Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In this thread, discuss the life and music of singer Michael Jackson. What are your favorite songs and albums? Why was he special to you?

If you wish to discuss his death, then please the the GDF thread that is already open.

Let's keep it civil, okay?

Damn Farrah Fawcett and MJ died today!

Shocking man, sad sad loss.

Indeed.

RIP The King of Pop.

R.I.P MJ

rip

No way! This is like....well....like when Heath Ledger died, it's real but it sure as hell don't feel real. This is quite sad He was very talented

Its a very sad day the whole would will miss him may his soul rest in peace


THE KING IS DEAD RIP

RIP Mike

It seems celebrities are dropping like flies this year.

RIP MJ.

So sad. The man was a true legend. I really can not believe it.

cry

cC1TTz2bMmM

http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr267/ThibautVantomme/4946_1161658995841_1058800712_30495.jpg

RIP The King of Pop.

I can not believe the King is dead

It doesn't feel real!

cry

A similar thread to this in the GDF has been completely derailed by arguments about MJ's life. This thread has avoided that so far, which is to be lauded. Please keep it like that.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Michael Jackson's actions were and are our business because he was a public figure who wanted to live in the public sphere. While his monetary issues are a private matter the sleeping with children is our business because it is a possible indicator of a crime. MJ shared baths with children and beds with them- this is societies business because MJ was a Society Leader.

Was he a paedophile? I suspect that he was missing a few screws and perhaps did something stupid with a child (or maybe children) such as an inappropriate question or touching. I doubt it was malicious or even harmful. I really doubt that he did anything outright illegal either and I think we have to remember that in the original allegation case the mother was with MJ and her son when they were together, saw what was going on and never did anything about it. Apparantly nothing inappropriate happened until she realised how much money could be made from it.

They are not OUR business, crimes are the business of the authorities and the people involved. Not us. Society is nothing but owed that these crimes go punished, not that we are treated as if involved. We are not.

It's not societies business what he does with any children. It BECOMES the authorities' business if and when he breaks the law with them. That's it. It doesn't matter how weird or freaky you deem it to be, that's how it is.

I agree with pretty much anything else you said.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They are not OUR business, crimes are the business of the authorities and the people involved. Not us. Society is nothing but owed that these crimes go punished, not that we are treated as if involved. We are not.

It's not societies business what he does with any children. It BECOMES the authorities' business if and when he breaks the law with them. That's it. It doesn't matter how weird or freaky you deem it to be, that's how it is.

I agree with pretty much anything else you said.

-AC

I dunno, I feel that if actions are carried out by a public figure who IS simultanously a social leader- which he was. Then the actions that person does are the business of society. Should he be judged for them or whatever I don't know but the facts should be known. Public figures don't have the right to create a false identity.

I merged Alpha Centauri's thread into the already existing thread. Please use this one from now on. Let's keep it civil, okay, guys?

I lol'd pretty hard.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A similar thread to this in the GDF has been completely derailed by arguments about MJ's life. This thread has avoided that so far, which is to be lauded. Please keep it like that. Originally posted by Impediment
I merged Alpha Centauri's thread into the already existing thread. Please use this one from now on. Let's keep it civil, okay, guys?

Since it is merged now, can here be a discussion of MJ's whole life, including the legal trouble from a few years back or is that topic just generally frowned upon?

The GDF thread is strictly for discussing MJ's death.

This thread will be dedicated to his life, music, and achievements. If people wish to discuss his legal issues here, then sobeit. However, I won't have anyone making jokes and childish remarks that could derail the thread.

However, I am thinking about closing this thread, and re-directing it to the thread in the Music Forum. It seems more at home there, if you ask me.

Quite an interesting quote from an article and the father, Evan, of alleged victim, Jordy Chandler;

"The singer began to stay at Evan's house with Jordy a lot. His behaviour, constantly following the boy around everywhere, even into the toilet, left Evan worried. He asked Jackson if he was gay. Jackson just laughed and said: 'No!', but one night Evan went into the bedroom and found him and Jordy under the same blanket.

'Jordan was in the foetal position with Michael hugging him from behind with his hand in my son's crotch.' said Evan.

'I was extremely confused. I thought that my son was a homosexual. I left them and decided to speak later when I'd calmed down.'.".

What?

"I left them.".

You find a man with his hand in your son's crotch...and you leave them alone?

Yes, a likely story.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
They are not OUR business, crimes are the business of the authorities and the people involved. Not us. Society is nothing but owed that these crimes go punished, not that we are treated as if involved. We are not.

It's not societies business what he does with any children. It BECOMES the authorities' business if and when he breaks the law with them. That's it. It doesn't matter how weird or freaky you deem it to be, that's how it is.

I agree with pretty much anything else you said.

-AC

I don't really agree with that. It is society's business. Society makes the laws, society decides what is proper and what isn't, and society forms the juries which determine guilt. The authorities arrest people who violate society's laws. Authorities only exist because society put them in that place.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

You find a man with his hand in your son's crotch...and you leave them alone?

Yes, a likely story.

It's no stranger than your claim of knowing people who allow their children to bathe with adult non-family members. My apologies if that wasn't your statement, but it still holds true. There are plenty of cases where a parent has ignored blatant signs of abuse.

The birth mother of his children came forward and stated that MJ was not the natural father to his children, a sperm donor was used. Which isn't a surprise, since his children look completely Caucasian.

More oddness to his life.

How is any of that relevant?

Originally posted by grimify
I don't really agree with that. It is society's business. Society makes the laws, society decides what is proper and what isn't, and society forms the juries which determine guilt. The authorities arrest people who violate society's laws. Authorities only exist because society put them in that place.

Yes, precisely.

Society put them in place to deal with it. If you are not authority, it's none of your business. If we are just gonna poke our nose in and keep getting involved, why have authorities?

The man was found not guilty on multiple counts by a court of law. I'm not saying courts are perfect, but like authorities, they exist for a reason. If you're going to question the outcomes no matter what, why even have them? The point of having them is coming to an acceptable judgement, which is more often than not.

There simply isn't enough opposing evidence to claim otherwise.

Originally posted by grimify
It's no stranger than your claim of knowing people who allow their children to bathe with adult non-family members. My apologies if that wasn't your statement, but it still holds true. There are plenty of cases where a parent has ignored blatant signs of abuse.

