Oh so you want to hush it up or cover it up just like Paterno and PSU did to protect the football program??? Swept it under the rug for so long until you got busted.

BOBPennStateUniversity wrote: Seems a few people here have unhealthy interest in talking about men having sex with boys.

Paterno did not know mjen could rape men or boys about such a thing. Ask his cult member indy


Did Paterno know women could get raped? Did Paterno think male on male sex was al consensual?

I don't want to cover up anything. I was the first person to call for his statue removal, and put it in writing to the State College newspaper.

Clearly what this situation needs is more silence.

http://www.centredaily.com/sub...#navlink=subnav

This is the link to the State College newspaper. You can express whatever you feel needs to be said.

Thanks for pointing out what is apparently the only appropriate forum for discussion on that topic.

There are legal forums for people who enjoy talking explicitly about these types of sexual behavior. 

I am suggesting honesty about the attraction to this. I am not saying that they are pedophiles.

CincinnatiKid wrote:

Also I think sexual noises sound... sexual?

But that doesn't make them so.  McQueary testified that when he heard those sounds, he expected to see a man and a woman in the shower. 

He also said that when he saw the boy's face he didn't have a look of pain or distress.  He didn't see Sandusky's hands and never said he saw fondling.  The boy was 10-12 years old and his head only came up to Sandusky's pecs.  He said the boy's feet were on the floor, which means, given Sandusky's size, intercourse was impossible.  He never saw Sandusky's genitals.   So how did the AG see fit to tell the world in the presentment that McQueary witnessed anal intercourse (which Mike also denied he ever told anyone)?

Nobody is saying that Sandusky wasn't grooming a victim that night or that Sandusky isn't where he belongs.  What we are saying is that McQueary never actually saw anything sexual and by the time he met with Curley and Schultz, he had calmed down and what he reported sounded more like horseplay.  And when you think about what everyone involved did, including Mike; when you examine the emails in that context, it all makes sense.

BOBPennStateUniversity wrote:
I am suggesting honesty about the attraction to this. I am not saying that they are pedophiles.

And I think you are using not so subtle insults (with just a hint of homophobia) to try and get people to not talk about the ongoing mess at PSU.

I'm sure there is a post coming with the lesson that it isn't nice to call PSU fans pedophiles and you are showing all of us the error of our ways by giving us a taste of our own medicine.  Then again, maybe not.  That whole bit was the favorite of a different PSU poster, and you are new to the board, right?

BOBPennStateUniversity wrote: There are legal forums for people who enjoy talking explicitly about these types of sexual behavior. 

I am suggesting honesty about the attraction to this. I am not saying that they are pedophiles.

We have no doubt that you are intimately familiar with those forums. Keep them to yourself. Or share them on the Penn State board.

BOBPennStateUniversity wrote: http://www.centredaily.com/sub...#navlink=subnav

This is the link to the State College newspaper. You can express whatever you feel needs to be said.

........we can do that right here, BOB.

indynittany wrote:

CincinnatiKid wrote:

Also I think sexual noises sound... sexual?

But that doesn't make them so.  McQueary testified that when he heard those sounds, he expected to see a man and a woman in the shower. 

He also said that when he saw the boy's face he didn't have a look of pain or distress.  He didn't see Sandusky's hands and never said he saw fondling.  The boy was 10-12 years old and his head only came up to Sandusky's pecs.  He said the boy's feet were on the floor, which means, given Sandusky's size, intercourse was impossible.  He never saw Sandusky's genitals.   So how did the AG see fit to tell the world in the presentment that McQueary witnessed anal intercourse (which Mike also denied he ever told anyone)?

Nobody is saying that Sandusky wasn't grooming a victim that night or that Sandusky isn't where he belongs.  What we are saying is that McQueary never actually saw anything sexual and by the time he met with Curley and Schultz, he had calmed down and what he reported sounded more like horseplay.  And when you think about what everyone involved did, including Mike; when you examine the emails in that context, it all makes sense.

