> > On Oct 13, 10:06 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 13.10.2011 14:09, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>> On Oct 12, 10:05 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>> 12.10.2011 15:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>> On Oct 10, 1:23 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> 10.10.2011 17:44, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 9, 4:34 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>>>> Exactly, and only a MJ sycophant could possibly think otherwise.
> >>>>>>>> Pretty weak argument since I have argued facts while you have made up
> >>>>>>>> claims(Michael was sold as child sex slave to studio execs) and trusted
> >>>>>>>> on tabloids (links you posted).
> >>>>>>> You have done no such thing--i.e. argue FACTS. You have merely
> >>>>>>> presented your opinion just as I have based on the documents and
> >>>>>>> articles we have read. We just interpret the facts differently.
> >>>>>>> Personally I don't see how anybody after looking at all of the
> >>>>>>> documents and evidence in his case can come to the conclusion that he
> >>>>>>> was innocent. Even many people on the jury for his criminal trial
> >>>>>>> stated that they did not necessarily think he was innocent but that
> >>>>>>> they could not convict him based on the strict guideleines that were
> >>>>>>> given in the jury instructions.
> >>>>>> links?
> >>>>>>> There were many news programs on after
> >>>>>>> the criminal trial where jurors spoke out about this.
> >>>>>> What they said was that "you didn't hear what we did" - aka that
> >>>>>> reporters' opinion (of guilt) is misinformed.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
> >>>>> after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
> >>>>> had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
> >>>>> while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
> >>>>> convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
> >>>>> them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
> >>>> Exactly opposite what I read. And your claim wouldn't make sense since
> >>>> there was none evidence against MJ and lots of evidence towards
> >>>> kid+family making up stuff, contradicting statements, poor logic and
> >>>> greed. Defence couldn't have had stronger case.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Are you telling me that I did not watch and hear the jurors state what
> >>> I have said above in a news program after the criminal trial?
> >> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > Then you are dumber than I thought previously. There were jury members
> > on the MJ criminal case who came out later and said that they did not
> > think MJ was totally innocent but they could not convict him beyond a
> > reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
> That site is totally not trustworthy in anything it says, looking 1
> minute I found numerous false claims and a rather disturbing agenda.
Just because a site may have an agenda does not mean it is wholly
untrustworthy.Pretty much EVERY site or article has a bias one way or
another including all of the completely nutty fan sites for Michael
Jackson. If you ever want to see fans who have lost their marbles and
are beyond the realm of any standards of normalcy, MJ fans are your
ticket. Some of the nuttiest and dumbest fans on the planet imo.
> On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
>>>>> person could possibly think
>>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
>>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
>>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
>>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
>>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
>>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
>>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
>>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
>>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
>>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
>> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
>> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
>> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
>> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
> pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
> selling Michael out.
You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile. You're fooling no one here.
In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
-
Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a past-films related comment:
Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought... It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB rated it a 10. :)
> On Oct 14, 7:42 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 13.10.2011 18:36, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 13, 10:06 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 13.10.2011 14:09, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Oct 12, 10:05 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 12.10.2011 15:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 1:23 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 10.10.2011 17:44, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 4:34 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 9.10.2011 11:06, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly, and only a MJ sycophant could possibly think otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>> Pretty weak argument since I have argued facts while you have made up
>>>>>>>>>> claims(Michael was sold as child sex slave to studio execs) and trusted
>>>>>>>>>> on tabloids (links you posted).
>>>>>>>>> You have done no such thing--i.e. argue FACTS. You have merely
>>>>>>>>> presented your opinion just as I have based on the documents and
>>>>>>>>> articles we have read. We just interpret the facts differently.
>>>>>>>>> Personally I don't see how anybody after looking at all of the
>>>>>>>>> documents and evidence in his case can come to the conclusion that he
>>>>>>>>> was innocent. Even many people on the jury for his criminal trial
>>>>>>>>> stated that they did not necessarily think he was innocent but that
>>>>>>>>> they could not convict him based on the strict guideleines that were
>>>>>>>>> given in the jury instructions.