Fail.

Seeing a man abuse your son or daughter and WALKING AWAY is not ignoring a "blatant sign", it's being a c*nt of a parent. That goes beyond "blatant sign".

Furthermore, it's not outlandish as what I said. During war times, hosepipe bans were frequent and neighbours were advised to save water by bathing with trusted friends. It's not an uncommon thing.

It's also possible that if they were together THAT much, that he saw him getting out of the shower or whatever. Many reasons.

-AC

Was just watching "This Morning"

Well Mark Lester that British guy who claimed to be a really close and friend of Jacksons and has been leading the charge in the 'Jacko's innocent' response, didnt know that Jacko was a long term injecting drug addict with a perchance for painkillers.

Now he was one of Jackson's closet freinds.

This side of Jackson was a side "I never knew that side existed".
One of his closest friends.

He knew the guy better than you do, AC, and he was apparrently completely shocked at this which due to dosages, many brands of morphine type drugs and repeated tracker marks would have been noticeable that he was injecting.

He also saied that he tried to give Jackson Accupuncture claiming that Jackson didnt want to as he hated needles, then said a minute later that he gave Jackson Accupuncture "the once".

Interesting.

Ever had pethadine which is Demirol..? I did for a ****ed kidney stone type situation once.

No way is this a recent thing if he is taking those sorts of doses along with the others and managing to maintain, imo.


Its seems pretty clear that MJ was very good at decieving those close to him.

How many people knew he was totally bald also..?

All the reports from his closest fans and family said he was in top physical shape and had never looked better etc, yet the autopsy reveals this emaciated 8st 5 dude who bore the signs of a long term addiction to painkillers and injecting drugs.

The plot indeed does thicken.



Also, regards to the above thang you be discussing:

C**t of a parent. Yes. Liar of a child? Not automatically.


The point of Robtard's last post seems to be also that "He lied" as he said they we all his, didnt he..?

How does any of that draw us closer to him being a paedophile?

I missed that part.

I'm not saying the man hasn't lied, but then again, there is allegedly/apparantly proof that he lied in those areas. There is none that he has lied in others.

I have said before, I do not make connections without proof. So while you'll say "If he lied about this, he lied about that.", I won't say that. I don't know what he did, what mental state he was in etc.

-AC

The part you missed: He is a proven liar who denies against a lot of evidence against him, that he was innappropriate with the kids.

Thats right. You dont know his mental state.
And therefore, surely its possible despite your beliefs that there may be some truth to it after all...?

Liars track record: Not gonna be so believeable, by your own admitted ethos.

You say that, when in Jacksons favour, yet not the other way round, it seems or do I have that part wrong..?

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
The part you missed: He is a proven liar who denies against a lot of evidence against him, that he was innappropriate with the kids.

Thats right. You dont know his mental state.
And therefore, surely its possible despite your beliefs that there may be some truth to it after all...?

Liars track record: Not gonna be so believeable, by your own admitted ethos.

You say that, when in Jacksons favour, yet not the other way round, it seems or do I have that part wrong..?

No, here's the part you miss; you and I do not have the same definition of inappropriate. You think he was grossly inappropriate for letting children share his bed and such, right? I don't. I don't find his behavior with children inappropriate unless he abused them.

If the evidence is against him and is fact, he can't deny it, can he? There hasn't been enough evidence to convict the guy, and people have tried continually. Now, court rulings do not mean somebody is factually guilty OR innocent all the time, but ask yourself this;

If you're gonna question a result based on lacks of evidence and NOT enough evidence to convict, accusers lying under oath and people taking pay offs, what's the point of even having courts?

-AC

That "birth mother" bit was just a snippet about MJ and his life, which is what this thread is about, no? Also, the man has no problem lying about things that are easily proven wrong.

I'm curious to your thought process, would you mind telling me which of these things you believe to be true or false?

Slept in bed with young a boy(s).

Followed a boy(s) around excessively. (This is considering he's a grown man and the kid was 13, so it's not like they were the "bestest of friends and had so much in common".)

Followed boy into the bathroom when bou used the toilet.

Was extremely affectionate with said boy(s), which included hugging/kissing them.

Gave boy alcohol (aka Jesus Juice).

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm curious to your thought process, would you mind telling me which of these things you believe to be true or false?

Slept in bed with young a boy(s).

Followed a boy(s) around excessively. (This is considering he's a grown man and the kid was 13, so it's not like they were the "bestest of friends and had so much in common".)

Followed boy into the bathroom when bou used the toilet.

Was extremely affectionate with said boy(s), which included hugging/kissing them.

Gave boy alcohol (aka Jesus Juice).

He admitted to sharing his bed, not sleeping with as in intercourse. So yes, he slept in bed.

"Followed" boy into bathroom? I've not seen him admit this, but even so, it proves nothing. He followed the boy into a room, big deal.

Extremely affection with the boy; I assume so. Hugging and kissing? Probably. I hug and kiss my niece, I'm very affectionate toward my younger loved ones.

As long as he wasn't making out with them or touching them inappropriately (Sexually), what's the big deal?

Furthermore, something occured to me today;

Despite Jackson being acquitted in a court of law because there was absolutely not enough evidence, nor credible testimony (People who previously testified admitted to lying under oath), you and others (Or at least Sadako) maintain he was guilty. Not only is that f*cked, but it's hypocritical.

Why? Because if the court found him guilty, you would have my head for saying "But you never know, courts can be wrong.". You would 100%, totally accept the verdict.

THAT is what sucks, and it's not about "A presense of evidence suggests guilt, a lack of evidence doesn't suggest innocence.". Because there can be many things that point to someone being guilty, without them being guilty.

Courts have to judge on reasonable doubt and evidence, thus he is acquited and labelled innocent.

I think it's shitty that had he been "proven" guilty instead of "proven" innocent, people would be accepting that verdict without question.

-AC

Yeah but its YOUR relatives...and a quick peck good bye or if your Niece cuddles you or whatever.

And by then have had a long history (explorable in "Michael Jackson" what really happened" of pursuing teenage boys?

But what if in 20 years you want to bath with the neighbours boy?

Im sure you'd agree that that would be a sign of the wrongun.




And going back to Jaden's Hitler analogy earlier, its only theory, but one that fits more easily than the covoluted defence.

