OT Sad News
Don McKenzie
Sad news:
Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
Michael Jackson dies at 50.
?A girl has apparently died from electrocution while using her laptop to
post on twitter, while in the bath. Maria Barbu, 17, of Brasov, Romania,
is said to have been plugging her laptop into wall current at the time,
after "the battery died during a long session on social networking site
Twitter as she took a soak."
http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/blogs/the_gadget_hound/rss/article/3656
and for a change of pace:
wait a minute or two for this page to load correctly.
http://producten.hema.nl/
Don...
--
Don McKenzie
Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam
Breakout, Prototype, Development, & Robotics Boards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/sparkfun-electronics.html
KR
> Sad news:
>
> Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
>
> Michael Jackson dies at 50.
>
> ?A girl has apparently died from electrocution while using her laptop to
> post on twitter, while in the bath. Maria Barbu, 17, of Brasov, Romania,
> is said to have been plugging her laptop into wall current at the time,
> after "the battery died during a long session on social networking site
> Twitter as she took a soak."http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/blogs/the_gadget_hound/rss/article/3656
>
As the old saying goes "deaths seem to come in 3's" :(
> and for a change of pace:
> wait a minute or two for this page to load correctly.http://producten.hema.nl/
TT
"Don McKenzie" <5...@2.5A> wrote in message
news:7aicoiF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Sad news:
>
> Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
That it is sad :-( RIP
>
> Michael Jackson dies at 50.
That is actually good news! One less paedophile in the
world is always good news! Just wait, now that Wacko Jacko
is gone, all the people that were paid off will come out and
start telling their stories. Now you're going see what he
was really like!
>
> ?A girl has apparently died from electrocution while using
> her laptop to post on twitter, while in the bath. Maria
> Barbu, 17, of Brasov, Romania, is said to have been
> plugging her laptop into wall current at the time, after
> "the battery died during a long session on social
> networking site Twitter as she took a soak."
> http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/blogs/the_gadget_hound/rss/article/3656
>
Is there no end to people's stupidity?
> and for a change of pace:
> wait a minute or two for this page to load correctly.
> http://producten.hema.nl/
Now that was very clever indeed.
Cheers TT
Mr.T
On Jun 26, 8:41 am, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:
> ?A girl has apparently died from electrocution while using her laptop to
> post on twitter, while in the bath. Maria Barbu, 17, of Brasov, Romania,
> is said to have been plugging her laptop into wall current at the time,
> after "the battery died during a long session on social networking site
> Twitter as she took a
soak."http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/blogs/the_gadget_hound/rss/article/3656
Sounds like a good bid for a "Darwin Award"!
MrT.
Judges1318
Seconded!
Dennis
"Judges1318" <acc...@beaurat.at.hotpop.fullstop.com> wrote in message
news:4A447E78...@beaurat.at.hotpop.fullstop.com...
Very sad, doctors have called it a freak accident.
dmm
>
>"Don McKenzie" <5...@2.5A> wrote in message
>news:7aicoiF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> Sad news:
>>
>> Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
>
>That it is sad :-( RIP
>
>>
>> Michael Jackson dies at 50.
>
>That is actually good news! One less paedophile in the
>world is always good news! Just wait, now that Wacko Jacko
>is gone, all the people that were paid off will come out and
>start telling their stories. Now you're going see what he
>was really like!
Actually Michael Jackson died about 24 years ago.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940
It's only some wierdo that died today.
dmm
pltr...@spamlessxhost.org
Sounds more like natural selection at its finest.
-- Larry
Dennis
<pltr...@spamlessxhost.org> wrote in message
news:fck945thtsgttckpo...@4ax.com...
Very sad, doctors have called it a *freak* accident.
>
> Sounds more like natural selection at its finest.
>
> -- Larry
Sorry it is a sick joke.
pltr...@spamlessxhost.org
>Very sad, doctors have called it a *freak* accident.
>
>> Sounds more like natural selection at its finest.
>
>Sorry it is a sick joke.
Not a sick joke at all -- this world is wildly overpopulated. Every moron
counts.
-- Larry
Michael A. Terrell
KR wrote:
>
> On Jun 26, 8:41 am, Don McKenzie <5...@2.5A> wrote:
> > Sad news:
> >
> > Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
> >
> > Michael Jackson dies at 50.
