SA has already claimed **NLP **is more completely informed on the topic, as well as more articulate. So, the answer is: *The imaginary friend *of a yahoo with a paper towel tube.
Then let me cast your mind back a way to page 112, where I posted Pennsylvania law on mandated reporters, which would be in post 5562, which clearly states:
To which I followed up in part by making the following observations:
To this you replied:
Followed by:
And:
Then, guess what? :eek:
Five days later you’d done a complete turn-around and began schooling people yourself on the limitations of the mandated reporter law which I’d taught you. To wit:
and
And now you’ve apparently forgotten all that and you’ve gone back once again to hurling insults at me and demonstrating your own ignorance.
Believe it or not and despite our years-long mutual animus I had actually come to feel a smidgeon of respect for you for having come to accept the wording of the law for what it is and reversing yourself on it, despite the fact that you never acknowledged that I was right and you were wrong and/or to apologize for the insults you hurled my way prior to your seeing the light and realizing that I was correct after all.
But no more! Now you’ve forgotten everything I taught you and you’ve gone back to being the same ignorant, insult-tossing douchebag you’ve always been.
Now you’ve done it. I hope you’re happy. Within 10 posts we’ll get another chapter of The Wayward Orphan, where little Timmy has a serene look of no-distress on his face while his benevolent mentor gives him a misinterpreted naked heterosexual sports-related shower hug.
There will be straining ham-strings, showering lessons, games of “hide the soap,” it’ll be brutal.
Neither of the last two of those quotes from me were about Paterno. You’ve clipped the references to Dr. Dranov and Dr. McQueary from the exchanges you have posted.
Add deceitful and lying piece of shit to your amazing resume.
Oh, so a different set of Pennsylvania mandatory reporter laws (that just happens to say the same thing) applies to Dr. Dranov and Dr. McQueary than to Paterno, Curley and Schultz?
Or do the laws as written apply only to whomever you happen to be talking about? :rolleyes:
I think it’s pretty obvious who’s lying and (trying to be) deceitful here, chum(p).
The same law applies to everyone. You look really stupid talking about things you don’t understand, even despite having them repeatedly explained. I told you before, all you have to do is read the last line regarding mandated reporters from your very own quote.
Were Dranov or Dr. McQueary affiliated with Penn State?
Or are you contending that Joe Paterno was not affiliated with Penn State? Is that your position? You’re so stupid, it just might be. It would be as defensible as your paper tube/anus level theory.
And as I told you before, the last line is governed by the first line of the quoted text.
Paterno did not, “in the course of his employment, occupation or practice of his profession, come into contact with children, nor did he have reasonable cause to suspect on the basis of his professional or other training or experience, that a child coming before him in his professional or official capacity is a victim of child abuse.”
Therefore as a licensee of the “public or private institution, school, facility or agency” known as Penn State, he had no “standing on the basis of his professional training or experience,” nor as the result of “a child coming before him in his professional or official capacity as a victim of child abuse.”
Therefore he had no legal standing to act as a mandated reporter and therefore the final line of the quoted text clearly does not apply to him.
To be exact, neither of the insults I used and which you so richly deserve fit your description of them, I just played along with the first one because it was good straight man fodder. But now I’m getting bored so you’re gonna have to do better.
