It's time to officially Pit Joe Paterno and the Penn State football program.

[Lobohan]

I need to know how old that paper-towel tube was.

[iiandyiiii]

@Drunky_Smurf

And you retards keep engaging him. I’ve changed my mind and now think SA has totally won the game. He’s kept you fucktards frustrated and annoyed for 11 months and 5085 post. At this post I’m considering you shit for brains as trolls for keeping this going.

Frustrated and annoyed? I find this massively entertaining. I only stay in threads when it’s fun.

[Enderw24]

@Starving_Artist

No I didn’t, and no I didn’t.

You people continue to experience other than straightness in your thinking.

But since you’re here, and you’ve several times expressed concern over my, uh, delusions or whatever in this thread, may I direct your attention to post #5122 above.

Early in the thread and long before I had any kind of understanding of Sandusky or the shower room incident I entered the thread with the idea in mind mostly to suggest that due to Joe Paterno’s longstanding reputation for integrity and good works that people hold off on condemning him until actual evidence should arise to indicate his guilt.

I was set upon instantly and accused of everything from taking up for him because he was a conservative (something I didn’t know and had given zero thought to at the time) to being a throw back to the old days when child abuse was tolerated and covered up to protect the men and to hell with what it did to the children, to being a likely pedophile enabler to being an unquestioned pedophile myself.

Now, anyone who knows me would laughinly and strongly tell you that I love children a great deal. Apart from my family they are my favorite people in the world. I have a long history of loving relationships with my daugher and neices and all their friends, and all during the time they were growing up there was never a hint of sexual impropriety with any of them or any of their friends, largely owing to the fact that such a thing never occurred to me, nor would it. The very idea makes me furious. Additionally, just to show that I’m an equal sex kid appreciator, I chased a guy once who while stopped behind me at a stoplight turned and began pounding on the boys in his back seat with his fists in an attempt to get his license number only to lose him in traffic.

So to come into a thread where people have so idiotically and hysterically lost their frigging minds be met with all these vile and insulting accusations for doing nothing more than suggesting we wait until we have evidence before we condemn someone (a concept in which as a police officer I would hope you see value) infuriated me and given that as the thread progressed and it became more and more apparent that these people didn’t know what they were talking about I became more and more determined to rub their noses in that fact and prove them wrong.

And so as events have unfolded and I have been proven right in my contentions that no evidence has surfaced to show that Joe Paterno was anywhere near guilty of the abominations he was being accused of at the time…and that the crime which McQueary testified to was not in fact the horrific and painful crime the thread’s posters were trying to accuse Joe Paterno of knowing about and callously and uncaringly covering up for never in fact happened, and that the suppositions they were so hysterically and stupidly jumping to were flat out wrong, and that it was they, not I, who were and are the egregious offenders in this thread.

Mr. Artist, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

I don’t either. I think they’d call it a crouch.

A crouch? Nope. I guess you’ve never played football. It’s pretty hard to move quickly from a “crouch”. A LB’s stance definitely falls into the category of “standing”. Just like the stance of a possible taller man having sex with a shorter person from behind- still standing, even with bent knees.

This is obviously an absurd argument (as amusing as it is). McQueary may have called the guy “standing” however much his knees were bent- he was never asked specifically about Sandusky’s specific stance. There’s no possible way to use that testimony to totally eliminate the possibility of rape. One may not find it conclusive, but it’s ridiculous to dismiss it (as you have).

You’re ridiculous. But funny.

[Starving_Artist]

@Enderw24

Yes, you did. Here, let me repeat yourself:

To repeat

1. In order for a man of 6-4 to have sex with a person around 4 foot-11, you couldn’t stand straight up. You would have to bend your knees enough to be what an outside observer would call squatting.

This is what you said above.

2. Due to the conclusive proof of the Paper Towel Tube Test, a man who is 6-4 could not squat and simultaneously have sex with a person approximately 4 foot 11.
   Therefore:

3. , anal sex was and continues to be impossible. Not just that one night in the shower. Every time, everywhere.

Good fuggin’ grief. You’re an attorney and a realtor and you don’t see the difference between what I said and what you claimed I said?