Orkham's razor.

And we have proof that he is a liar.

I think, btw, that it is equally "f***ed" that your love of his music has blinded you a little here.

I mean....The early stuff was f***ing amazing....but jeeeeeesh.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He admitted to sharing his bed, not sleeping with as in intercourse. So yes, he slept in bed.

"Followed" boy into bathroom? I've not seen him admit this, but even so, it proves nothing. He followed the boy into a room, big deal.

Extremely affection with the boy; I assume so. Hugging and kissing? Probably. I hug and kiss my niece, I'm very affectionate toward my younger loved ones.

As long as he wasn't making out with them or touching them inappropriately (Sexually), what's the big deal?

Furthermore, something occured to me today;

Despite Jackson being acquitted in a court of law because there was absolutely not enough evidence, nor credible testimony (People who previously testified admitted to lying under oath), you and others (Or at least Sadako) maintain he was guilty. Not only is that f*cked, but it's hypocritical.

Why? Because if the court found him guilty, you would have my head for saying "But you never know, courts can be wrong.". You would 100%, totally accept the verdict.

THAT is what sucks, and it's not about "A presense of evidence suggests guilt, a lack of evidence doesn't suggest innocence.". Because there can be many things that point to someone being guilty, without them being guilty.

Courts have to judge on reasonable doubt and evidence, thus he is acquited and labelled innocent.

I think it's shitty that had he been "proven" guilty instead of "proven" innocent, people would be accepting that verdict without question.

-AC

I do believe he was a pedophile, considering his odd behavior with other peoples young male children.

Only question I have, how far did it go? He just longed for them, touching that bordered on the inappropriate, or being a full blown pederast, I can't say. I'd guess the first and possibly the second to some extent.

Very true of the "if he had been found guilty", because of his odd behavior with children that lead up to the accusation. It's not like there wasn't a shred of odd behavior previously and then he was just accused out of left-field.

If Elton John was accused of fingering a 10 year old boy, I'd keep a clear mind until there was some proof that lead to suspicion.

edit- whoops. thought you something compeltely different.

and i dont really see how him being a liar about something unrelated has to do with the molestation accusations. everybody lies. absolutely everyone bar-none ( cept for jesus and jar-jar ). to say that he lied about A and thus its likely he lied about B doesnt add up imo.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do believe he was a pedophile, considering his odd behavior with other peoples young male children.

Only question I have, how far did it go? He just longed for them, touching that bordered on the inappropriate, or being a full blown pederast, I can't say. I'd guess the first and possibly the second to some extent.

Very true of the "if he had been found guilty", because of his odd behavior with children that lead up to the accusation. It's not like there wasn't a shred of odd behavior previously and then he was just accused out of left-field.

If Elton John was accused of fingering a 10 year old boy, I'd keep a clear mind until there was some proof that lead to suspicion.

Indeed.

A well balanced way of looking at it.

Originally posted by WO Polaski


and i dont really see how him being a liar about something unrelated has to do with the molestation accusations. everybody lies. absolutely everyone bar-none ( cept for jesus and jar-jar) ). to say that he lied about A and thus its likely he lied about B doesnt add up imo.

Does the fact that he was a constantly lying opiate abuser (and he 'didnt have loads of surgery', when he clearly did... not suggest to you that he in the face of getting busted for being a paedo, he would lie and pay off loads of other folk to lie?

no actually it doesnt.

i mean if a 23 year old man was convicted of murdering someone and he says he didnt do would you say that him being caught lying about joyriding in his fathers car ten years prior would suggest that he is lying about not murdering the person? like i said everyone lies to save face at one point in their life or another so i wouldnt use that as evidence or as a staple for anything really. ive always found the moral of the story of the boy who cried wolf to be moronic.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yeah but its YOUR relatives...and a quick peck good bye or if your Niece cuddles you or whatever.

And by then have had a long history (explorable in "Michael Jackson" what really happened" of pursuing teenage boys?

But what if in 20 years you want to bath with the neighbours boy?

Im sure you'd agree that that would be a sign of the wrongun.

You're saying he "pursued" teenage boys, but again, if the pursuit (Which is a bit of an implicit way to put it) didn't end in abuse, we've got no issue.

Furthermore, Michael Jackson clearly had a different mindset. Would I personally do the bathing thing? No. Does it mean him doing so was anything other than odd? No. Unless we have proof.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
And going back to Jaden's Hitler analogy earlier, its only theory, but one that fits more easily than the covoluted defence.

Orkham's razor.

And we have proof that he is a liar.

I think, btw, that it is equally "f***ed" that your love of his music has blinded you a little here.

I mean....The early stuff was f***ing amazing....but jeeeeeesh.

1) Occam's razor doesn't always work, it's just an idea. Like the Hooves/Horses medical thing. "If you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras.". That's to save time if someone's life's at stake and you have to make a call, however, zebras have hooves, and there's a chance you f*ck up by suggesting horse over zebra.

2) It's not blinded me, I refuse to accept that he is a paedophile because I have every reason to believe he didn't do it. A court of law proved him wrong, parents have been continually after his money, people have lied under oath. To continue questioning any other way would be dumb.

Originally posted by Robtard
I do believe he was a pedophile, considering his odd behavior with other peoples young male children.

Odd behavior with other peoples' young, male children means he abused them sexually?

I didn't expect such a leap from you, honestly.

Originally posted by Robtard
Only question I have, how far did it go? He just longed for them, touching that bordered on the inappropriate, or being a full blown pederast, I can't say. I'd guess the first and possibly the second to some extent.

Then what's the issue? Longing for children (Which I do believe is a bit of a negative way to put the love he had) isn't an offense. Touching that BORDERS on inappropriate does not a paedophile make. It doesn't matter if he should not be doing it, because it still doesn't make him a paedophile unless he's attracted to them.

Originally posted by Robtard
Very true of the "if he had been found guilty", because of his odd behavior with children that lead up to the accusation. It's not like there wasn't a shred of odd behavior previously and then he was just accused out of left-field.

There's also evidence to suggest he was just a troubled, kind, generous man who was odd. You call that inappropriate, I don't.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Odd behavior with other peoples' young, male children means he abused them sexually?

I didn't expect such a leap from you, honestly.