> >
> > ?A girl has apparently died from electrocution while using her laptop to
> > post on twitter, while in the bath. Maria Barbu, 17, of Brasov, Romania,
> > is said to have been plugging her laptop into wall current at the time,
> > after "the battery died during a long session on social networking site
> > Twitter as she took a soak."http://ca.tech.yahoo.com/blogs/the_gadget_hound/rss/article/3656
> >
>
> As the old saying goes "deaths seem to come in 3's" :(
Ed McMahon died the same day as Farrah & Michael:
<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ei=dhBFSovqJduLtgfomo2uAg&resnum=0&q=Ed%20McMahon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn>
--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!
Grant Edwards
>
> Ed McMahon died the same day as Farrah & Michael:
Not sure what calendar you're using, but Ed McMahon died on
June 23rd. Micheal Jackson and Farrah Fawcett died on June
25th.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! It's NO USE ... I've
at gone to "CLUB MED"!!
visi.com
CBFalconer
> "Don McKenzie" <5...@2.5A> wrote in message
>
>
>> Michael Jackson dies at 50.
>
> That is actually good news! One less paedophile in the world is
> always good news! Just wait, now that Wacko Jacko is gone, all
> the people that were paid off will come out and start telling
> their stories. Now you're going see what he was really like!
You have exposed your built-in bias. Jackson was found innocent by
the forces of law, i.e. a jury. I think all would admit that he
had a peculiar mental make-up, but we are all entitled to our
peculiarities.
--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Mr.T
"dmm" <dmmilne...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:ci294559osv566e31...@4ax.com...
> Actually Michael Jackson died about 24 years ago.
> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940
> It's only some wierdo that died today.
And they won't need to embalm him, it's already been done :-)
MrT.
Mr.T
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A455496...@yahoo.com...
>Jackson was found innocent by
> the forces of law, i.e. a jury.
A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them "not
(proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
MrT.
CBFalconer
>
> A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
> "not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
> The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.
Mr.T
> >> Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.
> >
> > A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
> > "not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
> > The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
>
> Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.
Nope, just like OJ he paid out millions of dollars to the victim's family.
MrT.
larwe
> Sad news:
> Charlie's Angel Farrah Fawcett dies at 62
> Michael Jackson dies at 50.
You forgot Ed McMahon.
And now Billy Mays is dead too!
CBFalconer
McMahon and Fawcett were really expected. The others were not. I
believe Mays was also 50. That makes me nervous that the evil
things are gathering to collect me.
Ben Bradley
Oh no!
sv07171024
children's room he decorated for them in his house.
What bias do you need?
Guilty.
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A46B8AB...@yahoo.com...
Steve at fivetrees
news:4a44d22c$0$2569$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> Sorry it is a sick joke.
Meanwhile, various explanations are emerging re Michael's death.
1) Apparently the heart attack was triggered by Michael falling over a
child's pram. Police said "We don't blame it on the sunshine, we don't blame
it on the moonlight, we don't blame it on the good times... we blame it on
the buggy".
2) Alternatively, it could have been hereditary. He might have had a
defective Billy gene.
3) Finally, the family are having some difficulty finding an undertaker
who'll accept plastic...
I'm bad.
Steve
(PS: all the above nicked from another ng...)
--
http://www.fivetrees.com
larwe
wrote:
> In aus.electronics,comp.arch.embedded, On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:55:55
> >And now Billy Mays is dead too!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrnVNZpnvRI
Seen on textsfromlastnight.com - "they say celebs die in threes. leave
it to billy mays to throw in one extra COMPLETELY FREE!"
larwe
> McMahon and Fawcett were really expected. The others were not. I
> believe Mays was also 50. That makes me nervous that the evil
> things are gathering to collect me.
The "evil things" to which you refer are called "years of bad living"
I daresay.
After all the recreational surgery Jackson had, it was a miracle he
was still alive.
David Brown
"Not proven" is slightly different from "not guilty", and as far as I
know only exists in Scottish law.
That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
"innocent until proven guilty". A court found him not guilty - he is
therefore legally innocent unless and until someone proves that the
court made a mistake.
Mr.T
"David Brown" <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4a49ce37$0$24777$8404...@news.wineasy.se...
> > A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them "not
> > (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
> > The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
>
> "Not proven" is slightly different from "not guilty", and as far as I
> know only exists in Scottish law.
In fact "not guilty" simply means the prosecution has failed to prove it's
case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO verdict of "innocent" anywhere
using a legal system similar to ours that I know of.
> That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
> "innocent until proven guilty".