I’m not going to allow you to misstate things I’ve said and then answer you when you come back with the real thing. In effect this would give you a freebie to try to pull some shit before coming back with my actual words every time. Ain’t gonna fly, homes/holmes.

And besides it’s beside the point. It doesn’t matter. There’s no Paterno cover up evidence and the jury and I are in agreement that McQueary’s testimony isn’t persuasive of rape. Your thus far futile attempts to try to catch me in some sort of gotcha would be meaningless even if you were to succeed…which you won’t because you always have to alter your premise in some way from my actual point or words in order to set up what you think will be your victory, and it is at that point where your little traps invariably and inevitably fall apart.

Give it up. You can’t win.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Starving_Artist

Now, anyone who knows me would laughinly and strongly tell you that I love children a great deal. Apart from my family they are my favorite people in the world. I have a long history of loving relationships with my daugher and neices and all their friends, and all during the time they were growing up there was never a hint of sexual impropriety with any of them or any of their friends, largely owing to the fact that such a thing never occurred to me, nor would it.

They’re girls. What about boys, though? Didn’tja ever wanna? You sure think about it a lot, and post about it a lot too.

the crime which McQueary testified to was not in fact the horrific and painful crime the thread’s posters were trying to accuse Joe Paterno of knowing about and callously and uncaringly covering up for never in fact happened

Dear, sweet Og. :rolleyes:

Get help, perv.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Starving_Artist

the jury and I are in agreement that McQueary’s testimony isn’t persuasive of rape.

How do you and the jury sync up on indecent assault and unlawful contact with minors?

[Enderw24]

@Starving_Artist

Good fuggin’ grief. You’re an attorney and a realtor and you don’t see the difference between what I said and what you claimed I said?

Attorney yes. Realtor, no longer the case. My profile I suppose is a tad outdated. But it’s nice to know you care.

And you’re right. I was incorrect in my summary. I sincerely wish to apologize to everyone whom I have misled with my falsehoods. You stated that Sandusky was 6-3 and I described him as 6-4. I regret this error.

Everything else I stand by. You know…the stuff that I’m correct on but you refuse to do anything but tap dance around?
Man, it feels like such a weight’s been lifted off me when I admit I was wrong. Care to try?

[Starving_Artist]

@iiandyiiii

A crouch? Nope. I guess you’ve never played football. It’s pretty hard to move quickly from a “crouch”. A LB’s stance definitely falls into the category of “standing”. Just like the stance of a possible taller man having sex with a shorter person from behind- still standing, even with bent knees.

This is obviously an absurd argument (as amusing as it is). McQueary may have called the guy “standing” however much his knees were bent- he was never asked specifically about Sandusky’s specific stance. There’s no possible way to use that testimony to totally eliminate the possibility of rape. One may not find it conclusive, but it’s ridiculous to dismiss it (as you have).

You’re ridiculous. But funny.

Sandusky could not have been having anal sex with a boy even as tall as 5’4" in anything that could remotely be characterized as standing, knees somewhat bent or not. He’d have had to lower his crotch at least a foot and then be able to engage in up and down, back and forth movements which would require a vastly more stable stance than could be achieved with the feet relatively close together as they are when standing.

Further, I’ve never said McQueary’s use of the word “standing” was conclusive. But it is informative and it allows us to draw a certain inference. So does the fact that McQueary testified to the grand jury that Sandusky and the boy both turned to look at him in the shower room mirror, but he made no mention of Sandusky’s expressions nor of a stressed, shamed, uncomfortable or painful expression in the face of the boy. Given the detail he did give, I think it’s reasonable to expect that had Sandusky’s stance more suitable to anal intercourse and/or had discomfort of some kind been visible in the boy’s face these would have been mentioned as well. The fact that neither were mentioned when other, more minor details were, strongly suggests to me that McQueary had indeed never observed them.

[Starving_Artist]

@Enderw24

Attorney yes. Realtor, no longer the case. My profile I suppose is a tad outdated. But it’s nice to know you care.

And you’re right. I was incorrect in my summary. I sincerely wish to apologize to everyone whom I have misled with my falsehoods. You stated that Sandusky was 6-3 and I described him as 6-4. I regret this error.

