Not to mention a better Starving Artist. The one we’re saddled with has shown nothing but delighted zeal for diving headlong and ankle-deep into the “gory details”-- actual, probable and fanciful.
No he’s wearing SA’s socks behind the proxy. 
It’s clear that you people have certain shortcomings when it comes to discernment, but can you really not perceive NLP’s greater skills as a wordsmith and grammarian than those of yours truly?
Plus he’s much more tuned in to happenings on and near the Penn State campus. If I had access to the locker room photos and other exculpatory information he’s posted (or been arsed to look for them myself), don’t you think I’d have coughed them up long before NLP made his arrival? Or for that matter, why would it be necessary to invent his personna in order to reveal it?
No, kids, I’m afraid this is just one more of the many ways you’ve been wrong about things in this thread. Try to engage your brains and think about what you’ve read for a change and perhaps you’ll be able to see that.
And thanks, NLP, for the Twitter suggestion, but my hands are full enough with this (albeit dwindling in the face of withering facts) crowd. 
In the deafening silence that has met your question, we can only assume SA might suggest things like inexperience, lack of lubrication, etc. as examples of minor sexual problems one may need to resolve when children are involved.
Maybe he was only a part-time child molester. You know, only a hobby- he could quit anytime he liked. So Joe Pat thought it was no big deal… it would probably take care of itself.
No, actually I just overlooked it. To some people - and there have been some in this thread - there is no difference in sexually oriented behavior involving a child. One Dumas even went so far as to state openly that to touch a child on the leg was as bad as raping him or her.
To those of us based in reality however, there is a wide range of behaviors that, while sexually oriented on the part of the instigator, may be fairly innocuous from the point of view of the child, or which the child might be completely unaware of. And to the degree the child is aware that something is going on, there is a range of awareness that goes from something slightly out of the ordinary to something odd to something mystifying to something creepy to something that is outright sexual touching to something that involves full-on oral or anal rape, and each step along the way denotes an increase in the seriousness of both the offense and the degree of harm to the child, if indeed there is any, which there may not be all, especially with the more benign forms of sexual abuse which involve touching or embracing that results in some form of stimulation to the offender but appears totally innocuous to the child or an outside observer.
This is why we have different charges and degrees of offense for different types of sexual crimes, and why we have a range of different punishments.
Thus when I said what I did about my belief that Paterno, once he became convinced that Sandusky had a sexual problem with children, had no idea how serious it was, I meant that I believed he had no idea that Sandusky was engaging in behavior that was harmful or traumatizing to the children involved, and most especially that he had no idea that it involved subjecting them to oral and anal sex.
So there! How do ya like them apples?
(bolding mine)
See folks? Paterno thought Sandusky was engaging in sexual behavior with children that was not harmful or traumatizing to the child. He thought it was just the gentle, playful sort of sexual behavior with children. Anyone could make that mistake.
Hey, nothing wrong with shower hugs and naked horseplay. It happened all the time back in the 'fifties, before America was led down the wrong path by filthy hippies.
Note this key phrase:
nigh on impossible.
I’ve proved you wrong again.
2 points RP, 0 points SA.
Cite?
Unless it was ZPG Zealot.
I wager 14 SDMB bucks that Starving Artist will not find a post supporting the requested cite.
The only thing this proves is that if you selectively quote part of a SA post, you can make the incorrectness of your own post less obvious. (This is in reference to the difference between squatting alone versus squatting and thrusting.)
My contention: based on scientific evidence, squatting and thrusting is physically possible
Starving Artist’s contention: that it’s impossible
Are you saying that you interpret Starving Artist’s position as “it is possible”?
To this day, nobody ever thanked us.
I never said squatting and thrusting were impossible, just like I never said, as your brother-in-dishonesty iiandyiiii keeps claiming, that it’s impossible for a tall man to have sex with a short person.
I note you’ve failed to take me up on my challenge to prove it, which would have guaranteed that one of us would have to drop out of the thread.
No. I’m saying that your claim in post #5765 did not mention squatting and thrusting, and SA, in denying your claim in #5766, also referred to squatting alone.
However, your SA quote featuring “nigh on impossible” was referring to thrusting. So it did not address your original claim and the statement SA denied having made.
[I have not kept track of what claims SA has made in this thread. I’m only addressing this last exchange, and saying that your cite does not address the current dispute. I have no idea if he might have made that claim elsewhere.]
I interpret this statement:
“So 6’3” Jerry Sandusky would still have been having to carry on thrusting activity two feet off the ground, which I consider to be nigh on impossible"
as indicating it’s impossible.
Am I misinterpreting?
You mean if someone makes a braying jackass out of themselves, there is some mechanism that will force them to leave? I’d like to know more about that.
My statement originally was that I proved it is possible to do the thing that he said is impossible by following his scientific research method.
I can see that in my post I said “squat” only and in his post he responded to that, but my post was short hand after zillions of other posts.
My claim, which I am happy to be very clear and up front about is: I tried his scientific research method and it turned out to be possible
Okay, kiddies, remember all those times when you’ve claimed I would never admit I was wrong and I always pointed out how I do indeed admit to having been wrong on those [rare] occasions when it happens? Well, gather 'round 'cause this is one of those times.
The post I was thinking of is located on page 24 of this thread and was posted by your hysteric-in-arms Huerta88, who said in response to an interview given by Jerry Sandusky:
<bolding mine>
Note the incredulity of the notion that someone might touch a boy on the leg without it being in a sexual way.
That is clearly a pretty stupid opinion to have, but I nevertheless seem to have transmogrified it into a statement which was worse than it originally was, and for that I [del]humbly[/del], well, not so humbly - let’s not get carried away - apologize. Mea culpa.