Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But I don't think neccessarily that the implies that they are liars.
And even if they were, Jackson had exhibited enough behavior to warrent massive, unbridled concern.
Concern to who? IF...IF he is what you claim he probably is, which is a big "If", then it's of no concern to you, is it? Plan to send your kids over to Neverland? No.
Even if he was a paedophile, it's nothing to do with anyone besides him and the families.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
I dont have to justify their acceptance/non-acceptance.If Jackson was after justice, (seeking to be being seen to NOT be up to no good) then the single most dumbest thing he could do, is try to avert a fair trial like he did with the Chandlers.
Jackson had his chance at that first trial to clear his name.
But naturally, since the kid could identify specifics about Jackson's Genitals etc he shat it and paid the shutup money hoping deludedly that the world would tolorate his behavior because "Hey! Its Michael Jackson...he could NEVER be inapropriate..!"
Like I said, the pay off implies many things, but most of the reasons you can draw from it are innocent; that he didn't want to endure the pain and arduous torture of the trial any longer, and figuring that in any case, shit would go wrong...paid the family off. That one being the most obvious.
You say he had a chance to clear his name; he just recently endured a fair trial and won. What has come of it? Continued speculation. Had he not paid Chandler's family off, they still would have continued hounding him and the press would have continued the rumours. He was trying to minimise the immediate pressure on himself and he did, the trial was over. That's what I believe to have happened.
The fact that they said "Hey! You abuse my son...but you also offered us 16 mill to forget it, which is cool.", totally removes any credibility and therefore places even more clarity on Jackson.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You imply that people want him to be a nonce if they disagree with you, which I feel is unfair, as I was a fan til 1993 and was horrified, not elated that he was a a f***ing perv.
No, I don't imply that.
It's the fact that people were and are so intent on seeing him proven to be a paedophile that it's sickening. It's almost as if they want Jackson to go down so badly that they are totally willing to accept that he is a paedophile. People were disappointed that he got acquited, that's sick in itself. Since they had no proof he did it. It's not like the O.J. trial.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Put it this way:If I'M wrong, then boohoo, I was wrong about a man who had a long history of kiddy chasing who sat for ages with young teen boys on his knee even at public events, in his bedroom (According to Brooke Sheilds), and then realising that he was going down paid 16 million gagging order when it was in his interests to clear his name
You are being just as bad. "Kiddy chasing", and demonising the fact that he had a love of kids. You know there's no proof that it was anything other than platonic love, none whatsoever, do you? No. No proof.
So you are trying to attach as much negative stigma to his possibly benign actions as possible. You can't just say "attachment to children", which is what it was either way. You, like everyone, HAVE to place negative meaning on it. It's sad to see.
As for the pay off, I still disagree. It wouldn't have changed anything, and it makes the parents look worse than Jackson.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
who wanted access to the kids of the world (Well, not that he vigorously pursued every boy, just the "type" he liked.. ..and only 'til the first signs of adulthood too.) yet showing that he has no idea how to be around them. (Baby dangling, touching, Jesus Juice etc)....who deserved to be looked at with scrutiny and failed to stand up to it.
"Touching"? What do you mean by "touching"?
As for the baby dangling; in some instances he didn't help himself. He did things I have no explanation for, but this isn't about him being different or odd, or doing odd things that people criticised. It's about levelling accusations at him that can't be proven, for reasons that can't necessarily be backed up.
You wanna talk about him pursuing kids until they had reached his point of preference and then ditching them. If that's indication of guilt, why ignore that families pursued him, not for justice, but for money?
Are you gonna ignore this simply because he did have an interest in children? Like it or not, there's still a chasm of lacking proof between the way he was with kids, and arriving at the conclusion "He was a paedophile.".
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
If you're wrong, you defended a nonce against all common sense thrown at you.
What common sense? Like assuming that he sexually abused children? Nothing I've seen suggests that. Because I am not someone who believes that what he did implies it. It was an odd interest in kids at WORST, at WORST. That's it. It's none of my business.
You've already decided that he's a "nonce", that's the problem. The courts acquited him, parents were willing to get paid off, this all points to "Maybe we should accept that we might have been wrong, and accepted that we just disagreed with his lifestyle. Not that it was necessarily ill-intended.".