Everything else I stand by. You know…the stuff that I’m correct on but you refuse to do anything but tap dance around?
Man, it feels like such a weight’s been lifted off me when I admit I was wrong. Care to try?

That was not your error.

[Starving_Artist]

@iiandyiiii

Frustrated and annoyed? I find this massively entertaining. I only stay in threads when it’s fun.

So do I.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Eh… I don’t quite get the impression this is “fun” for Starving Artist. His repetition over the last week or so suggests more of an OCD angle.

Let’s ask NoSmallPlans if it’s fun for him. For a, y’know, “second opinion.”

[VinylTurnip]

@Starving_Artist

There’s no Paterno cover up evidence and the jury and I are in agreement that McQueary’s testimony isn’t persuasive of rape.

Paterno lied to a grand jury and said he didn’t know about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky for child molestation, when we now know that he did in fact know all about it.

You don’t have to call it a cover-up if that softens the blow, but nonetheless: there’s your man of integrity, perjuring himself and then emphatically reaffirming the lie in his last interview.

[CannyDan]

Haven’t heard a peep from **NoSignificantDifference **-- err, whoever – since I asked for clarification in post 5102. But buddy **SA **has been quite entertaining in the meantime, with his floating goalposts and all. So I’m satisfied, for now, anyway.

Maybe some time, perhaps when SA’s asleep, his [del]alter-ego[/del] ahh, [del]apologist[/del] err, little buddy [del]NSD[/del] NSP *(There! Got it!) *can come out to play.

[Starving_Artist]

Oh, give it a rest. If you morons think **NoLittlePlans ** and I are the same guy then go ask Marley to check us out. He’s shown a particular talent for ferreting out socks and I’m sure he’d be particularly happy to look into whether NLP and I are the same poster.

[iiandyiiii]

@Starving_Artist

Sandusky could not have been having anal sex with a boy even as tall as 5’4" in anything that could remotely be characterized as standing, knees somewhat bent or not. He’d have had to lower his crotch at least a foot and then be able to engage in up and down, back and forth movements which would require a vastly more stable stance than could be achieved with the feet relatively close together as they are when standing.

That’s completely ridiculous (and therefore par for the course for you). Sandusky could have short legs and/or the boy could have long legs, relative to their height. He might only have to bend his knees a few degrees. You have no way of knowing. It could certainly have been rape. You’re a ridiculous person. And you continue to amuse me.

[Starving_Artist]

@VinylTurnip

Paterno lied to a grand jury and said he didn’t know about the 1998 investigation of Sandusky for child molestation, when we now know that he did in fact know all about it.

You don’t have to call it a cover-up if that softens the blow, but nonetheless: there’s your man of integrity, perjuring himself and then emphatically reaffirming the lie in his last interview.

I know I don’t have to call it a cover up. It isn’t remotely the same thing.

Still, I don’t know the specifics of what you’re talking about but if you want to post a cite I’ll look at to see how it meshes with your account and to see what I think about it.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bryan_Ekers

Eh… I don’t quite get the impression this is “fun” for Starving Artist. His repetition over the last week or so suggests more of an OCD angle.

The fact that he’s complained to the mods in ATMB indicates to me that it’s less fun for him than he lets on.

[Enderw24]

@Starving_Artist

That was not your error.

Was it that my princess was in another castle?

Was it that I went up against a Sicilian when death was on the line?

Or was it that I had no error and you just refuse to admit you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about?*
*See? I gave you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you were a fucking moron rather than someone who had just painted themselves into a corner.

[Starving_Artist]

@iiandyiiii

That’s completely ridiculous (and therefore par for the course for you). Sandusky could have short legs and/or the boy could have long legs, relative to their height. He might only have to bend his knees a few degrees. You have no way of knowing. It could certainly have been rape. You’re a ridiculous person. And you continue to amuse me.

And pink unicorns could fly out of your ass when you jump out of bed in the morning.

We can only go by what we know of McQueary’s testimony. And we know that McQueary’s testimony speaks not in the slightest of any physical nor physiological nor positional abnormalities or deviations. If you want to assume some go right ahead, but don’t expect me to acknowledge their likelihood.