Stand on the train tracks with your eyes closed. If you hear something that sounds like a train, don't fret. Continue standing there. It doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get hit by a train. Good luck.

indynittany wrote:

CincinnatiKid wrote:

Also I think sexual noises sound... sexual?

But that doesn't make them so.  McQueary testified that when he heard those sounds, he expected to see a man and a woman in the shower.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges. 

He also said that when he saw the boy's face he didn't have a look of pain or distress.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges. He didn't see Sandusky's hands and never said he saw fondling.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges. The boy was 10-12 years old and his head only came up to Sandusky's pecs.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges. He said the boy's feet were on the floor, which means, given Sandusky's size, intercourse was impossible.  He never saw Sandusky's genitals.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges.  So how did the AG see fit to tell the world in the presentment that McQueary witnessed anal intercourse (which Mike also denied he ever told anyone)?  You are such a f*cking dope. 

Nobody is saying that Sandusky wasn't grooming a victim that night or that Sandusky isn't where he belongs.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges. What we are saying is that McQueary never actually saw anything sexual and by the time he met with Curley and Schultz, he had calmed down and what he reported sounded more like horseplay.  You are such a f*cking dope.  The police are the ones to examine this.  Not The four stooges. And when you think about what everyone involved did, including Mike; when you examine the emails in that context, it all makes sense.  You are such a f*cking dope. 

I just wanna see the movie. I hope they do justice to the legacy of JoePa, who was a great man who had feet of clay.

Take your schtick to FOS.  they are much much worse than us and still in denial.  Come back here when you get all the idiots and apologists on your own board under control.  There are a lot of people on FOS that say the "conversation is changing" and this whole sick mess is going to be forgiven.  Sanctions will be reversed.  People will see what really happened.  Well, I want the clowns that ran (and run) PedSU to get what they earned by hiding serial pedophilia for monetary gain.  TSM and The football factory had to be protected at all costs.  Trying to shame us into silence is exactly the opposite that will keep us quiet.  Try admitting all the crimes, from JoePed to JS or go away.  You will not like the conversation. 

BOBPennStateUniversity wrote: There are legal forums for people who enjoy talking explicitly about these types of sexual behavior. 

I am suggesting honesty about the attraction to this. I am not saying that they are pedophiles.

BOBPennStateUniversity wrote: There are legal forums for people who enjoy talking explicitly about these types of sexual behavior. 

I am suggesting honesty about the attraction to this. I am not saying that they are pedophiles.

Only a sick twisted pervert like you would call messages on a board an attraction.

What a stupid thing to say.

Why engage indynittany ? The guy is obviously over the deep end. At FOS there are some who agree with him, some who argue with him, and plenty who do not dive into the fray that still think he's out there.
As for this new guy, I'd just ignore him also .

dunefan wrote: 

....Trying to shame us into silence is exactly the opposite that will keep us quiet....

It's been the other way around for over a year now.  I can't believe you even typed that!

dunefan wrote:

indynittany wrote:

...So how did the AG see fit to tell the world in the presentment that McQueary witnessed anal intercourse (which Mike also denied he ever told anyone)?  You are such a f*cking dope.

What a well thought out answer!  I point out an obvious and gross fabrication by the commonwealth to sensationalize the PSU aspect of this story and you can't even entertain the possibility that they may have also pressured McQueary into embelishing his story?

And see, he's right on cue. Of course I have him on ignore so I miss out on the crazy.

They all should have called the police you f*cking dope.  None of this happens if any of them do the right thing you f*cking dope.  You still would have a life (I think) if they call the police you f*cking dope.

indynittany wrote:

dunefan wrote:

indynittany wrote:

...So how did the AG see fit to tell the world in the presentment that McQueary witnessed anal intercourse (which Mike also denied he ever told anyone)?  You are such a f*cking dope.

What a well thought out answer!  I point out an obvious and gross fabrication by the commonwealth to sensationalize the PSU aspect of this story and you can't even entertain the possibility that they may have also pressured McQueary into embelishing his story?