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Im sleeping quite soundly, thank you.
So are the millionaires that are the Chandler family, I assume.
Kind of makes me sick.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriConcern to who? IF...IF he is what you claim he probably is, which is a big "If", then it's of no concern to you, is it? Plan to send your kids over to Neverland? No.
Even if he was a paedophile, it's nothing to do with anyone besides him and the families.
Like I said, the pay off implies many things, but most of the reasons you can draw from it are innocent; that he didn't want to endure the pain and arduous torture of the trial any longer, and figuring that in any case, shit would go wrong...paid the family off. That one being the most obvious.
You say he had a chance to clear his name; he just recently endured a fair trial and won. What has come of it? Continued speculation. Had he not paid Chandler's family off, they still would have continued hounding him and the press would have continued the rumours. He was trying to minimise the immediate pressure on himself and he did, the trial was over. That's what I believe to have happened.
The fact that they said "Hey! You abuse my son...but you also offered us 16 mill to forget it, which is cool.", totally removes any credibility and therefore places even more clarity on Jackson.
No, I don't imply that.
It's the fact that people were and are so intent on seeing him proven to be a paedophile that it's sickening. It's almost as if they want Jackson to go down so badly that they are totally willing to accept that he is a paedophile. People were disappointed that he got acquited, that's sick in itself. Since they had no proof he did it. It's not like the O.J. trial.
You are being just as bad. "Kiddy chasing", and demonising the fact that he had a love of kids. You know there's no proof that it was anything other than platonic love, none whatsoever, do you? No. No proof.
So you are trying to attach as much negative stigma to his possibly benign actions as possible. You can't just say "attachment to children", which is what it was either way. You, like everyone, HAVE to place negative meaning on it. It's sad to see.
As for the pay off, I still disagree. It wouldn't have changed anything, and it makes the parents look worse than Jackson.
"Touching"? What do you mean by "touching"?
As for the baby dangling; in some instances he didn't help himself. He did things I have no explanation for, but this isn't about him being different or odd, or doing odd things that people criticised. It's about levelling accusations at him that can't be proven, for reasons that can't necessarily be backed up.
You wanna talk about him pursuing kids until they had reached his point of preference and then ditching them. If that's indication of guilt, why ignore that families pursued him, not for justice, but for money?
Are you gonna ignore this simply because he did have an interest in children? Like it or not, there's still a chasm of lacking proof between the way he was with kids, and arriving at the conclusion "He was a paedophile.".
What common sense? Like assuming that he sexually abused children? Nothing I've seen suggests that. Because I am not someone who believes that what he did implies it. It was an odd interest in kids at WORST, at WORST. That's it. It's none of my business.
You've already decided that he's a "nonce", that's the problem. The courts acquited him, parents were willing to get paid off, this all points to "Maybe we should accept that we might have been wrong, and accepted that we just disagreed with his lifestyle. Not that it was necessarily ill-intended.".
So are the millionaires that are the Chandler family, I assume.
Kind of makes me sick.
-AC [/B]
No Ive decided that his high HIGH likelihood of his noncery has been evidenced by his own behavior.
Oh really? Your going to play the "Its none of your business if he wants to be a kiddy fiddler....." card.
Well its none of yours either....yet your spending alot of time as an excuse maker for the guy...Where does THAT get the debate..?
Ihave no doubt from the "Its HIS business" line that if you were Jospeh Fritzel's neighbour, and you were the only one to know what was going on there, that those kids, still be down there as his prisoner.
Serious mate, I shit you not:
Whether it be the Bible, The 9/11 commission report, Michael Jackson fans account of his infaliablity around children or whatever you like, the more a force angrily asserts "dont question me" the more it is the duty of the intelligent to question why not and ask why they are shitting it and avoiding truth coming out.
No intent required, btw, nice attempt at mispaint the picture.
Yeah the touching was that alleged by Chandler who we know speaks from authority, as he knew exactiy what the distinctive markings were on Jacksons erect penis.
There no desire to percieve guilt..... yet the perception remains.
And also that that we saw with Jackson sitting straddled with 12 year old boys on his lap at award ceremony is another instance of public indecent contact that his manager felt it so revealing/dodgy, that he stepped in to stop it.