Then what's the issue? Longing for children (Which I do believe is a bit of a negative way to put the love he had) isn't an offense. Touching that BORDERS on inappropriate does not a paedophile make. It doesn't matter if he should not be doing it, because it still doesn't make him a paedophile unless he's attracted to them.



There's also evidence to suggest he was just a troubled, kind, generous man who was odd. You call that inappropriate, I don't.

-AC

Where did I make the leap? There is odd behavior, then he was accused, it isn't much of a leap, as a possibly conclusion.

I'd find it hard to believe he longed for them and possibly touched them inappropriate (on purpose of course), yet he wasn't a pedophile. You're putting the horse before the cart.

He was troubled, his behavior indicates that. He was also a very giving man who came off as excessively gentle and kind. That has nothing to do with his hanging around young males, sharing a bed etc.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How is any of that relevant?



Yes, precisely.

Society put them in place to deal with it. If you are not authority, it's none of your business. If we are just gonna poke our nose in and keep getting involved, why have authorities?

The man was found not guilty on multiple counts by a court of law. I'm not saying courts are perfect, but like authorities, they exist for a reason. If you're going to question the outcomes no matter what, why even have them? The point of having them is coming to an acceptable judgement, which is more often than not.

There simply isn't enough opposing evidence to claim otherwise.

-AC

First off, "authorities" are very much subject to the wants of society. Lawmakers don't keep their positions unless they meet the wants and needs of society.

You also admit that courts aren't perfect, yet you say we can't question the outcome. If something is proven to make mistakes, we have every right to question it...indeed we should.

It seems you just have a different political view here. You seem like an intelligent person, but you're advocating intentional ignorance. I couldn't ever agree with that. Our government is what we make it, and it's continually changing to meet our needs.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Fail.

Seeing a man abuse your son or daughter and WALKING AWAY is not ignoring a "blatant sign", it's being a c*nt of a parent. That goes beyond "blatant sign".

Furthermore, it's not outlandish as what I said. During war times, hosepipe bans were frequent and neighbours were advised to save water by bathing with trusted friends. It's not an uncommon thing.

It's also possible that if they were together THAT much, that he saw him getting out of the shower or whatever. Many reasons.
-AC

Parents ignore abuse all the time. Wives stay married to, and lie for, abusive husbands every day. Parents don't report abuse by priests. That is not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. It doesn't have to make sense to you, because it isn't up for debate. It's a fact, it happens, too often.

Anyway, that's all I'll post on the subject. No one here is going to be changing their mind so I don't see a point.

Originally posted by Robtard
The birth mother of his children came forward and stated that MJ was not the natural father to his children, a sperm donor was used. Which isn't a surprise, since his children look completely Caucasian.

More oddness to his life.

I was just discussing this yesterday. very odd indeed

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're saying he "pursued" teenage boys, but again, if the pursuit (Which is a bit of an implicit way to put it) didn't end in abuse, we've got no issue.-AC

And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

Originally posted by Impediment
And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

whats wrong with that? as long as the child isnt being abused why is there a problem?

I think that grown man might have been mentally unstable with a child like brain.

Originally posted by Impediment
And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

Where is your evidence?

He was proven innocent in court.

Next time Channel 4 or More 4 show that "what really happened" special, have a gander. They detail some there. It goes back to his Thriller days.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Where is your evidence?

He was proven innocent in court.

I have no evidence.

Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

Sadako, you're seriously suggesting...Channel 4?

Watch Channel 4, the U.K.'s shittest tabloid TV channel. Don't listen to the court ruling.

Channel 4, the channel that televised Teen Big Brother, on which they co-erced young teens, barely of age (If they even were), into having sex on live TV.

A channel to be trusted, because THEY aren't after ratings more than truth. Oh no.

Originally posted by grimify
First off, "authorities" are very much subject to the wants of society. Lawmakers don't keep their positions unless they meet the wants and needs of society.

You also admit that courts aren't perfect, yet you say we can't question the outcome. If something is proven to make mistakes, we have every right to question it...indeed we should.

Question it if there is suspicion of foul play. There isn't in this case. There IS evidence to suggest these people are after his money, there IS evidence and sworn quotes that say these men and kids lied under oath, there are many quotes from other celebrity youngsters such as Macauley Culkin, who have said that he never once inappropriately touched them.

He WAS accused of doing so, by the way.

In fact, one of my father's close friends was his lawyer at one point. It was one of two guys, Eric Sauter or Steven Marcelino. I had the pleasure of meeting Eric (I think) during a visit to New York and he said that his wife, rather embarrassingly, ran up to Culkin and asked him "Did he touch you, really?", and Culkin flat out denied it. This was without any cameras around.

Now, I don't expect everyone to believe that, but I am not a liar and I am not a bullshitter.

Originally posted by grimify
It seems you just have a different political view here. You seem like an intelligent person, but you're advocating intentional ignorance. I couldn't ever agree with that. Our government is what we make it, and it's continually changing to meet our needs.

My point, as I was getting to above, is the fact that you seem to feel that a lack of evidence doesn't make the man not guilty. For all intents and purposes, it does. Just like people are wrongly convicted of crimes and put on death row, because sure, there was "enough" evidence to suggest they were guilty.

Originally posted by grimify
Parents ignore abuse all the time. Wives stay married to, and lie for, abusive husbands every day. Parents don't report abuse by priests. That is not an assumption, it's a statement of fact. It doesn't have to make sense to you, because it isn't up for debate. It's a fact, it happens, too often.

Anyway, that's all I'll post on the subject. No one here is going to be changing their mind so I don't see a point.

If what Evan Chandler said is true, then it's highly likely and in fact probable, that he saw nothing inappropriate in a sexual manner, but inappropriate in a manner he deemed too improper for a man to be doing with his son. This obviously caused the court case and what I believe to be the lies.

Originally posted by Impediment
And you.............see no problem with a grown man "pursuing" young boys? May I ask why?

I don't even believe he was pursuing them so much as he was looking for children to be friends with. I honestly do believe the world is not so shitty that a man OR woman cannot be that nice to children that are not his or her own.

I think, at most, Michael Jackson might have considered "You know, people are vultures and are definitely out to get me. Maybe pursuing this course, as innocent as it is, would not be the best course.", and help himself out a little.