In name only, otherwise people remanded for trial and subsequently found not
guilty would recieve compensation wouldn't they.
>A court found him not guilty - he is
> therefore legally innocent unless and until someone proves that the
> court made a mistake.
In fact many cases have been found guilty by one court and not guilty by
another. Criminal and civil courts in the USA have different standards of
proof required, often causing different outcomes.Where does that leave your
argument?
In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim he is
in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is rarely done by
truly "innocent" people. It's a rather moot point now however.
MrT.
David Brown
> "David Brown" <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
> news:4a49ce37$0$24777$8404...@news.wineasy.se...
>>> A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them "not
>>> (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
>>> The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
>> "Not proven" is slightly different from "not guilty", and as far as I
>> know only exists in Scottish law.
>
> In fact "not guilty" simply means the prosecution has failed to prove it's
> case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO verdict of "innocent" anywhere
> using a legal system similar to ours that I know of.
>
> > That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
>> "innocent until proven guilty".
>
> In name only, otherwise people remanded for trial and subsequently found not
> guilty would recieve compensation wouldn't they.
>
I don't agree there, unless there have been clear mistakes or bias
involved, or particularly hard treatment of the innocent (i.e., not
guilty) party. I don't know about where you live, but here in Norway
people *do* get compensation if something has gone badly wrong. But
otherwise, it's not often that completely unconnected and innocent
people end up in a criminal trial, and that risk is one of the prices
that must be paid for having a solid justice system.
Still, once a trial is over and the defendant found "not guilty", they
are legally innocent, even if they have had to defend themselves in court.
>> A court found him not guilty - he is
>> therefore legally innocent unless and until someone proves that the
>> court made a mistake.
>
> In fact many cases have been found guilty by one court and not guilty by
> another. Criminal and civil courts in the USA have different standards of
> proof required, often causing different outcomes.Where does that leave your
> argument?
>
I believe that is the case in most judicial systems - civil courts have
a more balanced burden of proof, while in the criminal courts the
prosecution has the burden. When you get a situation where a person has
been cleared of criminal charges yet the victims have successfully sued
for compensation, it is very difficult to say what is "true" or "right".
Innocence and guilt are often very grey areas, which courts attempt to
turn into black or white answers. But the person is /legally/ innocent
of the crime, because he was not proved guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
> In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim he is
> in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is rarely done by
> truly "innocent" people. It's a rather moot point now however.
Agreed.
terryc
> In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim he
> is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is rarely
> done by truly "innocent" people.
Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal system.
Grant Edwards
The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not
paying X dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment
of N*X dollars where N>1).
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! You mean you don't
at want to watch WRESTLING
visi.com from ATLANTA?
terryc
> On 2009-06-30, terryc <newsseven...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:18:47 +1000, Mr.T wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim
>>> he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is
>>> rarely done by truly "innocent" people.
>>
>> Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal system.
>
> The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not paying X
> dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment of N*X dollars
> where N>1).
Exactly. Legal systems are used by people to extort money.
Hans-Bernhard Bröker
> In fact "not guilty" simply means the prosecution has failed to prove it's
> case beyond a reasonable doubt. There is NO verdict of "innocent" anywhere
> using a legal system similar to ours that I know of.
That's because there's no need for one. It would be utterly pointless
to issue a verdict just to state the obvious fact. If you weren't
proven guilty, you're innocent by default. It's as simple as that.
> > That aside, I believe most democracies still have the notion of
>> "innocent until proven guilty".
> In name only, otherwise people remanded for trial and subsequently found not
> guilty would recieve compensation wouldn't they.
That conclusion is invalid. Innocence before the law doesn't mean you
don't owe society some cooperation in finding the facts.
> In fact many cases have been found guilty by one court and not guilty by
> another. Criminal and civil courts in the USA have different standards of
> proof required,
That's got nothing to do with the issue of guilt vs. innocence. Civil
courts don't get to make any decisions about that --- they're about
compensation.
Mr.T
"Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid> wrote in message
news:aMednf_5iMVUntfX...@posted.visi...
> >> In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not
> >> claim he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of
> >> dollars is rarely done by truly "innocent" people.
> >
> > Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal
> > system.
>
> The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not
> paying X dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment
> of N*X dollars where N>1).
Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money for
better lawyers than the others?
Just maybe they think there is actually a real reason to worry about losing
even more.
MrT.
terryc
> "Grant Edwards" <invalid@invalid> wrote in message
> news:aMednf_5iMVUntfX...@posted.visi...
