I don’t feel particularly trolled, and my pearls remain unclutched. I realize he thinks he’s winning this. It’s typical of sociopaths. But he’s wrong. All that’s happened here is that he’s outed himself as a monster. If he continues on, I imagine he’ll admit to worse and worse things. He’s the one flailing about.
I’m not trolling him, but if I were, I couldn’t have done a better job of it.
A golden oldie from aught five,
[QUOTE=crowmanyclouds]
I apologize to all rapists, for confusing them with child molesters.
…
Like there’s a fucking difference.
[/QUOTE]
CMC fnord!
Out of curiosity, I looked it up, and it turns out he was:
[
](Joe Paterno - Wikipedia)
I doubt any of the people posting in either thread knew that, though.
Sorry, but I really can’t think of any other way he might have come up with this:
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Do you really think a six-foot, three-inch sixty-something man could be having full-blown penetrative anal sex with a ten-year old boy in the manner McQueary thought he saw? To achieve penetration and thrusting action the man would have to be squatting so far down that his ass would be closer to the ground than his knees and he’d fall over backwards, pulling the kid with him - not to mention that his leg and back muscles would never stand the strain.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I suppose it could have been a joke.
I’ll be damned if I ever again directly engage this yutz (SA) on any subject, much less this one, but I can’t help but wonder if he’s got family he lives with. A wife, maybe kids. I wonder if he ever discusses with them what he’s doing on the 'Net . That must make some interesting dinner table conversation: “Yeah, honey, so I told them there’s no way a guy my age could buttfuck a ten-year old kid, and you should have seen them swoon! What a bunch of idjits! As soon as I finish my coffee, I guess I’ll head back upstairs and give 'em another one to chew on!”
Well, I’m guessing either they don’t know what he’s up to or he lives alone and has for a long time. That might explain his apparent disassociation from society. Not that important one way or another; I just enjoy speculating. You know, the way SA has only been speculating on what might have happened in that locker room.
Starving Artist, you probably don’t realize the following:
Curley and Schultz, by law, are not allowed to investigate anything - they are required to report to police (either to Harmon, head of campus police or municipal police)
By law, staff making the report is required to be informed by supervisor that makes the official report that the report has been made (to campus police or municipal police and to the child abuse reporting line, etc.)
So even having fulfilled a legal obligation to report, Paterno still would have known that it never got reported because he is required by law to be informed when the report is made to police within 12 hours verbally and 48 hours in writing.
My suspicion is that he *witnessed *a child being raped, or knew about it, way back when, kept quiet about it for some reason (perhaps a threat?), and has spent the intervening decades in denial - trying to convince himself that he was doing the right, moral thing somehow by keeping quiet about it. His moral compass tumbled along the way, in the process of trying to work out some moral rationalization that would absolve him of his cowardice. It even allows him to ignore and invent facts in that tortured method of claiming that the period of his childhood was idyllic, and it’s somehow Those Others who messed all of society up with their damn liberalism.
But it’s never too late. SA, *whatever *happened, *however *long ago, *whoever *did *what *to whom, there is still help available for you. A quick Googling will give you the local Rape Hotline number, and they can gladly steer you to the help you have spent so much time telling us you need. It’s still possible for you to come back to the world, even now. Do please call, and do please let us know how it turns out.
Note: he’s never addressed any of the other reports from the OTHER victims of Sandusky. No matter how many times people bring it up.
Which lends credence to my theory that he’s not so interested in defending Sandusky/pedophilia per se, just defending Paterno’s reaction to the report of this incident. You would have to think that the whole student body of Penn State is comprised of child molestors to think every knee-jerk defender of Paterno is doing it out of that motivation. But when you find someone who doesn’t go to PSU doing it, someone who has proven time and time again to be dangerously indoctrinated in the Republican death cult, and you realize that Paterno has been a longtime GOP booster…it all comes together.
Which leaves aside the fact that he’d like to pretend that the McQueary report, which he pretends he’s handled just fine, is the only angle on which Paterno is vulnerable. We may never know whether, contrary to common sense, Paterno was in fact totally unaware of the earlier shower-related complaints against Sandusky, or just what he knew about the pervasive man-boy contacts, including on-campus and on football road trips, the GJ indictment reveals as overt between Sandusky and his victims. It is not prima facie reasonable to assume that Joe P., on the “knew or should have known” standard that is reasonable to apply on a moral calculus, had absolutely no clue of other signs, apart from McQueary, of deviancy by Sandusky. Logic says he must or should have had such a clue, but SA won’t ever admit it. Quite all right, the McQueary episode alone is sufficient to indict Joe P. morally
That theory actually makes a lot of sense. It would explain why he’s spent his time here on the boards trying to convince us that things like that didn’t happen back in the '50s. Because he’s desperately trying to convince himself that things like that didn’t happen back in the '50s.
Have my fact-based defense of Paterno and spot-on analysis of what almost certainly wasn’t happening in the shower room that night finally driven you people insane, or merely revealed it?
For the record, yours truly has never been involved in any sort of illegal sexual activity with children, nor has he ever been the recipient of it.
Also, neither I nor any of my three siblings have ever became involved in drugs, we’ve never became alcoholics, and none of us ever been arrested.
Of course we were raised in a time when parents disciplined their children, schools required you to pass tests to advance to the next grade, and the vast majority of kids had two parents at home teaching them proper values. Unfortunately, the counter-culture revolution and its attendant social liberalism came along and “fixed” all that.
You can’t substantiate a word of either accusation.
“The truth is self-defeating if you’re a liberal.”
~Rush Limbaugh
Circa Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign
Of course I can’t. That’s why I called it a theory. There’s no proof to be had except what you’ve burried deep within your soul.
And I have absolutely no clue what that quote of Rush’s means. Was he high on pain killers even back then?
It means you are constitutionally unable to accept the truth in what I’ve been saying here (which would be self-defeating), and therefore you have to concoct dishonest, nonsensical and accusatory theories theories to account for that which you have no other defense for.
Actually, that was a misquote. Correctly stated it should be:
To tell the truth is self-defeating if you’re a liberal.
Given the frequency which other, almost invariably liberal, posters lie about what I’ve said around here, I’m thinking that rather than explaining yet again what I’ve already said, I may just make that quote my de riguer response…sort of like the quarry thing, only more pertinent. 
ETA: Only trouble is, I’d have to use it practically non-stop. Maybe I could write a macro!
Your “spot-on” analysis of what happened in the shower?
You are completely fucked in the head.
If by “fact-based” you meant “based on the fact that you are a pederast”, then yes to both.
And in the shower.
This might be the most fucked up thread I’ve ever read. Starving Artist is a piece of shit.
On classic Loveline, Adam Carolla used to mock people who claimed they were falsely accused of child molestation by asking if they were in a slapstick 70s sitcom where a child slipped nearby and fell on their dick. It was a good example of edgy, transgressive humor.
Starving Artist seems to think this actually happens.