>>>>>>>> links?
>>>>>>>>> There were many news programs on after
>>>>>>>>> the criminal trial where jurors spoke out about this.
>>>>>>>> What they said was that "you didn't hear what we did" - aka that
>>>>>>>> reporters' opinion (of guilt) is misinformed.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> No, that is not what I actually heard when I watched some news program
>>>>>>> after the criminal trial. One of the news network shows at the time
>>>>>>> had a program where they talked to the jury members and many said that
>>>>>>> while they did not think MJ was necessarily innocent they could not
>>>>>>> convict him under the stringent jury instructions that were given to
>>>>>>> them. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
>>>>>> Exactly opposite what I read. And your claim wouldn't make sense since
>>>>>> there was none evidence against MJ and lots of evidence towards
>>>>>> kid+family making up stuff, contradicting statements, poor logic and
>>>>>> greed. Defence couldn't have had stronger case.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> Are you telling me that I did not watch and hear the jurors state what
>>>>> I have said above in a news program after the criminal trial?
>>>> Yes.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Then you are dumber than I thought previously. There were jury members
>>> on the MJ criminal case who came out later and said that they did not
>>> think MJ was totally innocent but they could not convict him beyond a
>>> reasonable doubt based on the evidence.
>> That site is totally not trustworthy in anything it says, looking 1
>> minute I found numerous false claims and a rather disturbing agenda.
> Just because a site may have an agenda does not mean it is wholly
> untrustworthy.Pretty much EVERY site or article has a bias one way or
> another including all of the completely nutty fan sites for Michael
> Jackson. If you ever want to see fans who have lost their marbles and
> are beyond the realm of any standards of normalcy, MJ fans are your
> ticket. Some of the nuttiest and dumbest fans on the planet imo.
I wouldn't know about that. My opinion is that if one makes a website dedicated on proving MJ as a pedophile - that person is definitely more twisted than the craziest of a fan.
> > On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
> >>>>> person could possibly think
> >>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
> >>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
> >>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
> >>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
> >>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
> >>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
> >>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
> >>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
> >>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
> >>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
> >> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
> >> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
> >> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
> >> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
> > pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
> > selling Michael out.
> You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile.
> You're fooling no one here.
> In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
> show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
> -
> Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
> past-films related comment:
> Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
> impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
> great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
> clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
> HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
> The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
> transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
> thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
> It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
> etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
> I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
> end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
> rated it a 10. :)- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
I have never even seen Moonwalker. It looks fantastically stupid. :)
> I wouldn't know about that. My opinion is that if one makes a website
> dedicated on proving MJ as a pedophile - that person is definitely more
> twisted than the craziest of a fan
Definitely don't agree with you here. Nothing and nobody is crazier
than the rabid MJ fans.
> On Oct 16, 4:04 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 16.10.2011 22:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
>>>>>>> person could possibly think
>>>>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
>>>>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
>>>>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
>>>>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
>>>>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
>>>>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
>>>>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
>>>>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
>>>>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
>>>>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
>>>> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
>>>> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
>>>> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
>>>> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
>>> pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
>>> selling Michael out.
>> You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile.
>> You're fooling no one here.
>> In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
>> show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
>> -
>> Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
>> past-films related comment:
>> Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
>> impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
>> great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
>> clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
>> HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
>> The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
>> transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
>> thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
>> It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
>> etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
>> I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
>> end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
>> rated it a 10. :)- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> I have never even seen Moonwalker.
And you said you were a huge fan and know everything about MJ...
Appears to me that you're a huge hater merely, and know only negative tabloid stuff about him.