>> >> In any case people can always believe what they like, I do not claim
>> >> he is in fact guilty, however the payment of millions of dollars is
>> >> rarely done by truly "innocent" people.
>> >
>> > Easy to see that you have had little to do with any legal system.
>>
>> The payment of X dollars is done when people believe that not paying X
>> dollars will result in something worse (e.g. payment of N*X dollars
>> where N>1).
>
>
> Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money for
> better lawyers than the others?
when you get involved in those games, only the lawyers win; a BIG cheque
from both parties.
--
Great advances in Debian Linux; post a bug report and get spam in three
days.
Mr.T
"terryc" <newsseven...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:4a4addcd$0$39495$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
> > Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money for
> > better lawyers than the others?
>
> when you get involved in those games, only the lawyers win; a BIG cheque
> from both parties.
Which is why the richest person can afford to bluff a poorer person from
taking action regardless of merit, and usually do!
Only an idiot takes legal action when there is no merit to it at all.
MrT.
terryc
> "terryc" <newsseven...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
> news:4a4addcd$0$39495$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>> > Exactly, and why would they think that when they have far more money
>> > for better lawyers than the others?
>>
>> when you get involved in those games, only the lawyers win; a BIG
>> cheque from both parties.
>
> Which is why the richest person can afford to bluff a poorer person from
> taking action regardless of merit
Yawn, you don't get it.
Grant Edwards
There is a real reason, but it often has little to do with
"guilt" or "innocence". Look up "jury nullification". While
that term technically applies to criminal law, the same thing
happens in civil trails. I remember a quote from one curor in
the breast-implant suite agains Dow-Corning: the juror stated
the evidence clearly showed that the implants didn't cause the
various health problems suffered by the plaintiff, but the
juror voted in favor of the plaintiff becuase the plaintiff was
a nice woman and had all sorts of health problems and large
medical bills, and Dow-Corning had lots of money.
Dow-Corning lost big time even though there was never a shred
of serious evidence (at the time or since then) that they were
at fault for the plaintiff's conditions. You don't think
Dow-Corning had plenty of money for lawyers?
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I'm DESPONDENT ... I
at hope there's something
visi.com DEEP-FRIED under this
miniature DOMED STADIUM ...
Don McKenzie
Acting Legend Karl Malden Dead At 97
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0859801/
Don...
--
Don McKenzie
Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email
Web Camera Page: http://www.dontronics.com/webcam
No More Damn Spam: http://www.dontronics.com/spam
Breakout, Prototype, Development, & Robotics Boards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/sparkfun-electronics.html
Bill Davy
great man, and a good life.
terryc
> Acting Legend Karl Malden Dead At 97
Finally, someone who was very good.
And joined by Molly Sugden, who was rememberable.
Shame the ABC just couldn't bring the news to saying the pussy joke.
Dave P
wrote:
>On Jun 29, 2:04�am, Ben Bradley <ben_nospam_brad...@frontiernet.net>
Of course, there's a separate handling and shipping charge (for Billy)
KR
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Maybe this will be of interest.
http://news.bakililar.az/english_23310.html
Also odd that I have yet to see this on Australian news as it would
blow
the Australian government / police propaganda policy that "every man
is a pedophile, or a pedophile in the making".
Without wanting to create any offence to you personally, you seem to
have
a similar attitude based on your comments.
If you were on a jury in such a case, I wouldn't believe
you could make a fair and just decision based on facts rather than
media bias or
personal feelings on the nature of the alleged crime.
This applies to a significant proportion of the population too IMHO.
This bias is probably why the thing was settled out of court.
I hope you press as hard for justice to be done to this bastard for
what he had done
to Jackson. Charges of Blackmail, extortion, perjury and instant
freezing of all assets pending transfer to Jackson's estate if found
guilty would be a good start. If you dont, then one day you could be
the next victim of this kind of human filth.
KR
> Fact: 40-ish man invites little boys to come over and play with him in the
> children's room he decorated for them in his house.
> What bias do you need?
> Guilty.
>
It is not illegal to do anything like that, although I admit that
these days (if a male) you would have to be totally crazy to go
anywhere near kids or as much as look at or talk to children for fear
of being branded or assumed to be a pedo, let alone have them coming
to your house like jacko did.
I hope you dont have your kids friends come over, coach kids sport, or
work
legitimately with children in fully legal ways, just to have someone
makes false accusations against you, and then have someone like you
sit in judgement of you !