However, he didn't have to, if he was genuinely innocent.

Originally posted by Impediment
Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

So many things wrong with this line.

1) Why do people keep harping on the sleepovers, as if they are the crime?

2) It'd be the parents' fault.

3) IF he was a paedophile and did abuse that boy, it's still significantly less blame for him. He was just doing what a paedophile does. Wrong, but expected. The more evil, creepy, sadistic folks are the families who sent their kids back, knowing it was possible, just to make money.

Either way, he comes off less bad.

In the WORST case scenario, he fondled children inappropriately. He was still exceptionally caring and loving toward them. He wasn't raping or killing. So let's be thankful for small mercies. The parents are still the worst people in the situation.

This is irrelevant though, as I don't believe he was a paedophile.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So many things wrong with this line.

1) Why do people keep harping on the sleepovers, as if they are the crime?

2) It'd be the parents' fault.

3) IF he was a paedophile and did abuse that boy, it's still significantly less blame for him. He was just doing what a paedophile does. Wrong, but expected. The more evil, creepy, sadistic folks are the families who sent their kids back, knowing it was possible, just to make money.

Either way, he comes off less bad.

In the WORST case scenario, he fondled children inappropriately. He was still exceptionally caring and loving toward them. He wasn't raping or killing. So let's be thankful for small mercies. The parents are still the worst people in the situation.

This is irrelevant though, as I don't believe he was a paedophile.

-AC


1. You, yourself, see no "possible foul play" in a grown man asking if your child can sleep over at his house? Childless or not?

2. I agree with you.

3, I strongly disagree. While the hypothetical parents could be chastised for letting their son sleep over at a grown man's house, is not the (hypothetical) pedophile more to blame for the actual act of molestation?

The hypothetical molester was loving and caring? Small mercies? You're serious?

So, what next? The hypothetical rapist of a young 12 year old girl pulls out so as to avoid impregnation?

Hahahah yes normally beneath me, Much of 4, AC but still...

Tabloidy channel or not, this wasnt very tabloidy, this doc. It was evidence submitted by a US invesigator and other sources, including Jackson's manager, and Jackson acted the way Jackson did in footage it showed, by himself. Like on the Bashir doc.
I recall no gun at his head.

Originally posted by Impediment
1. You, yourself, see no "possible foul play" in a grown man asking if your child can sleep over at his house? Childless or not?

Stop asking me that question when I've given you and many others a clear cut, reasonably answer with backing.

You're not Rain Man.

Originally posted by Impediment
3, I strongly disagree. While the hypothetical parents could be chastised for letting their son sleep over at a grown man's house, is not the (hypothetical) pedophile more to blame for the actual act of molestation?

The hypothetical molester was loving and caring? Small mercies? You're serious?

So, what next? The hypothetical rapist of a young 12 year old girl pulls out so as to avoid impregnation?

Let's weight it up:

Man is to blame for molestation, one count of wrong doing.

Parents are to blame for knowing it could happen and still placing child there. Parents then continue to do it despite it being alleged. Parents force children to lie under oath. Parents take pay off.

That's four counts of child exploitation, using paedophilia as a willing sacrifice.

You're asking me if I think they're worse? F*cking right I do. If Michael Jackson was a paedophile, he's clearly not the worst kind of paedophile. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. He never physically seemed to hurt a child, never abducted a child, never killed. So IF...IF he molested them, he should be blamed, but that's it.

The parents did much worse than a guy simply thinking with his dick. You should know that as a parent, protection of your kid comes before anything else. You don't point the finger at everyone but yourself.

-AC

Originally posted by Impediment
I have no evidence.

Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

I would even let him touch my son's willy for 22 million

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri


Stop asking me that question when I've given you and many others a clear cut, reasonably answer with backing.

You're not Rain Man.

Defintely not. No. No, definitely not. Uh-oh.

I have not, in fact, read your retort. Care to give me a link?


Originally posted by Alpha Centauri

Let's weight it up:

Man is to blame for molestation, one count of wrong doing.

Parents are to blame for knowing it could happen and still placing child there. Parents then continue to do it despite it being alleged. Parents force children to lie under oath. Parents take pay off.

That's four counts of child exploitation, using paedophilia as a willing sacrifice.

You're asking me if I think they're worse? F*cking right I do. If Michael Jackson was a paedophile, he's clearly not the worst kind of paedophile. You'd be a fool to think otherwise. He never physically seemed to hurt a child, never abducted a child, never killed. So IF...IF he molested them, he should be blamed, but that's it.

The parents did much worse than a guy simply thinking with his dick. You should know that as a parent, protection of your kid comes before anything else. You don't point the finger at everyone but yourself.

-AC

You're, of course, talking about the parents of the children who knew MJ and, still, let their kids sleep over at the house of MJ, right? Okay. I agree with you 100% that these parents where, in fact, money vultures with nothing more than dollar signs in their eyes.

My penultimate question to you, AC, is:

If you knew Michael Jackson as an individual, beit rich or poor, you're honestly gonna sit here and say to me that you actually feel 100% comfortable with letting your child(ren) stay at a grown man's house? Honestly?

This is not about the greed of dumb ass parents. It's about setting boundaries AS A PARENT.

Originally posted by GCG
I would even let him touch my son's willy for 22 million

22? Why not just for 20?

Originally posted by Impediment
My penultimate question to you, AC, is:

If you knew Michael Jackson as an individual, beit rich or poor, you're honestly gonna sit here and say to me that you actually feel 100% comfortable with letting your child(ren) stay at a grown man's house? Honestly?

This is not about the greed of dumb ass parents. It's about setting boundaries AS A PARENT.

I would if I trusted him, or her, yes.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I would if I trusted him, or her, yes.

-AC

Ah, but: putting that much trust into an individual can be one's downfall, no?

Precisely, but bearing in mind I'd have no reason to distrust.

If I did, I would no longer allow the visits.

-AC

But doesnt that strike you as a bit of 'sticking your dick in the mains outlet, when the power may or may not be on flipping the switch, and saying "well if my dick isnt burned off, I'll do it again tommorrow" ' logic....?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Precisely, but bearing in mind I'd have no reason to distrust.

If I did, I would no longer allow the visits.