> > On Oct 16, 4:04 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 16.10.2011 22:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>> On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
> >>>>>>> person could possibly think
> >>>>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
> >>>>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
> >>>>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
> >>>>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
> >>>>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
> >>>>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
> >>>>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
> >>>>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
> >>>>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
> >>>>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
> >>>> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
> >>>> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
> >>>> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
> >>>> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
> >>> pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
> >>> selling Michael out.
> >> You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile.
> >> You're fooling no one here.
> >> In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
> >> show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
> >> -
> >> Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
> >> past-films related comment:
> >> Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
> >> impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
> >> great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
> >> clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
> >> HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
> >> The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
> >> transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
> >> thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
> >> It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
> >> etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
> >> I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
> >> end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
> >> rated it a 10. :)- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > I have never even seen Moonwalker.
> And you said you were a huge fan and know everything about MJ...
> Appears to me that you're a huge hater merely, and know only negative
> tabloid stuff about him.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
LMAO. I was a huge fan, how many times do I have to tell you that. At
the point when Moonwalker was made however, I had begun my "WTF is
this thing called Michael Jackson" phase when he started with all of
the excessive plastic surgeries and makeup application. That turned me
off the Moonwalker thing plus the movie just seemed stupid to me. I
still bought his CD's after that--i.e.Bad, Dangerous, etc.
Do you believe Michael Jackson when he said he only had two or three
surgeries on his face? Do you think he was really in love with Lisa
Marie Presley or that other tank he married Debbie Rowe? :) Years ago
when I was a fan and very young I actually believed he was dating
Brooke Shields. Then I woke up some years later and realized the
truth. Seems you have not awaken yourself yet. ;)
> On Oct 17, 8:23 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 16.10.2011 23:23, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 16, 4:04 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 16.10.2011 22:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
>>>>>>>>> person could possibly think
>>>>>>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
>>>>>>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
>>>>>>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
>>>>>>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
>>>>>>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
>>>>>>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
>>>>>>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
>>>>>>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
>>>>>>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
>>>>>>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
>>>>>> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
>>>>>> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
>>>>>> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
>>>>>> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
>>>>> pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
>>>>> selling Michael out.
>>>> You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile.
>>>> You're fooling no one here.
>>>> In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
>>>> show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
>>>> -
>>>> Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
>>>> past-films related comment:
>>>> Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
>>>> impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
>>>> great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
>>>> clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
>>>> HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
>>>> The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
>>>> transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
>>>> thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
>>>> It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
>>>> etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
>>>> I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
>>>> end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
>>>> rated it a 10. :)- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> I have never even seen Moonwalker.
>> And you said you were a huge fan and know everything about MJ...
>> Appears to me that you're a huge hater merely, and know only negative
>> tabloid stuff about him.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> LMAO. I was a huge fan, how many times do I have to tell you that. At
> the point when Moonwalker was made however, I had begun my "WTF is
> this thing called Michael Jackson" phase when he started with all of
> the excessive plastic surgeries and makeup application. That turned me
> off the Moonwalker thing plus the movie just seemed stupid to me. I
> still bought his CD's after that--i.e.Bad, Dangerous, etc.
> Do you believe Michael Jackson when he said he only had two or three
> surgeries on his face?
No. Doesn't make him a pedo though. Now fuck off already.
> > On Oct 17, 8:23 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 16.10.2011 23:23, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>> On Oct 16, 4:04 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>> 16.10.2011 22:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>> On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> >>>>>>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
> >>>>>>>>> person could possibly think
> >>>>>>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
> >>>>>>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
> >>>>>>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
> >>>>>>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
> >>>>>>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
> >>>>>>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
> >>>>>>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
> >>>>>>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
> >>>>>>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
> >>>>>>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
> >>>>>> Ok, so you're not an outright liar. Good.
> >>>>>> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
> >>>>>> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
> >>>>>> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
> >>>>>> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>>> I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
> >>>>> pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
> >>>>> selling Michael out.
> >>>> You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile.
> >>>> You're fooling no one here.