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4A46B8AB...@yahoo.com...
>
> > "Mr.T" wrote:
> >> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
dmm
>On Jun 28, 2:21�pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4A46B8AB...@yahoo.com...
>>
>> > >> Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.
>>
>> > > A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
>> > > "not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
>> > > The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
>>
>> > Whatever. �You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.
>>
>> Nope, just like OJ he paid out millions of dollars to the victim's family.
>>
>> MrT.
>
>
>Maybe this will be of interest.
>
>http://jnelj.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/breaking-news-jordan-chandler-confesses-%E2%80%9Cmichael-jackson-didn%E2%80%99t-do-anything-to-me/
>
>http://news.bakililar.az/english_23310.html
>
I'll start to believe it when the url has "http://www.cnn.com" or another reputable news service in it.
dmm
Mr.T
"KR" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3354d813-aa4b-492d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>It is not illegal to do anything like that,
Bit of a stretch there!
> although I admit that
>these days (if a male) you would have to be totally crazy to go
>anywhere near kids or as much as look at or talk to children for fear
>of being branded or assumed to be a pedo, let alone have them coming
>to your house like jacko did.
Yep, that's the way our society now is, you may not like it, but you have to
live with it or face the consequences.
>I hope you dont have your kids friends come over, coach kids sport, or
>work
>legitimately with children in fully legal ways, just to have someone
>makes false accusations against you, and then have someone like you
>sit in judgement of you !
That's the way it is. Locally we have to pay for a police check to do most
of those things now (you recieve a "working with children" card, and it is a
crime to not have one when teaching, coaching, child minding etc.)
Men had better be careful kissing their own kids goodnight these days, let
alone do anything remotely suspicious with anybody else's kids!
Jacko was simply rich enough to ignore common sense. (which in his case was
probably just as well for him :-)
However I should point out I'm *not* saying he necessarily did anything that
would bother me or not. Like everyone else, I simply do not know all the
facts.
MrT.
KR
> "KR" <kenreed1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3354d813-aa4b-492d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> >It is not illegal to do anything like that,
>
> Bit of a stretch there!
>
oops !
I meant "playing with" as in normal play/recreation, not "playing with
" in a
sexual way
> > although I admit that
> >these days (if a male) you would have to be totally crazy to go
> >anywhere near kids or as much as look at or talk to children for fear
> >of being branded or assumed to be a pedo, let alone have them coming
> >to your house like jacko did.
>
> Yep, that's the way our society now is, you may not like it, but you have to
> live with it or face the consequences.
>
Its true, and agree with that.
>
> >I hope you dont have your kids friends come over, coach kids sport, or
> >work
> >legitimately with children in fully legal ways, just to have someone
> >makes false accusations against you, and then have someone like you
> >sit in judgement of you !
>
> That's the way it is. Locally we have to pay for a police check to do most
> of those things now (you recieve a "working with children" card, and it is a
> crime to not have one when teaching, coaching, child minding etc.)
>
Same here. A couple of friends who had high school age kids were
coaching swimming
and basketball respectively at their kids school (including their own
kids) outside school hours. When the new requirements came in, about
80% of the parents in the groups just quit as they:
1> didn't want to "pay to volunteer" and
2> didn't want the hassle of forms, bureaucracy, interviews etc to
have the right to "do something for nothing".
3>Insulted at having their years of integrity as family men, with no
criminal record etc questioned
>
> Men had better be careful kissing their own kids goodnight these days, let
> alone do anything remotely suspicious with anybody else's kids!
> Jacko was simply rich enough to ignore common sense. (which in his case was
> probably just as well for him :-)
>
>
I would add " even having kids" to that list.
>
>
> However I should point out I'm *not* saying he necessarily did anything that
> would bother me or not. Like everyone else, I simply do not know all the
> facts.
>
>
Agreed, none of us know, only jacko and the victims (if there are any)
will know.
The rest you can be assured will be based on media hype, loaded with
bullshit in order to sell more papers, get more viewers etc. Even
jacko himself is for certain the product of media crafted image in
order to sell records, like just about any other "celebrity".
> MrT.
David Brown
> "KR" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3354d813-aa4b-492d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> It is not illegal to do anything like that,
>
> Bit of a stretch there!
>
>> although I admit that
>> these days (if a male) you would have to be totally crazy to go
>> anywhere near kids or as much as look at or talk to children for fear
>> of being branded or assumed to be a pedo, let alone have them coming
>> to your house like jacko did.
