Do you think Sandusky now deserves to eat moldy food, live in a tent in 100+ degree heat, wear pink underwear, and work on a chain gang? Just curious.
You ought to know by know this kind of stuff doesn’t work with me. I said Paterno wasn’t covering up for child rape and he wasn’t. I said the shower rape everyone was so eager to pin on Paterno had not in fact happened, and it didn’t. McQueary’s description doesn’t support it, as I contended almost from the beginning, and the Sandusky jury found it wanting as well. And now the victim, who’s lack of testimony at the trial was alleged by posters here to be the real reason the jury acquitted Sandusky of the shower rape charge, has stated himself that he was not raped that night.
So I’ve been right every step of the way, and you guys haven’t. And now, just to have one last avenue where you can still be wrong, you claim I’m the one who’s a willfully ignorant and stupid.
Well, chum(p), all I can say to that is…
No u.
heh heh heh 
Still funny. You know what happened in that shower. If you only you could see yourself from the outside… claiming to actually know what happened in a shower many years ago when you weren’t there. I really wish you could see yourself- you’d have a great big belly laugh, just like me.
Nope, sorry, you’re wrong even about that. I don’t know what happened in the shower. But I do know one thing that didn’t.
And therein lies the rub. 
Ha ha HA HA! You have magical powers, SA, to know what did or didn’t happen. Or you’re an idiot. Either way, it’s a privilege to continue to witness your magic/idiocy/magic idiocy.
:rolleyes:
Not moldy food. I want him healthy, he’ll live longer that way. So no 100 degree heat either. Pink underwear is ok, it’s not like he’ll be showing it to anyone. As for the chain gang, he’s probably too old to work that way for long. But indoor labor, something really boring, mind numbing and repetitive, sounds good.
This is a valid question and I would love to hear SA’s response.
No shit. That’s what I just said, fool. “Your own mind”. The only place you can be right… By torturing your own reasoning… But of course you’re right… Bend that reasoning until it screams, maybe it can be made to agree with your original contention!!!
SA’s reasoning: OK! OK! Enough! Stop with the branding irons, already! I’ll agree that you were right!
SA: So you agree that Paterno must be innocent, because Sandusky couldn’t possibly fit his dick into a paper towel tube held at two feet off the floor? <shoves red-hot branding iron up 'SA’s reasoning’s ass>
SA’s reasoning: <ass-sizzle> GAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!! YES! PATERNO IS INNOCENT, BECAUSE YOU’RE FRYING MY ASSHOLE!, err, because you can’t possibly fit that iron up my asshole… <ass-sizzle> AAAAAAARRRRRGHHHHH!!! Because Jerry couldn’t possibly fit that iron up my ass… <ass-sizzle> YYYYAAAAAHHHH!!! OK, ok!!! [mumblety-something] paper-towels can’t fit up little kids’ asses… <ass-sizzle> MMMMAAAAAAGGHHHH!!!
SA: This is only going to continue until you get it right, you know. <shoves iron up his own reasoning’s ass, again>
SA’s reasoning: <ass-sizzle> GAAAAHHHHHHH! [quickly tries to reread entire thread] I can’t figure out what the fuck you were arguing! Can you??? What the fuck do you want me to SAY???
SA:<shoves iron up his own reasoning’s ass, with malice aforethought!>
SA’s reasoning: <ass-sizzle> YYYYYAAAAAHHHHHHGGGGGG!!! You’re RIGHT!!! YOU’RE RIGHT!!! STOP FRYING MY ASSHOLE!!! AAAAAAARRRRRRR!!!
Ah, how I love to see my enemies driven [crazy] before me and to hear the lamentations of their women [Enola]! 
Ahem…no, dipstick. Paterno isn’t innocent because Sandusky couldn’t fuck two feet off the floor. Paterno is innocent because he is innocent. He never tried to cover up the rape of children. He was never told of the rape of children. He never knew of the rape of children.
The Sandusky/shower thing vis-a-vis the paper towel tube is important only in that it illustrates that what McQueary thought he saw - which everyone was so certain in the beginning of this thread that Joe Paterno knew about and covered up, heartlessly unconcerned about the pain and suffering of the children being so cruelly abused and concerned only about the welfare of Penn State and his football program - never happened!!! There was never a rape that night! So the crime everyone was so quick to accuse Paterno of knowing about and covering up, and the cruel lack of concern he supposedly had for the children involved, was pure fiction!!! Got that??? It was nothing but fiction!!!
I am right and you are wrong simply because I’ve been correct in this thread and you and your comrades have not. I was right about Paterno. I was right about the non-rape. And I was right that Paterno and Penn State’s officials had not engaged in a ten-year conspiracy to subborn the oral and anal rape of little kids so as to benefit their football program!
I hold these truths to have become self-evident, and I bask in the validation and in the victorious vanquishment of my vile and villainous opponents in this thread which they guarantee.
Well, Starving Artist? Are you going to answer my question or not?
Remember, rape is hilarious when it is done to a male.
It wasn’t fiction. It was sexual assault. Or are you now saying that he is completely innocent. Because even if penetration could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, sexual assault was. And in case you forgot, sexual assault on a child is a very bad thing.
There you go again with your fables and fictions - I thought we’d already established, paper towel tube in um… hand, that it was beyond the realm of the physically feasible ?
ETA: BTW, **Starkers **? Multiple exclamation marks. The tell-tale sign of a diseased mind.
The amazing thing (the “magical idiocy”) is that SA is completely ruling out rape. He somehow knows it didn’t happen. It’s truly magical…
Better than that, the *reason *he knows that is that 12-year-olds are only 3 feet tall.
I think this pretty much sums up SA’s post, his arguments, his hopes and dreams, his time on this board, and his reason for existence. He’s arguing the average squatting anal height of people to save a child molester.
Nope, he’s arguing it to disprove a crime that airheads and lynch-mobbers like you were trying to use to accuse Joe Paterno of knowing about and covering up for in order to protect his football program.
I learned it here.
And failing quite badly at it, since:
- Sandusky was convicted of sexual assault on that boy anyway; and
- McQueary didn’t specify penetration so whether or not it occurred has no bearing on what Paterno knew or didn’t know.
Also, McQueary described the boy as being “roughly a foot shorter than Sandusky”. Not 4’ tall like the description you’ve manufactured out of thin air.