> >>>> In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
> >>>> show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
> >>>> -
> >>>> Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
> >>>> past-films related comment:
> >>>> Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
> >>>> impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
> >>>> great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
> >>>> clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
> >>>> HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
> >>>> The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
> >>>> transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
> >>>> thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
> >>>> It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
> >>>> etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
> >>>> I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
> >>>> end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
> >>>> rated it a 10. :)- Hide quoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> I have never even seen Moonwalker.
> >> And you said you were a huge fan and know everything about MJ...
> >> Appears to me that you're a huge hater merely, and know only negative
> >> tabloid stuff about him.- Hide quoted text -
> >> - Show quoted text -
> > LMAO. I was a huge fan, how many times do I have to tell you that. At
> > the point when Moonwalker was made however, I had begun my "WTF is
> > this thing called Michael Jackson" phase when he started with all of
> > the excessive plastic surgeries and makeup application. That turned me
> > off the Moonwalker thing plus the movie just seemed stupid to me. I
> > still bought his CD's after that--i.e.Bad, Dangerous, etc.
> > Do you believe Michael Jackson when he said he only had two or three
> > surgeries on his face?
> No. Doesn't make him a pedo though. Now fuck off already.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
Clear as day to anybody with even half a brain who is not blinded by
the MJ manipulation machine.
On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
> Clear as day to anybody with even half a brain who is not blinded by
> the MJ manipulation machine.
I told you that the half-wit Finn was a half-wit. Now you know that I
was being generous.
> On Oct 17, 9:06 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 17.10.2011 15:38, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 17, 8:23 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>> 16.10.2011 23:23, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>> On Oct 16, 4:04 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 16.10.2011 22:20, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>> On Oct 14, 7:14 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 13.10.2011 18:51, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 10:09 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 13.10.2011 14:04, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>>>> it boggles my mind that any reasonably intelligent
>>>>>>>>>>> person could possibly think
>>>>>>>>>> "There are stories that his father offered him up sexually to music
>>>>>>>>>> execs in order to get gigs for the Jackson Five when they were young"
>>>>>>>>>> AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HAH
>>>>>>>>> Jermaine also says that he suspects that his younger brother may have
>>>>>>>>> been a victim of sexual abuse by their dad, Joseph.
>>>>>>>>> "There were times when Joseph and some of these men he'd describe as
>>>>>>>>> "very important business people," would meet late at night in our
>>>>>>>>> hotel suite with Michael, and Michael alone," Jermaine writes.
>>>>>>>>> "I always felt something was wrong with that and Michael would always
>>>>>>>>> be sick for days after these "meetings."
>>>>>>>> Ok, so you're not an outright liar. Good.
>>>>>>>> What is bad though is that you actually use claims such as ridiculous as
>>>>>>>> this...while "forgetting" to tell us that:
>>>>>>>> "Michael Jackson's big brother Jermaine tried to use the King of Pop's
>>>>>>>> kid-sex trial to shop a tell-all book" as the article points out.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>>>> I am not trying to tell you or anybody else anything. I am merely
>>>>>>> pointing out that this comment was made about Joe Jackson and his
>>>>>>> selling Michael out.
>>>>>> You made your comment in order to tell us what made MJ a pedophile.
>>>>>> You're fooling no one here.
>>>>>> In a way your "argument" backfired big time, you have only managed to
>>>>>> show us that EVERYBODY wanted a piece of him/his money.
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Now, let's make a comment to try and finish this thread with a
>>>>>> past-films related comment:
>>>>>> Watched today Michael Jackson's MOONWALKER (1988) - I was less than
>>>>>> impressed with the film. Basically there were too few songs, apart from
>>>>>> great MJ medley during first 15 minutes...which basically showed old
>>>>>> clips in a tv. Had fine videos "Leave Me Alone" and "Smooth Criminal" in
>>>>>> HD and couple live songs and that was about it.
