
Your comment is in error. I’ll leave it to you to ferret out how. It’s time you people start thinking about the things you say.
Y’know, it’s one thing to contradict something you said 2000 posts earlier that only the most determined detractor would remember, but when you post blatant contradictions in the span of a few minutes… well… you make it too easy to dismiss you.
You are a liar.
B…so much B.
McQueary credited Paterno with contacting Curley and Schultz, which resulted in his meeting with them on 12 March 2002. Finally, McQueary claimed that “Paterno followed-up with him following the incident.”
Link: http://bit.ly/UfiBrG
Mike McQueary is said to have testified that he told Paterno he felt Curley and Schultz responded to McQueary’s report “appropriately.” Since McQueary continued to see Jerry Sandusky on campus and at Second Mile activities, and with McQueary’s continued mutual participation with Sandusky at golf events and QB clinics, well, you can deduce your own conclusions about that.
Oh, but I did no such thing.
By my count, this is at least the fourth occurrence just on this page.
I don’t think this thread could possibly be derailed any more than it is, but for any of you that have an interest in continuing the merged thread on its own right and/or discuss the way it was moderated/merged, you can post your thoughts on the matter here:
Whatever. I’ve grown sort of tired of you anyway. If you can’t post accurately I don’t see why I should have to do more than point it out.
Eh, why post there? It’ll just end up back here.
Well, you’ve met someone who won’t let you lie but also won’t flatter you by showing anger about it. I can see why that would be frustrating for you.
I think I can answer that question for you.
Think of this thread like an overflowing septic tank. Do you want two of these or just one?