>
> Yep, that's the way our society now is, you may not like it, but you have to
> live with it or face the consequences.
>
When you say "our society", are you just talking about Australia (though
I know it's somewhat similar in the UK)? comp.arch.embedded is a very
international group, and some of us live in societies that are still
sane. Where I live (small town Norway), kids can go to the play park
themselves, and when people go swimming in the nearby river, pre-school
kids are frequently naked. I expect we have much the same level of
real, dangerous pedos as anywhere else - but we don't have imaginary
ones, and we don't run our society based on a paranoid fear.
Mr.T
> > Yep, that's the way our society now is, you may not like it, but you
have to
> > live with it or face the consequences.
>
> When you say "our society", are you just talking about Australia (though
> I know it's somewhat similar in the UK)?
Well yes, I was really referring to USA, Australia, UK etc. But you are
right, it certainly doesn't apply in some countries.
>comp.arch.embedded is a very
> international group, and some of us live in societies that are still
> sane. Where I live (small town Norway), kids can go to the play park
> themselves, and when people go swimming in the nearby river, pre-school
> kids are frequently naked. I expect we have much the same level of
> real, dangerous pedos as anywhere else - but we don't have imaginary
> ones, and we don't run our society based on a paranoid fear.
Glad to hear some don't. But then there are others that still believe in
killing their children or siblings even.
(And even the Norwegians do things many others don't consider totally
"sane", like killing whales just because they've always done it.)
MrT.
David Brown
> "David Brown" <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
> news:4a52f67f$0$6278$8404...@news.wineasy.se...
>>> Yep, that's the way our society now is, you may not like it, but you
> have to
>>> live with it or face the consequences.
>> When you say "our society", are you just talking about Australia (though
>> I know it's somewhat similar in the UK)?
>
> Well yes, I was really referring to USA, Australia, UK etc. But you are
> right, it certainly doesn't apply in some countries.
>
>> comp.arch.embedded is a very
>> international group, and some of us live in societies that are still
>> sane. Where I live (small town Norway), kids can go to the play park
>> themselves, and when people go swimming in the nearby river, pre-school
>> kids are frequently naked. I expect we have much the same level of
>> real, dangerous pedos as anywhere else - but we don't have imaginary
>> ones, and we don't run our society based on a paranoid fear.
>
> Glad to hear some don't. But then there are others that still believe in
> killing their children or siblings even.
In every country there are people that stand out in their crimes or
ill-treatment of others - Norway is no different here. But in
comparison to the UK (which as a Scot I know much better than the USA or
Australia), we seem to be much better at understanding that these people
are the exceptions. Norway has its share of murderers, pedos, etc. -
but we don't treat innocent people as "potential murderers" or
"potential pedos".
> (And even the Norwegians do things many others don't consider totally
> "sane", like killing whales just because they've always done it.)
>
And just like people, every culture has its facets that others find
immoral or unethical (I can think of several regarding Australia, the
UK, and the USA - but I don't think spelling them out would add anything
here).
Whaling in Norway is a complicated issue, with many here strongly
supporting it and many strongly condemning it. Part of the issue is, I
think, I desire to prove our independence.
mark krawczuk
"CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4A46B8AB...@yahoo.com...
> "Mr.T" wrote:
>> "CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.
>>
>> A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
>> "not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
>> The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
>
> Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.
>
mark krawczuk
million dollars to a kids parents IN ONE CASE ????
i mean , IF you where innocent , would you pay out 20 million dollars ,
???
i dont think so ..
"KR" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cd13a21f-e38d-465c...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
mark krawczuk
what a wacko
"sv07171024" <svh_...@telenet.be> wrote in message
news:0o92m.3996$u75....@newsfe19.ams2...
> Fact: 40-ish man invites little boys to come over and play with him in the
> children's room he decorated for them in his house.
> What bias do you need?
> Guilty.
>
>
> "CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:4A46B8AB...@yahoo.com...
>> "Mr.T" wrote:
>>> "CBFalconer" <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Jackson was found innocent by the forces of law, i.e. a jury.
>>>
>>> A jury cannot "find a person innocent", they can only find them
>>> "not (proven) guilty" for any number of reasons.
>>> The two are NOT the same thing at all. Just ask OJ Simpson.
>>
>> Whatever. You are still condemning him on bias, not knowledge.