Yeah its all sickening for sure.
But I say to you that I sleep soundly at night in regards to coming to the conclusions that people everwhere have come to, after seeing a lot of evidence in his behavior to back up the allegations. Nothing more.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
No Ive decided that his high HIGH likelihood of his noncery has been evidenced by his own behavior.Oh really? Your going to play the "Its none of your business if he wants to be a kiddy fiddler....." card.
Well its none of yours either....yet your spending alot of time as an excuse maker for the guy...Where does THAT get the debate..?
If I had no reason to believe he was harming kids, which I do not, I'd do nothing. Why would I act any other way?
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ihave no doubt from the "Its HIS business" line that if you were Jospeh Fritzel's neighbour, and you were the only one to know what was going on there, that those kids, still be down there as his prisoner.
Not if I knew it was factually going on.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Serious mate, I shit you not:Whether it be the Bible, The 9/11 commission report, Michael Jackson fans account of his infaliablity around children or whatever you like, the more a force angrily asserts "dont question me" the more it is the duty of the intelligent to question why not and ask why they are shitting it and avoiding truth coming out.
No intent required, btw, nice attempt at mispaint the picture.
I'm not saying don't question it, I'm saying that questioning it in spite of evidence countering you is just a witch hunt.
That's my point.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yeah its all sickening for sure.
But I say to you that I sleep soundly at night in regards to coming to the conclusions that people everwhere have come to, after seeing a lot of evidence in his behavior to back up the allegations. Nothing more.
You don't have evidence, you have speculation.
You have an odd interest in children at BEST, and "descriptions" of the man's genitals that were shaky at best, and evidently still not enough to get him convicted.
In his favour is the fact that there IS no proof that it was anything but a friendly love, the ability of his accusers to be paid off, parents having a history of mental illness, countless testimonies from people (Some who didn't even like him) saying that he'd never do that and the fact that courts still couldn't get evidence for it.
That's enough for me.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
My opinion would be the same."That's a bit weird.". Weird because it's not usually done.
So what? It doesn't mean anything. Lots of people do weird things that I don't understand. As long as nobody got hurt or abused unwillingly, who cares?
😆 😆 😆
Do your potential kids a favor and don't have any children.
If you do, don't let them sleep in the same bed as that weird uncle or touchy granny. Just trust me. 🙂
It will save you thousands of dollars on therapy for your kids....or something.
Edit
Originally posted by occultdestroyer
I agree with George Carlin.
**** the kids and **** their parents.
Agreed. What stupid dumbass children get into the bed of a person like Michael, at 8? Dude, I most certainly knew what "strangers", "bad guys", and the things you shouldn't do with adults....like get into bed with a man who looked like a woman. I hate to say it, but I blame the kids for getting molested, too. Dumbass little shits. (Sure, someone can yell and scream all day that they were innocnet...they weren't educated on the terrors of molestors, etc. Blah blah. Okay. If they didn't get the stranger talk many times as a kid in America....then they are illegal immigrants who can't speak English. 😄 )
Originally posted by ImpedimentMichael Jackson and Johnny ahs did have that title to quite a few people before their death though.
I just realized something: Now that MJ is dead, we will see an outpour of "lifetime" fans that call him the greatest of all time. The same thing happened with Bill Hicks and Johnny Cash, too.
Originally posted by dadudemon
😆 😆 😆Do your potential kids a favor and don't have any children.
If you do, don't let them sleep in the same bed as that weird uncle or touchy granny. Just trust me. 🙂
It will save you thousands of dollars on therapy for your kids....or something.
I don't plan to anyway, never have.
Disgusting little fleshlings.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIf I had no reason to believe he was harming kids, which I do not, I'd do nothing. Why would I act any other way?
Not if I knew it was factually going on.
I'm not saying don't question it, I'm saying that questioning it in spite of evidence countering you is just a witch hunt.
That's my point.
You don't have evidence, you have speculation.
You have an odd interest in children at BEST, and "descriptions" of the man's genitals that were shaky at best, and evidently still not enough to get him convicted.