>>>>>> The actual movie part was rather weird...best being perhaps MJ as a
>>>>>> transformer -scene. Maybe I should youtube some hd parts, get tens of
>>>>>> thousands of views and get my account suspended...there's a thought...
>>>>>> It's a shame that there's so little material about MJ in HD...Thriller
>>>>>> etc can be found in SD at best, WTF...
>>>>>> I rated "Moonwalker" 6/10. The best part of the film was the text in the
>>>>>> end "based on life of Michael Jackson". I see 27% of people at IMDB
>>>>>> rated it a 10. :)- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>>> I have never even seen Moonwalker.
>>>> And you said you were a huge fan and know everything about MJ...
>>>> Appears to me that you're a huge hater merely, and know only negative
>>>> tabloid stuff about him.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> LMAO. I was a huge fan, how many times do I have to tell you that. At
>>> the point when Moonwalker was made however, I had begun my "WTF is
>>> this thing called Michael Jackson" phase when he started with all of
>>> the excessive plastic surgeries and makeup application. That turned me
>>> off the Moonwalker thing plus the movie just seemed stupid to me. I
>>> still bought his CD's after that--i.e.Bad, Dangerous, etc.
>>> Do you believe Michael Jackson when he said he only had two or three
>>> surgeries on his face?
>> No. Doesn't make him a pedo though. Now fuck off already.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -
> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
> Clear as day to anybody with even half a brain who is not blinded by
> the MJ manipulation machine.
Except all jurors who were sitting for months in the courtroom and listening evidence.
Juror1: "Absolutely not." (to question if MJ was a predator)
Juror 2: "I don't really think there was. I sat and I replayed everything in my head over and over again. And I tried not to stick to one thing or the other and to listen to everything thoroughly. I can't say there was anything that convinced me to say guilty ever throughout the whole trial."
Juror3: "He's absolutely innocent of all these alleged accusations."
Juror4: "Nothing. I went in there with a courage to convict a celebrity. Because I really believe in doing what is right. And witness after witness I was more convinced of the innocence, because of the motivations of financial gain and revenge, it was just amazing the way it was laid out."
> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> without witnesses present.
Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document aired, while whole world was watching.
> Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
> I told you that the half-wit Finn was a half-wit. Now you know that I
> was being generous.
Better to be half-wit than half-dick, which you apparently are judging by your IP address. Maybe that's why you are so bitter towards people with huge penises like myself. :-P
On Oct 17, 11:05 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
, , it was just amazing the way it was laid out...
And there you have the crux of the whole issue. Michael Jackson had
good lawyers and when you have good lawyers who have a lot of
financial incentive and who know how to structure a good argument and
lay it out correctly, jurors can believe anything. Remember in a
criminal trial the onus of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If
there is one shred of doubt you are not supposed to convict. Easy
peasy when you have mega millions behind you to structure a solid
argument and a world renowned beloved celebrity to defend.
Also, most jurors are just average working class people, they are not
generally brain surgeons.
> > On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
> > Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> > and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> > he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> > without witnesses present.
> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
> aired, while whole world was watching.
> > Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> > him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> > behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> > pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
That is not how the mind of a pedophile works. It is irrelevant
whether he thought he was doing something wrong or not, he simply
could not and did not want to stop himself. The more successful he
became the more opportunities for Michael to create this whole Peter
Pan world inside Neverland Ranch. Did you ever see Michael Jackson in
any relationship with an adult? I am not talking about the fake
relationships and marriages he conjured up with Brooke Shields, Lisa
Marie, etc. He may have had relationships with adult males, who knows
as that would have never been something he would have publicized but
even if he did have those relationships hidden it is clear he
preferred young underage boys to adult men.
On Oct 17, 10:20 am, Gracchus <cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
Yes, pedophilia is a compulsive illness. Not only was Michael Jackson
compelled to act on his desires but another aspect of this whole thing
is he kept doing it because he was Michael Jackson and he thought he
would get away with it being the internationally beloved music icon
that he was. Many people simply refuse to believe an unusually
talented entertainer such as Michael Jackson could also be a child
molester because many people can't or refuse to reconcile the two
things in most cases.