>>
mark krawczuk
forget $ 20 million payout ///
"KR" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3354d813-aa4b-492d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
mark krawczuk
"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:4a52b452$0$23632$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "KR" <kenre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3354d813-aa4b-492d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>>It is not illegal to do anything like that,
>
> Bit of a stretch there!
>
>> although I admit that
>>these days (if a male) you would have to be totally crazy to go
>>anywhere near kids or as much as look at or talk to children for fear
>>of being branded or assumed to be a pedo, let alone have them coming
>>to your house like jacko did.
>
> Yep, that's the way our society now is, you may not like it, but you have
> to
> live with it or face the consequences.
>
>
>>I hope you dont have your kids friends come over, coach kids sport, or
>>work
>>legitimately with children in fully legal ways, just to have someone
>>makes false accusations against you, and then have someone like you
>>sit in judgement of you !
>
> That's the way it is. Locally we have to pay for a police check to do most
> of those things now (you recieve a "working with children" card, and it is
> a
> crime to not have one when teaching, coaching, child minding etc.)
======================================================================================================
ah , hem , if you have gotten a police check , read it carefully , it
says on the form , that this doesnt prove that your not wanted or done any
bad things..( basically )..
=======================================================================================================
Mr.T
"mark krawczuk" <kraw...@adam.com.au> wrote in message
news:r_mdnX62RNu-zMjX...@adnap.net.au...
> > That's the way it is. Locally we have to pay for a police check to do
most
> > of those things now (you recieve a "working with children" card, and it
is
> > a crime to not have one when teaching, coaching, child minding etc.)
> ah , hem , if you have gotten a police check , read it carefully , it
> says on the form , that this doesnt prove that your not wanted or done
any
> bad things..( basically )..
So? That's just to cover their own arse, and doesn't contradict what I said,
i.e. it is now a legal requirement in some places to have such a card,
whether it proves anything or not!
No police check can ever prevent what *may* happen in the future, only weed
out some of those who have already been convicted of such an offence.
I guess the interesting question is whether Jacko would have been given one
:-) Rather a pointless debate now however.
MrT.
terryc
> and also he says " its natural to sleep with little children on tv "
> what a wacko
Lol, not everyone sleeps in a palatial mansion with 10 bedrooms, 5
bathrooms and servants. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that one room
sleeping multiple adults and children is the norm throughout the world.
Mr.T
> Lol, not everyone sleeps in a palatial mansion with 10 bedrooms, 5
> bathrooms and servants. In fact, I'd hazard a guess that one room
> sleeping multiple adults and children is the norm throughout the world.
But not so much when the house *IS* a palatial mansion with 10 bedrooms, and
the adult is not related to the children I imagine.
MrT.
David Brown
> if michael jackson wasnt a rock spider , then why did he pay out $20
> million dollars to a kids parents IN ONE CASE ????
> i mean , IF you where innocent , would you pay out 20 million dollars ,
> ???
>
> i dont think so ..
>
Money is relative. Although later he had a lot of economic troubles, at
one point he had seriously large amounts of money. For him at the time,
it would be easy to make a payoff of $20mil to minimise publicity and
get the case out of the way so he can carry with his life and carrier.
As a percentage of his fortune, it was perhaps the equivalent of $200
for a "normal" person - easily worth it.
So I don't think the payout shows any indication about his guilt or
innocence. The criminal courts did not find him guilty, therefore he is
legally innocent of the crimes charged. That's not the same thing as
saying he is truly innocent - there's a lot of grey areas in a situation
like this.
I think it's fair to say that no one here has any basis for judging his
guilt beyond the courts decision. A person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt - that's the way democratic
judicial systems work.
Grant Edwards
> if michael jackson wasnt a rock spider , then why did he pay
> out $20 million dollars to a kids parents IN ONE CASE ???? i
> mean , IF you where innocent , would you pay out 20 million
> dollars , ???
>
> i dont think so ..
We've already discussed that. You settle ("pay out") when
1) your team of attorneys have decided it's cheaper than
trying the case.
2) The cost of losing the case at trial is so high that you
can't tolerate even a small chance of losing.
You also have to balance those points against the liklihood
that a settlement will encourange other people to sue.
Being "guilty" or "innocent" doesn't even enter into the
calculation most of the time.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I want you to MEMORIZE
at the collected poems of
visi.com EDNA ST VINCENT MILLAY
... BACKWARDS!!
Grant Edwards
> and also he says "it's natural to sleep with little children on tv"
>
> what a wacko
I don't think anybody is arguing that he's you average,
ordinary guy. ;)
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! What a COINCIDENCE!
at I'm an authorized "SNOOTS
visi.com OF THE STARS" dealer!!