In his favour is the fact that there IS no proof that it was anything but a friendly love, the ability of his accusers to be paid off, parents having a history of mental illness, countless testimonies from people (Some who didn't even like him) saying that he'd never do that and the fact that courts still couldn't get evidence for it.
That's enough for me.
-AC [/B]
Ok.
Odd interest in children wtf ?
And odd interest in the truth behind this case, maybe, you f***ing loon lolz
JACKSON seemed to be the one with the odd interest in children.
Ive been defending them, not trying to sleep with them like your hero..
(And if "odd interest" is constituted by not wanting to see them taken advantage of by adults, then fair enough, your comment stands.)
Youre the one accusing them of being lying when the likelihood for all you know is that theyve been abused....?
You really havent got both hands on the wheel about this anymore, do you, if childish and angry logic processes like "If you dont agree I'll paint you up as a degenerate" have taken the place of logical thought.
I get pissed about 9/11 too, do I have to be a terrorist now?
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I think he was such an overwhelming musician that he will definitely be remembered more for what he did in that field.I still don't think the whole sex charges thing was as much his bad judgement as him being set up. The best that can happen is, if it's gonna be remembered, people remember that it went in his favour, and stop trying to make him out to be a monster.
Yeah, the point, as usual.
-AC
I think you're exaggerating how he's portrayed. Noone I know thinks of him as another Gary Glitter. The child sex jibes are more in jest than in hatred.
I also don't think he was set up. It's not like he was conned into inviting kids into his home and his bed. I'm not saying that some dubious parents haven't taken advantage of that but that's not the same as being set up.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauricrylaugh MAN you are a piece of work. I swear, you must have been one of MJ's "special friends" back in the day. I could ask you to clearly make your point and point out what I am missing, but I know you wont. More mind games and circling around the airfield, as usual.
I think he was such an overwhelming musician that he will definitely be remembered more for what he did in that field.I still don't think the whole sex charges thing was as much his bad judgement as him being set up. The best that can happen is, if it's gonna be remembered, people remember that it went in his favour, and stop trying to make him out to be a monster.
Yeah, the point, as usual.
-AC
It's not the jokes I have issue with.
Never have.
Like I said, he did things that maybe brought attention on himself. However, kids sleeping in his bed does not mean he was doing anything to them. Secondly, it's none of our business.
You say "If it were your kids...", yeah. Then it'd be my f*cking kids and therefore my business.
Who here has had kids at Neverland? I'm...I'm seeing no hands.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Ok.Odd interest in children wtf ?
And odd interest in the truth behind this case, maybe, you f***ing loon lolz
JACKSON seemed to be the one with the odd interest in children.
Ive been defending them, not trying to sleep with them like your hero..
Are your arguments that weak that you have to adopt a stance whereby it's borderline fact that he molested them (Which is how you're promoting it), and calling him my hero? He's not my hero.
Do you have factual proof he was trying to have sexual intercourse with the kids? No? Then stop claiming it. You have the burden of proof here, and if you cannot back it up, don't claim it.
All that's been established is that they've slept in his bed. Many kids have even testified that nothing happened. Of course, this gets ignored in favour of "He could have frightened them into shutting up.". Nothing is ever accepted as "Maybe it was what they say it was; innocent." with Jackson.
Anything involving "He abused kids.", and it's taken at face value.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
(And if "odd interest" is constituted by not wanting to see them taken advantage of by adults, then fair enough, your comment stands.)Youre the one accusing them of being lying when the likelihood for all you know is that theyve been abused....?
It's not likelihood unless that's the most likely scenario. I have nothing to suggest that, and neither do you. You have what you consider to be odd, which then (To you), means he was probably a paedo.
I can not make that drastic leap with confidence.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
You really havent got both hands on the wheel about this anymore, do you, if childish and angry logic processes like "If you dont agree I'll paint you up as a degenerate" have taken the place of logical thought.I get pissed about 9/11 too, do I have to be a terrorist now?
It's not illogical or angry logic. It's me being rather creeped out at the fact that rather than accept that all available evidence points to the fact that at worst, you could label his lifestyle odd, people choose to belief there's this mythical evidence out there that'll prove him to be a paedo.
Fact is, even with the pay off, if they wanted justice and actually had shit on M.J., what was stopping another equally rich or powerful media source paying them double for the "truth"? They'd have taken it, logic suggests. They'd have got the money AND the guy behind bars.
