Wow, does Gerry Marshall ever look like Sandusky. Just saw him while surfing channels and had to go to Info to verify. Although an actor, I can’t imagine a less desirable role to play.
God, you scared me! For a second, I thought you were saying there really was a movie in the works!
*“Lessons in Showering: The Jerry Sandusky Story”
A Very Special Lifetime Presentation,
sponsored by Ivory Soap
“Not all coaches can be 99 44/100% pure”
Starring Garry Marshall and Jaden Smith
Co-Starring over half the child actors in the U.S.
and introducing… Larry King as “JoePa”
*
Oh, someday Lifetime will probably do something based on it.
Thanks. I laughed out loud. Brilliant.
I’m still trying to decide whether Larry King or JoePa should be more insulted. 
You could always use Jeffrey Jones. I don’t think he’d mind all that much.
You something that’s REALLY sad? Posters on Free FUCKING Republic are calling for Paterno’s head. It’s a really fucked up day when I agree with FR. That’s how bad it’s gotten.
Don’t feel bad; some things are obviously and totally wrong, and every sane decent person knows it. And, I know what you’re thinking; sane, decent freepers?! But, yes, they are still human and capable of basic morality.
Unlike certain Dopers we could name…
These people are in my family. I do not join them (I have never posted to FR), but they are fine people. In my instance, they are motivated by the Second Amendment issues. Which, sadly, somehow, leads them to support Sarah Palin. Which I never will.
But, obviously, none of them would defend Paterno or Sandusky, nor rationalize the “teaching to shower” line. elizabeth says it best – this is just basic morality.
I guess what I meant is that I thought that some of them might have been like Starving Artist. (Of course you have the typical, “It’s the gays!”, but Paterno’s getting skewered alive over there)
-
I’ve never seen you be that nasty.
-
I’ve never seen it better deserved.
His moves were, if I may, the bitchiest of bitch moves with the shifting premises, the pedophile justifications, the stupid ass argumentation.
Yeah, it got ugly, and it’s all his fault.
You’ve never seen Guin watch a Penguins-Capitals game…
Ok, neither have I, but I can imagine… hehe
There were at least 7 completely inappropriate and entirely groan-worthy Sandusky-related jokes and puns over my family’s Christmas weekend, according to my brother, who apparently kept count. I can’t quite remember any of them, though, but they were funny at the time…or, at least, the wine made me believe they were…
So in other words you got nothin’ and you know it.
Yes, word lawyering games like confronting your imaginings and suppositions with fact.
No, I know you’re wrong.
Yeah, right. I’ll get right on that. (How old are you again?)
Sorry, but those dreams are all yours, pal. Frankly, I’m beginning to sense a little projection here.
Kindly quote where I said Sandusky’s behavior was probably horseplay and therefore justified. Double dog dare ya and bet you can’t do it.
Indeed. :rolleyes:
Maybe not. But it’s certain you’ve rarely seen her more stupid.
Nonsense.
Kindly cite the shifting premises you’re talking about. Betcha can’t do it.
And kindly cite my pedophile justifications. Double dog dare ya, and I’ll bet you can’t even begin to do it.
P.S. - As long as you guys want to keep lying about what I’ve said in this thread, I’m perfectly happy to keep calling you on it, 'cause the facts are all on my side. And I can keep it up for as long as you can. You can’t win. You can’t win on facts, and you can’t win by hoping I’ll go away so you can slap each other on the back and congratulate yourselves in the belief that your lies have carried the day. You can’t do it, so you might as well give up. Either that, or when come back, bring facts.
SA, any response to my post #1816?
Can you clarify who you are contrasting to in the “rationalize the “teaching to shower” line”?
If you were being honest I assume it’s someone in this thread who has rationalized this, because that’s certainly the impression conveyed by your words. But I don’t recall anyone doing this.
[Note: I am aware that others on your side of the argument have also done this type of thing in this thread, but most of those people are insignificant. I would have thought you were a cut above this type of thing. Before this thread, anyway.]
Oh, let’s start with the pretense that the GJ summary of Paterno testifying to “fondling or sexual contact” was somehow inconsistent with McQueary’s summarized GJ testimony about “anal intercourse,” or that McQ.'s report to Paterno was unclear or confused (although he later testified that he’d told Paterno about “extreme sexual contact, some sort of intercourse.”). For that matter, pretending that “fondling or sexual contact” were two inconsistent things.
Then your stupid pretending that there was some evidence that McQueary could not have described the victim from the shower so Paterno had no obligation to call the cops because the only thing they could have done was interview every elementary school child in the district, which (you argued) was ridiculous.
Until you admit (and I know you are too much the coward or worse to do so) that the word “fondling” does not have a single non-sexual, non-reportable meaning in standard American English as used by human beings, today, to describe contact between a naked old man and a naked boy, in a shower (especially when followed by “or sexual contact”), you will remain subject to justified allegations of enabling pedophiles.
He (SA)has rationalized, multiple times, that there are forms of “non sexual fondling” or other naked on naked man on boy contact in a shower that are perfectly innocent. I am being quite honest when I say that this is deeply weird and troubling.
I’ll grant that you’ve not been shifting, but that’s not to your credit - you should be shifting in response to emerging evidence, rather than ignoring it, which is what you’ve been doing.
Your initial position was that McQueary had told JP about rape. You should have backed off that when McQueary clarified that he had in fact not told JP about rape. But you didn’t.
FTM, you harshly castigated SA for saying that McQueary had expressed any uncertainty about what had happened, and you were directed to news reports of McQueary’s testimony in court saying just this, you just ignored them.
[BTW, I’m not sure I understand the obsession with the “fondling” definition. McQueary says he did not see Sandusky fondling the kid. Cite. So what difference does it make whether fondling can or cannot be non-sexual? I may be missing something here.]
That’s all fine. The problem is that you were not being at all honest when you pretended (following the lead of some temporary ally of yours) that SA rationalized “teaching to shower”.
You can be forgiven for missing it, as it turns on some bizarre “logic” of SA.
He is stuck with the fact that Paterno admitted to being told of “fondling or sexual contact” (that’s how it’s summarized in the indictment). In his desperation to acquit Paterno, SA apparently seizes on the disjunctive “OR” to try to achieve two purposes – first, to imply that McQueary was confused about which of two totally separate things he saw (“fondling” vs. “sexual contact”), and hence his credibility was in grave doubt to Paterno; second, to simultaneously try to carve out a separate category of conduct that Paterno could have heard about and not deemed reportable (“fondling,” which he later said broke down into two categories, sexual and non-sexual, with the conclusory implication that Paterno probably just might have understood that what McQ. really saw was “non-sexual fondling,” and hence nothing to get too excited about or call the cops in for). Yeah, it’s bizarre.
Oh, as for McQ. testifying that he was unsure of anything, the only thing he’s testified to was that he thought he saw “some sort of intercourse” by Sandusky, but that he did not see the actual insertion or penetration. As I’ve mentioned before, this is a so-what cheap cross examination stunt – will you admit that although you saw what looked like some form of intercourse, and you’ve earlier told the Grand Jury that you saw Sandusky behind the boy subjecting him to anal intercourse, and that all this happened after you heard slapping sounds that made you think someone was having sex, you did not see Sandusky’s penis enter the kid’s anus? Uh, sure, that’s technically correct, but I made a reasonable, indeed the only reasonable, inference that that was what was going on.