Steve at fivetrees
> doesnt matter which way u look at it , michael jacksons still a pedophile.
Rarely have I seen so few words demonstrate such enormous ignorance.
The spelling (or lack of it) didn't help.
Steve
--
http://www.fivetrees.com
KR
> doesnt matter which way u look at it , michael jacksons still a pedophile.
>
Oh, do you know something that we dont ?
Were you an eyewitness to
him allegedly performing such an disgusting act ?
Do you even know Jackson personally and can say what he is really
like, in order
to make any sort of judgement of him ?
If not, then you know as much as the rest of us -
no actual facts, or even opinion based on your own knowledge or
experience with the
man, just media hype and talk that is probably 99% lies and
distortions made up
in order to get the greatest sales of newspapers, magazines, TV
ratings etc.
Its not as though the media never lies.
Just be careful who you judge like this, lest someone one day does the
same to you.
If you are male in Australia (probably all western countries), then
you are a potential
target for similar false accusations yourself, and what you would do
in those circumstances.
I doubt many would believe your word over that of some "poor little
victim", and along the way you can have the pleasure of giving most or
all of your house to the legal industry to try and defend you.........
(None of my comments are intended to imply that you or anyone on this
group is a pedophile)
> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4A46B8AB...@yahoo.com...
>
> > "Mr.T" wrote:
> >> "CBFalconer" <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
KR
> On 2009-07-09, mark krawczuk <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:
>
> > if michael jackson wasnt a rock spider , then why did he pay
> > out $20 million dollars to a kids parents IN ONE CASE ???? i
> > mean , IF you where innocent , would you pay out 20 million
> > dollars , ???
>
> > i dont think so ..
>
> We've already discussed that. You settle ("pay out") when
>
> 1) your team of attorneys have decided it's cheaper than
> trying the case.
>
> 2) The cost of losing the case at trial is so high that you
> can't tolerate even a small chance of losing.
>
> You also have to balance those points against the liklihood
> that a settlement will encourange other people to sue.
>
> Being "guilty" or "innocent" doesn't even enter into the
> calculation most of the time.
>
Guilt or Innocence has little to do with the justic... oops - I mean
the legal system, often a "guilty" plea to something is simply a
result of a deal with the prosecution that results in an innocent
person getting "suspended sentence" rather than a certain jail time if
wrongly convicted by a jury. (especially a jury full of mark krawczuk
's).
When if comes to the bare facts of being free of jail to continue to
be able to work to support your family and not lose your house (and
then freedom) to pay the legal bills, when there is a dependant family
and children involved, almost all will step up and cop the deal to
protect their family. This then results in yet another group of
extended family, friends, associates (who know the real truth)
turning for life against the police, courts, and media, and often
losing any respect for the law that is supposed to keep our society
functioning smoothly. Another thing you should look at is the
queensland police (including the CMC who do the same) scam of
constantly issuing fake search warrants, often to intimidate people.
This probably happens all over the place for all we know.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24525576-421,00.html
Having a brother in law who is a barrister, who often tells of his
experiences of years in the legal system, and what really goes on
behind the scenes, if most of you knew the truth, you would stop all
this silly nonsense about the "police are always right and full of
integrity" and " everyone is a pedo / criminal " crap, which just
results from ignorance.
mark krawczuk
his managers finding him in bed with kidsmmmmmmm
"David Brown" <da...@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4a55972c$0$26366$8404...@news.wineasy.se...
David Brown
> On Jul 9, 12:02 pm, "mark krawczuk" <krawc...@adam.com.au> wrote:
>> doesnt matter which way u look at it , michael jacksons still a pedophile.
>>
>
> Oh, do you know something that we dont ?
>
> Were you an eyewitness to
> him allegedly performing such an disgusting act ?
>
Just to be a little bit pedantic, being a "paedophile" does not involve
any acts, and is not in itself a crime - it's considered a psychological
disorder. A "paedophile" is simply a person who is sexually stimulated
in some way by children. It's only when acting on these impulses to the
detriment of a child that it becomes a crime - most paedophiles are not
criminals and are not dangerous to anyone, because they do not act out
any desires they may have.
So MJ could well be a paedophile, but not guilty of any crime because he
may not have committed any abusive act (note that "sleeping" with a
child, in the direct literal sense, is not a crime AFAIK).