Why didn't this happen?
Coooos they had nothing.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
crylaugh MAN you are a piece of work. I swear, you must have been one of MJ's "special friends" back in the day. I could ask you to clearly make your point and point out what I am missing, but I know you wont. More mind games and circling around the airfield, as usual.
If I've explained how you're missing it before actually telling you that you'd missed it, why would doing so again clear any air?
Here goes; it wasn't the fact that you made the video post. It was that you made a declarative statement that implied you had many reasons to believe he deserved to be "****ed with". I called you on it, you had none, then tried to pass it off as a joke.
Are you clear or are you gonna continue to join in out of hopes that someone will congratulate you? Maybe just go back to the OTF to talk about fighting or whatever.
First off, what warrants such a comment as that? Do you feel cool being that juvenile? "You must have been one of his special friends."? Ironic that you, a man who refuses to grow the f*ck up, is in here criticising Michael Jackson.
-AC
Maybe we'll never know, but judging on the directly visible stuff, the neverland ranch, its alarm, testimony to the camera by his own manager, the Jordy Chandler evidence and subesquent payoff along with his own behavior fawning over the boys in that Bashir doc...the testimony from others who have known him best.
Id just say that it didnt look good, man..... And whatever his problem, no matter how its portrayed, his problem with kids was clearly pathological and sexual or not, whether it was a head thing or a balls thing, it was problem.
And despite how many friends always run out of the woodwork to testify to his innocence, this ALSO is just opinion.
Jerry Falwell died with lots of friends and believers devastated when he died also.....Christopher Hitchens was not one of them.
Also: I said SLEEPING with them. The rest was implied by his accusers.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well thats more like it.I said SLEEPING with them. The rest was implied by his accusers.
And accepted by you. Not exactly much better, is it?
Paedophilia is a claim that sticks with you, innocent or not. That's why everybody needs to stay the Hell out of ANY case like this.
Look at Matthew Kelly and Pete Townshend; both accused, both found entirely innocent (I believe, though there were technicalities in the latter's case). They're still riddled with stigma, though.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIf I've explained how you're missing it before actually telling you that you'd missed it, why would doing so again clear any air?
Here goes; it wasn't the fact that you made the video post. It was that you made a declarative statement that implied you had many reasons to believe he deserved to be "****ed with". I called you on it, you had none, then tried to pass it off as a joke.
Are you clear or are you gonna continue to join in out of hopes that someone will congratulate you? Maybe just go back to the OTF to talk about fighting or whatever.
First off, what warrants such a comment as that? Do you feel cool being that juvenile? "You must have been one of his special friends."? Ironic that you, a man who refuses to grow the f*ck up, is in here criticising Michael Jackson.
-AC
"Pick one" means that Jacko was so outrageous that we have many ways to pick at him. Why "call me" on it? Unless you think it is not a factual statement.
What warrants such a comment as that? Well, what warrants you thinking you have the right to tell others where and how to post? Did someone suddenly make you a moderator? No? OK then. Until they do, stfu about how and where I post and how I post.
And did you REALLY compare me being a bit immature to Wacko Jacko? crylaugh
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
And accepted by you. Not exactly much better, is it?Paedophilia is a claim that sticks with you, innocent or not. That's why everybody needs to stay the Hell out of ANY case like this.
Look at Matthew Kelly and Pete Townshend; both accused, both found entirely innocent (I believe, though there were technicalities in the latter's case). They're still riddled with stigma, though.
-AC
But not mush worse, either. Its a very strong possiblity, even you would have to admit, that he did the Chandler thing.
Good point about stigmatisation but, Id say that MJ did enough in his life to deserve the stigma.
Matthew Kelly I dont regard as guilty neccesarily.
Pete Townsend....Definitely.
I dont buy that "Research" excuse.
It did also f**k with my enjoyment of the Who.
Id say Townsend's stigma was very well deserved.
I honestly also think that RJ has never opened a fairground then had strange kids sleep with him, while extremely possibly having exposed himself to them, whilst being seen with 12 year old boys straddled on his lap in public.
The day he does that..... Ill hold your coat. 🙂