-AC

Umm......isn't that a little like saying "I'm gonna put my hand into the piranha tank. If my hand isn't eaten, then I'll do it again. If it IS eaten, then I won't do it again."

So..............where does common sense prevail here?

Dirty finger or no dirty finger, the man is dead, so we'll never know beyond the shadow of a doubt if he was a pedophile or not.

So, who's ready for the media circus when all the vultures start coming out to peak at the corpse for dollars and cents, should be some serious scumming about.

Well, this is the way i've always seen it. MJ was a repressed 10 year old. He obviously had mental health issues, but he just didnt fit the profile of a paedofile imo. The man never had a childhood, and i believe he was searching for it for the rest of his life. I could be completely wrong - maybe he was a paedofile, but that's never been my belief.

What's a "pedophile's profile" to you?

Good point. Like i said, he could be. I just have a feeling he was innocent, a feeling doesnt need an explanation, but i'm now aware that "repressed childhood" and "mental issues" could definately make that profile.

Holy shit, Stun! You just described everyone in the world!

Originally posted by Impediment
Umm......isn't that a little like saying "I'm gonna put my hand into the piranha tank. If my hand isn't eaten, then I'll do it again. If it IS eaten, then I won't do it again."

So..............where does common sense prevail here?

No, because piranhas, whether you personally know them or not, are capable and likely to devour your flesh in minutes.

I would have no reason to assume someone is a paedophile.

Bad, bad analogy. Like, shamefully.

-AC

Originally posted by Impediment
I have no evidence.

Still, would you let your adolescent son (existing or hypothetical) sleep over at a grown man's house?

Many many mothers did- none of them ever said anything happened until AFTER they realised there was money to be made from it. Where is the evidence for that? The fact the original claimant approached MJ's lawyers for money BEFORE reporting a crime.

The fact that MJ allowed kids to sleep in his home or even his bed proves nothing beyond he was a little odd. I think most people accept that it is possible that MJ did at some point make a mistake by asking an inappropriate question or maybe at a push inappropriate touching. However, that does not make him a paedophile. He was quite disturbed I believe and maybe made mistakes- but nothing harmful or malicious. Let us recall the Home Alone star who was and is still adamant nothing ever happened that was wrong when he was with MJ.

MJ was found innocent after a grueling trial in Law Courts and the Court of Public opinion. The case against him put forward in this thread is not based on any evidence- all you guys seem to have been able to demonstrate is that it was possible for MJ to have inappropriate contact with kids and that he enjoyed being around young people. This is not evidence of anything other than that.

Being a little odd, having kids stay over at his house does not make him a paedophile.

That's essentially what this debate degenerates to, a debate about whether or not his odd actions were acceptable, because there's evidence of nothing else.

They're none of anybody's business besides his and the families, so they don't need to be accepted by anyone.

-AC

Michael's corpse is rotting as we speak.

No point in calling him a pedophile now.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Michael's corpse is rotting as we speak.

No point in calling him a pedophile now.

Well if he was, then there is a point.

But the FACT is there is no evidence to suggest he was. All the evidence amounts to is: "He was a bit odd and liked to spend time with some children." That is not evidence of him being a paedophile in any way shape or form.

I think what he meant was that there's no point continually calling him one, even if he was.

-AC

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Well if he was, then there is a point.

But the FACT is there is no evidence to suggest he was. All the evidence amounts to is: "He was a bit odd and liked to spend time with some children." That is not evidence of him being a paedophile in any way shape or form.

I'm willing to bet forensic psychologists would disagree. As I showed in the thread that was closed, his relationships with children were indentical in numerous ways to predatory paedophiles grooming children for sex.

Here's that section I mentioned

Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)

Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)

Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)

When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)

The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)

It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour

As I also stated before, the physical evidence of sex crimes is often exceptionally difficult to prove (Hence the reason why so many rapists go free)

Molestation without any intercourse can leave no evidence at all after a relatively short period of time. More so in boys than girls because a broken hymen in girls is at least evidence of some form of penetration but even then, the circumstances of why it happened as subject to debate.

So to say that there is no evidence that he was a paedophile is nonsense. Circumstantial evidence for it through his behaviour patterns is overwhelming. It's just not legally enough to prove specific charges of abuse.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm willing to bet forensic psychologists would disagree. As I showed in the thread that was closed, his relationships with children were indentical in numerous ways to predatory paedophiles grooming children for sex.

So in every single case where a man has those relationships with a child he is in fact a sexual predator?

The court disagreed with you by the way...

Originally posted by jaden101
Here's that section I mentioned

Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)

Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)

So any man who does this is a predator?

Originally posted by jaden101
Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)

So any man who does this is a predator?

Originally posted by jaden101
When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)
Nice use of the term supposedly...

So my babysitter as a child was grooming me and my brothers for sex?

Originally posted by jaden101
The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)
It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour

As I also stated before, the physical evidence of sex crimes is often exceptionally difficult to prove (Hence the reason why so many rapists go free)

Molestation without any intercourse can leave no evidence at all after a relatively short period of time. More so in boys than girls because a broken hymen in girls is at least evidence of some form of penetration but even then, the circumstances of why it happened as subject to debate.

So to say that there is no evidence that he was a paedophile is nonsense. Circumstantial evidence for it through his behaviour patterns is overwhelming. It's just not legally enough to prove specific charges of abuse.

Nothing you have presented is viable evidence, it can easily be explained away for what it is- a vague portrait painted around the character in question (MJ) but made opaque enough to share the incidents with indeed, millions of men. Some of whom are predators...

Once again, he was found not guilty- it wasn't some sort of sham trial either, everyone was trawling over it and he was found innocent. Where is your actual evidence?

Where is the records of children complaining IMMEDIATELY after the incident?

Where are the reliable eyewitness accounts from reliable characters?

Where is the forensic evidence?

What really surprises me is you haven't brought up the fact that one child was able to describe MJ's discoloured- white/black genitalia...I guess you really have to research your case against Jackson deeper.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm willing to bet forensic psychologists would disagree. As I showed in the thread that was closed, his relationships with children were indentical in numerous ways to predatory paedophiles grooming children for sex.

Here's that section I mentioned

Befriending the family, parent or parents. (He claims to have been good friends with the abuse alleger's parents.)

