If by “stepping up in the world” you mean “making a goddamn fool of myself as usual” then I agree.
Meh. I was rushing around doing five things at once and trying to get out of the house when I posted that, and since it obviously looked like the same type of discussions that went on in the Paterno thread I assumed it was. The fact I was wrong about which thread it came from is so insignificant as to be utterly meaningless.
It is amusing though how you and your ilk try to seize upon any minor error such as this in an effort to show I’m wrong about everything, when the tactic itself shows you to be so bereft of significant argument regarding the more important issues that you have to latch onto trivialities like this.
In a very real sense it only serves to highlight my WINNINGness, and I thank you for that.
So good of you to follow me around and care so very much.
First, the only person who thinks that you “won” is you. That’s it. You’re the only one. Just you.
Second, and I think can safely assume I’m speaking for the majority when I say that if you’re the “winning” side, we’d much rather be the losers.
Abencratz?
I thought he won
the creepiest douchebag in the universe competition.
You’ve posted quotes of mine that don’t come anywhere near saying what you’ve been claiming they say. There’s not a single mention of holding off on “giving them their rights” or “giving them their rights more slowly” (a stupid phrase to begin with as their rights had already been recognized and granted through federal legislation. What I was talking about – and what you’ve been mischaracterizing – was how best to implement integration in light of their having had their rights confirmed. What I was saying in effect was that forced integration caused more problems that it solved (many blacks of time were unhappy about it as well) and that by allowing the races to come together in a more natural way, the mutual dislike and distrust that exists today – and the self-imposed mutual segregation that goes with it – wouldn’t have happened and two races would have eventually come together and joined in a way that would have been much better for everyone.
In other words, I was questioning the advisability of such things as forced busing and affirmative action. And I hate to break this to you, but neither of those are the same things as rights. So when you say I wanted to delay giving blacks their rights, you are dishonestly trying to portray forced busing as a civil right and then using my opposition to it to try to paint me as a racist, when every word of my posts as you’ve quoted shows the exact opposite – that I want and am eager for a time when both races live in harmony and the color of our skin has no more significance than the color of our hair or eyes. If you’ll recall I said as much in the statements you yourself posted in a bizarro world effort to make me look like a racist.
You also lied when you said I thought that black people got the bends from having been given their rights too soon. And you’re lying again now when you try to walk it back. The fact you said it is obvious because I denied it and corrected you on it in one of the very posts you quoted in this thread.
Hahaha, what a schmuck! Spice Weasel has said she likes you, and while I’m not about to try your tactics of trying to bully her into avoiding you, I will say that you should consider yourself lucky because you’re a lying, dissembling, phony and stupid piece of shit who doesn’t deserve any quality person’s friendship.
There, how do you like them apples?
No, anyone interested in the truth and not blinded by ideology or lynch mob thinking can see that I debunked all the ridiculous claims being made about Joe Paterno in that thread, with the result being that by the end of it all the anti-Paterno crowd could hang their hat on was to whimper impotently that he…well, he should have done “more”.
Second, I don’t care if you or anyone else doesn’t think I won. You and they are entitled to your opinions, and if you insist on denying reality that’s your business.
Third, I also don’t give a flying fuck what you or any of my other critics on this board think of me. Can you honestly not see that by now? You, and Frank, and several other of the board’s dipshit brigade continue to behave as though you think I’m ashamed of the Paterno thread or the cardboard tubes and am hoping people will forget about them. And you point out time after time that no one agrees with me and no one likes me.
But it’s water off a duck’s back, believe me. Virtually every one of you is dishonest and chickenshit to the core and your good esteem is the last thing I care about. So if it comforts you to think that I’m in some way affected by your insults or your attempts to shun me, then by all means keep it up. But if you think it’s having any effect on me whatsoever, you’re badly mistaken.
I don’t think any of you have much choice there, Guinny. You were losers long before I ever showed up.
Coming from the likes of you, I consider that a compliment.
Oh, and just for the record, here’s some more of Hector’s lying bullshit.
Anyone remember the two dozen or so times he’s alluded to my making a post in one of the Paterno-related threads where I’m supposed to be salaciously getting off on the idea of “lining up 100 10-year-old boys”? He’s insinuated this over and over again in numerous threads.
Well I just arsed myself to look it up in order to show what I actually said. It was a challenge I posted to psychobunny who appeared to feel a (hypothetical) naked hug in the shower was as bad as anal rape. I’ll post what I said to her here in full.
Anyone who values the truth would be well advised to give that lying, duplicitous asshole a very wide berth indeed.
The word is “ciao,” you dumbfuck.
Ah, so that’s why you keep returning to this thread, over and over, and cranking up your childish invective with each new post: because you don’t care what we think of you. Got it.
and…3! 