> On Oct 17, 11:27 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
>>> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
>>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
>>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
>>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
>>> without witnesses present.
>> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
>> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
>> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
>> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
>> aired, while whole world was watching.
>>> Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
>>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
>>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
>>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
>> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
> That is not how the mind of a pedophile works. It is irrelevant
> whether he thought he was doing something wrong or not, he simply
> could not and did not want to stop himself.
You're again making claims that you have no evidence of. You have not given a single factual argument on the issue, it's all opinions with you.
> On Oct 17, 10:20 am, Gracchus<cernunn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
>> without witnesses present. Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
> Yes, pedophilia is a compulsive illness. Not only was Michael Jackson
> compelled to act on his desires but another aspect of this whole thing
> is he kept doing it because he was Michael Jackson and he thought he
> would get away with it being the internationally beloved music icon
> that he was.
Pretty stupid argument considering that there was over a decade long witch hunt by Sneddon and he had to go to the court.
> Many people simply refuse to believe an unusually
> talented entertainer such as Michael Jackson could also be a child
> molester because many people can't or refuse to reconcile the two
> things in most cases.
Actually facts are that some people want to believe his guilt no matter what, no matter if he's proven innocent.
The reasoning seems to cumulate to merely one argument...that he had to be a pedo because he was with children. Brilliant argument. No matter evidence and facts - which you have provided none.
Quit your crusade already. He was ruled innocent and is dead now. Let's discuss his music/films.
> > On Oct 17, 11:27 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> >> 17.10.2011 17:20, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> >>> On Oct 17, 9:51 pm, Court_1<Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>> No, it does not make him a pedophile, but, he was one regardless.
> >>> Here was a man who had been criminally charged with child molestation
> >>> and paid out big money to get off the hook. Yet *after* this happened,
> >>> he continued to bring children to his home and go into their bedrooms
> >>> without witnesses present.
> >> Not entirely true. He brought families to his house.
> >> In the court case, Jackson's housekeeper said that the boys room was
> >> messy, they had not slept at Jackson's bedroom at all.
> >> The boys changed date of their story, to being AFTER the Bashir document
> >> aired, while whole world was watching.
> >>> Was he unaware of how vulnerable this made
> >>> him to future accusations? Highly doubtful. More likely is that his
> >>> behavior was compulsive and he could not help himself. Few if any
> >>> pedophiles can be rehabilitated.
> >> Or maybe he didn't give a damn because he was doing nothing wrong.
> > That is not how the mind of a pedophile works. It is irrelevant
> > whether he thought he was doing something wrong or not, he simply
> > could not and did not want to stop himself.
> You're again making claims that you have no evidence of. You have not
> given a single factual argument on the issue, it's all opinions with you.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
Evidence? What do you want me to do, find some pedophiles on the
street or in jail and have them post on here?
Read up on pedophiles and educate yourself since obviously you are not
very knowledgeable on this topic. It is not like pedophiles can just
"stop" molesting kids at will.
> The reasoning seems to cumulate to merely one argument...that he had to
> be a pedo because he was with children. Brilliant argument. No matter
> evidence and facts - which you have provided none.
> Quit your crusade already. He was ruled innocent and is dead now. Let's
> discuss his music/films.
I am not required to provide any evidence of MJ's alleged child
molesting. I was not hired as his attorney and I am not arguing his
case in a court of law where I need to provide evidence. I have read
all of the documents on his case and have formed an opinion. You have
provided no counter evidence to show he wasn't a child molester. All
you have is your opinion as well.
Also, for the last time, he was not ruled innocent. He was ruled not
guilty. Big difference.
Re his music, I can discuss that for days, but in terms of films there
is not much to speak of imo. I did not see This Is It yet.