Offer to take child out on treats e.g. the cinema, zoo, funfair, swimming, play football etc. (Doesn't really need to offer given that he has a funfair in the Ranch)

Paedophiles often very willing to engage in child activities that parents are less willing to such as play computer games for hours on end, buy them gifts e.g. mobile phone (Stated that one of his favourite pass times was climbing trees. As you stated yourself, bought the children lots of gifts)

When looking after the child allow them to drink and eat forbidden food, allow them to swear, watch programmes and films they are normally not allowed to watch, play fight, stay up late (supposedly gave them alcohol and allowed them to watch pornography)

The paedophile will show the child affection, giving them hugs and cuddles (As shown by many pieces of footage of him with children)

It's easy to see why people are implying that his behaviour is more than just odd or eccentric. It matches known sexual predator behaviour

As I also stated before, the physical evidence of sex crimes is often exceptionally difficult to prove (Hence the reason why so many rapists go free)

Molestation without any intercourse can leave no evidence at all after a relatively short period of time. More so in boys than girls because a broken hymen in girls is at least evidence of some form of penetration but even then, the circumstances of why it happened as subject to debate.

So to say that there is no evidence that he was a paedophile is nonsense. Circumstantial evidence for it through his behaviour patterns is overwhelming. It's just not legally enough to prove specific charges of abuse.

It's logically not enough to prove it, either.

Just shows that it was most likely that he was.

All it objectively shows is that he liked being around kids. None of that inherently implies any sort of sexual relationship or interest, and so it's bunk.

Exactly.

None of this shows he was most likely a man who sexually abused young children, not at all.

-AC

May his soul rest in peach,he is on of the great pp star,his music will be with us forever

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Exactly.

None of this shows he was most likely a man who sexually abused young children, not at all.

-AC

I wouldnt go that far.

People'll disagree but, meh, my kids wont ever be round in a 45 year old opiate addict who acts within paedo grooming profile parameters' bed....

So in short:

-MJ showed behavior that is similar to known pedophile profiles

-MJ was accused of being a pedophile

-MJ wasn't convicted of being a pedophile

Conclusion:

-There is no chance MJ was a pedophile

I find this all very, very odd, from the people that have absolutely no doubt (100% certainty) he wasn't. Considering they'd probably do believe OJ killed his wife and her lover.

-OJ showed violent behavior and made threats

-OJ was accused of murder

-OJ wasn't convicted of being a murderer

Conclusion:

- OJ killed and got away with it due to his celebrity status, his money and idiocy from those accusing him.

Ahh the OJ attack.

What about the thousands of people who meet both parameters but are not guilty?

OJ's case is comparable, tis why it's used. Do you think OJ is really innocent, or he slipped by the court system?

For instance?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So in every single case where a man has those relationships with a child he is in fact a sexual predator?

The court disagreed with you by the way...


So any man who does this is a predator?


So any man who does this is a predator?


Nice use of the term supposedly...

So my babysitter as a child was grooming me and my brothers for sex?



Nothing you have presented is viable evidence, it can easily be explained away for what it is- a vague portrait painted around the character in question (MJ) but made opaque enough to share the incidents with indeed, millions of men. Some of whom are predators...

Once again, he was found not guilty- it wasn't some sort of sham trial either, everyone was trawling over it and he was found innocent. Where is your actual evidence?

Where is the records of children complaining IMMEDIATELY after the incident?

Where are the reliable eyewitness accounts from reliable characters?

Where is the forensic evidence?



Did you actually read anything I wrote?

Your strawman argument of "so every man who does this is a sexual predator" is about the most obviously pathetic strawman in the history of these forums and that really is saying something.

What I said is these are known and documented behaviours of sexual predators that Michael Jackson exhibited towards children...None of those actions were vague and applied to Jackson. They were his documented either by video evidence or by testimony.

As for the forensic evidence...Again...did you actually read anything i posted or did you just read the 1st couple of lines and jump to a pathetically reactionary response?

Do all children in sexual abuse cases compain immediately after it happens or do some live with it for years and years?



It's massive circumstantial evidence of his potential sexual predator behaviour...But the case wasn't to prove whether he exhibited those traits or not...It was about specific cases for which physical evidence is extremely difficult to prove (not just in this case but in a huge amount of sexual abuse cases involving adults or children)

That's the point i'm making...Just because a specific case is difficult to prove with physical evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. The argument to the contrary is nonsense given how many women have watched the person who raped them go free because of rape laws and the legal requirements of proof.




So the fact that I haven't addressed a point means I didn't know about it?...Or is that you, once again, using a strawman?

Originally posted by Robtard
OJ's case is comparable, tis why it's used. Do you think OJ is really innocent, or he slipped by the court system?

For instance?

It is comparable but not conclusive.

Originally posted by jaden101
Did you actually read anything I wrote?

Your strawman argument of "so every man who does this is a sexual predator" is about the most obviously pathetic strawman in the history of these forums and that really is saying something.

What I said is these are known and documented behaviours of sexual predators that Michael Jackson exhibited towards children...None of those actions were vague and applied to Jackson. They were his documented either by video evidence or by testimony.

As for the forensic evidence...Again...did you actually read anything i posted or did you just read the 1st couple of lines and jump to a pathetically reactionary response?

Do all children in sexual abuse cases compain immediately after it happens or do some live with it for years and years?



It's massive circumstantial evidence of his potential sexual predator behaviour...But the case wasn't to prove whether he exhibited those traits or not...It was about specific cases for which physical evidence is extremely difficult to prove (not just in this case but in a huge amount of sexual abuse cases involving adults or children)

That's the point i'm making...Just because a specific case is difficult to prove with physical evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. The argument to the contrary is nonsense given how many women have watched the person who raped them go free because of rape laws and the legal requirements of proof.




So the fact that I haven't addressed a point means I didn't know about it?...Or is that you, once again, using a strawman?

You entire argument was based on stereotype not on evidence.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, where is the proof? There isn't any.

All you have managed to prove is that you would make a terrible lawyer. (Assuming you don't have a Lawyer mode to switch into that is).

Originally posted by jaden101
It's massive circumstantial evidence of his potential sexual predator behaviour...But the case wasn't to prove whether he exhibited those traits or not...It was about specific cases for which physical evidence is extremely difficult to prove (not just in this case but in a huge amount of sexual abuse cases involving adults or children)

That's the point i'm making...Just because a specific case is difficult to prove with physical evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen. The argument to the contrary is nonsense given how many women have watched the person who raped them go free because of rape laws and the legal requirements of proof.