And no, actually it would be “Ciao”, as the first letter of the salutation should be capitalized.
I don’t care that people like you may not like or approve of me. I do care about the truth, and about lurkers who may be interested in the facts.
Anything else?
Then why don’t you address the vast majority of criticism, such as the criticism of JoePa that he had enough knowledge to suspect inappropriate behavior on the part of Sandusky, but did not do enough to confirm this and to stop it? That, by his actions (and lack of actions), he showed that he valued legacy, reputation, and other things over stopping potential child-rape?
I did show it. It was determined that Paterno did take seriously what McQueary told him, and that Paterno told McQueary he had done the right thing in coming to him. Paterno subsequently met with Penn State’s administrators and they decided to force Sandusky into getting treatment under threat of exposure (and thereby putting the lie to his having valued his legacy, program, etc. over stopping child abuse). There is no evidence he or they knew oral or anal sex was involved, only that Sandusky had a problem with behaving skeevily with young boys. After having joined with the rest of Penn State’s administration to force Sandusky into getting some help he likely thought the problem had been put to rest. There is no evidence that he knew of continued abuse after the shower room incident.
And that is going to have to be my last post for the night. Plus I’ve got a couple of busy days coming up and may not be able to post as much as I have been recently. This should not be considered evidence of flight.
You hear that, BigT? 
So you’ve moved from claiming that my argument is invalid because SA never said these things, to I’m a liar, to … SA just changed his mind. That’s fine, but he’s claiming he never said them.
As for the rest, I found multiple quotes from multiple times he’s, and linked them in context for you to evaluate them. It seems that you’re too invested in SA to think clearly. At least, something is keeping you from thinking clearly.
Who the fuck is grossbottom?
This doesn’t put the lie – it’s just further evidence that Paterno valued other things over ensuring child-abuse wasn’t happening. If someone might be a threat to children, you don’t get them “treatment” – you dig until you’re sure they are or aren’t a threat to children, and if they are, you turn them into the police (if not going to the police first!).
That’s more than enough to suspect that there may have been sexual abuse. Paterno had the knowledge and opportunity such that he could have dug further into Sandusky’s behavior, and he chose not to.
It’s not reasonable that he thought getting Sandusky some help would ensure the problem would be put to rest. Paterno was not an ignorant old fool – he was an educated man and a veteran. I hold him to a higher standard – the standard of a reasonable and decent person. Paterno failed that test.
He had more than enough information to suspect that there might be sexual abuse, and that it might be continuing. He just decided not to pursue it further than the tiny steps he took.
Shame on Paterno.
He’s quoting himself saying “line up a hundred 10-year-old boys” and ask them about anal rape…
in order to prove that I’m lying about him suggesting that you line up 100 ten year old boys to ask them about anal rape?
Huh? This guy is really demented or just phoning in his trolling. He quoted himself literally saying exactly what I’ve referred to him saying in order to prove I’m lying?
I bet next he claims that he never said anything about paper towel tubes.
Well, I think what he’s denying isn’t that he proposed the thought experiment, but rather, that he’s “salaciously getting off” on the idea. He said that’s what you’re insinuating.
With these thought experiments of his, the problem is that most people, on visualizing something like that, would have an automatic and appropriate “ick” reaction and wouldn’t wish to put others through the experience of having formed such mental imagery, so they would naturally refrain from using it in a thought experiment articulated out loud in public.
SA seems to either not have that automatic ick reaction, or does not seem to mind putting others through the experience of forming such disgusting imagery in their own minds. Both failures are problematic–if he’s not grossed out by this, or doesn’t mind grossing others out by talking about it, we lose all sense of what is actual boundaries are. The thought naturally occurs to us that he’s “salaciously getting off” on this stuff, consciously or un-.
Also, c’mon, admit it: the almost complete lack of any kind of support does get to you just the tiniest bit, doesn’t it? Even the most insensitive among us could practically see the spittle flying as you typed the quoted text.
Be brave, little one. I’m sure if you just explain yourself a few more times, people will finally get it.
Well said. Not only is it disgusting to think about putting this question to ten year old boys, but he proposed this idea in the context of the unfolding Sandusky child rape story, when people were still shocked and horrified about what they were hearing. His proposed thought experiment was beyond tone deaf to context as well as normal sensibilities.
On top of all of that, he chose some really odd and … unfortunate language to boot. Where someone might propose that we “survey 100 boys” or even just “ask 100 boys”, he chooses to “line up 100 boys…”. It doesn’t fundamentally alter how gross and tone deaf the thought experiment was, it just makes it even weirder. One marvels that he didn’t opt for “probing” them on the subject.
I think you’re right though. I think he still does not understand how normal people hear something like that. Why else would he proudly re-paste it again for everyone to read?