It's actually not that massive. Since none of it directly implies child molestation in any logically sound way.

It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it certainly doesn't mean that it did happen. I dunno if he did it or not, he may have. Or maybe he didn't. Nothing concrete either way. My point was simply that the evidence you provided wasn't enough to prove guilt, or even imply it, in any meaningful way.

So forensic psychologist construct profiles that are based on stereotypes now do they?...This is their findings of behaviour patterns in child sex offenders...Not my opinions.



You're the one who's showing your ignorance of circumstantial and corroborating evidence...Not me.



Actually it's not really comparable at all...OJ was guilty...There physical evidence to show it. The police were just idiots and decided to strengthen their case by making up even more evidence. They didn't have to and he got away with it.



Except for the part that I already mentioned that these behaviours are actions attributable to child sex offenders on each and every step.

Don't know about any of the males on here but how many non-child sex offenders on these boards exhibit these behaviours?

Lavishing other people's children with gifts?
Spending large amounts of time, unsupervised with other people's children in your own home?
(allegedly) Plying children with alcohol?
Sleeping with other people's children in the same bed?

I can't say i know of anyone who does these things. My guess is that very few of you, if not none of you, will know anyone who does these things.

The odd thing is, i'm not saying he did or didn't do it. I'm just countering the fact that you're all saying there's no proof he did it when the fact is that all those actions are considered corroborating evidence. It's the kind of evidence an expert witness would be brought in to explain his knowlege of child sex offenders behaviour compared with non child sex offender behaviour.

Originally posted by jaden101
I can't say i know of anyone who does these things. My guess is that very few of you, if not none of you, will know anyone who does these things.

I don't know any multi-millionaires who have been famous from such a young age, with abusive fathers, that they more or less had no childhood, though.

-AC

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is comparable but not conclusive.


And that was the original point, it's comparable.

I find it odd when people argue in MJ's defense from a 100% certainty point of view that he's innocent and that there isn't even a minutia of chance he did something improper and/or illegal with the child(ren). When they'd argue that OJ is likely guilty.

OJ can't moonwalk.

Originally posted by Robtard
And that was the original point, it's comparable.

I find it odd when people argue in MJ's defense from a 100% certainty point of view that he's innocent and that there isn't even a minutia of chance he did something improper and/or illegal with the child(ren). When they'd argue that OJ is likely guilty.

The opposite is true, though.

If M.J. was found guilty on the same amount of evidence as there is now, nobody would say "He might be innocent.", nor would you I assume.

More people would gladly accept the decision of the justice system THEN.

He may have done it, but I do not believe he did for reasons stated, and that is not an unreasonable stance.

-AC

This touching trubute from Essex's finest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wphWwW8npEY

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
This touching trubute from Essex's finest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wphWwW8npEY

I don't think that's sh*t because they say he fiddled with kids.

I think it's sh*t because it perpetuates the myth and fact that Essex is populated by cannon fodder.

-AC

fair enough.

Myth?

Somehow I get the impression that those songwriters don't actually believe what they're saying so much as it's for shock.

If they didn't like him, they wouldn't prefix it with "R.I.P. Michael Jackson." on a black screen.

Oh yeah, I forget you're a Londoner.

You obviously know about Essex then.

-AC

No... Im in Essex, I just agree with you about a lot of people here.
Seen enough of the city to know that basically people are the same all over though..

Actually it is a belief of Kunt's.
But yeah, he wrote that for effect, definitely.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
This touching trubute from Essex's finest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wphWwW8npEY

Just watched/listened to that. Hahahaaa.

I do hope that cat is wearing a wig.

Love him or hate him, everybody has at least one Michael Jackson song that they like.

I was not a fan of his, but I liked a couple of his songs.

The day after he died was a sad time for me...all day long all the radio stations played his songs...I felt a little sad because listening to tracks like Human Nature and Billie Jean took me back to how it was living / growing up in the 80s. It was a much simpler time.

The 80s spawned many a great thing (music, toys, TV shows) and now that a major figure of the 80s has passed makes me feel sad, even though I did not like Michael Jackson.

R.I.P MJ.

sad sad loss,beat it

i still am mourning.

Michael Jackson's death is ruled as a Homicide:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090824/ap_en_ot/us_michael_jackson_investigation

He is a legend!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abRCag9wxpw

My favorite song is thriller i really love that song. That is the only song i like of Michal Jackson.



Thanks.

My all time favorite is "Dangerous"

he was heart of the pop. I really like Michael dance and song. he was a all rounder guy. I have lots of photos or music collection of Michael Jackson.

Michael Jackson of course!! He broke every record Elvis set and nobody listens to Elvis much anymore but plenty of people still listen to MJ's music!!

Hello !!! Michael Jackson's actions were and are our business because he was a public figure who wanted to live in the public sphere. While his monetary issues are a private matter. The sleeping with children is our business because It is a possible indicator of a crime. Michael Jackson shared baths with children and beds with them. This is societies business because Michael Jackson was a Society Leader.

Michael Jackson was an amazing musician, arguably the greatest musician to ever live. He also donated something like 200 million dollars to charity and to more charities than any other celebrity.

RIP Michael Jackson

Originally posted by KMCmember
Michael Jackson was an amazing musician, arguably the greatest musician to ever live. He also donated something like 200 million dollars to charity and to more charities than any other celebrity.

RIP Pedophile Fixed

He is, IMO, quite possibly the greatest "entertainer" that's ever lived. It'd be a good debate, but he's definitely in the team photo.

The man bathed with children, nuff said.

Michael Jackson was one of the best singers ever. I loved his songs, "Rockin' Robin" and "I'll Be there" and "The Earth Song" and "She's Out of My Life". But of course no song could ever be better than "We Are The World". Which was liked by people all across america for the diversity in the singers and for what it stood for. He cared about others. He put himself last and made sure others were happy before he tended to himself. I believe that Michael Jackson was a great man and I respected him so much.

I really can't believe its been over a year since he died.

i still cant believe hes dead, he was so awesome

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
The man bathed with children, nuff said.

And still rocked the world!!