This is it (2009)

[TT]

I just watched the film "This is it" - and Jackson was in pretty good
physical shape I would say, it was the anaesthetic that killed him.

If you're even a tiny bit Michael Jackson fan, the film is a must see.
It's behind the scenes footage of his tour rehearsals...which I believe
would have been most spectacular (series of) concert(s) ever...based on
the film. Mind you that none of the songs are sung or danced with 100%
Jacko intensity...they're from a rehearsal. Regardless, his genius sort
of shines through and it's rather a compelling sight seeing him
practising his routines and communicating with rest of the crew.

"This is it" shows us Jackson's expertise with pretty much everything
related to his show...well, he did write most of those songs and
apparently had a foot in dance routines as well. Most talented artist
ever? I sincerely think so.

--

This is it for Murray?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/8793179/Conrad-Murray-on-trial-for-killing-Michael-Jackson-day-one.html

[Court_1]

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/8793179/Conr...

You forgot to say Jackson was a pedohphile and a serious drug addict.
No doubt he was a super talented entertainer but my view of him over
the past 15 years has really moved from idolizing his talent to the
reality that he was a very sick human being (his power and money in
the entertainment field was able to keep a lot of things about him
hidden.)
There is no doubt in my mind that he was a child molester. So
talented, yes for sure but also a very sick and dark human being with
many many problems IMO. He had no chance with those parents of his who
exploited his talent from a very young age. 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. Michael had no chance to be
anything even close to normal. Very sad story.

[TT]

lol. I don't know why I should listen to your opinion when they're based
on that kind of rubbish.

I personally believe he was innocent...and indeed he was never found
guilty. Not to mention many reports of children that he didn't touch
them...including Culkin.
It's true that there were sleepowers and he was a very very weird
character...well, his bedroom had 2 stories, several beds and bathrooms
and apparently his bed was huge...

Anyway, the media has been very biased and he WAS weird, so it's easy to
think that allegations were true.

Here's a short clip from an article:

"the media primarily chose to portray Jackson as guilty.

But as the facts started to trickle out it became increasingly apparent
that the case was full of holes. The allegations had been instigated not
by the boy but by his father, who had demanded a scriptwriting deal from
Jackson before he went to the police. He was on tape plotting to destroy
Jackson's career and dismissing his son's wellbeing as 'irrelevant'.
Then the boy told cops that Jackson was circumcised, but a police body
search concluded that he was not.

Although Jackson's innocence looked increasingly likely, most news
outlets had made their bed and to this day they seem unwilling to do
anything but lie in it."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/michael-jackson-its-time_b_482176.html

...btw, the father of that boy shot himself few months after Jackson's
death.

Anyway, the film is good, might watch it again soon.

[Iceberg]

> anything but lie in it."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/michael-jackson-its-tim...

>
> ...btw, the father of that boy shot himself few months after Jackson's
> death.
>
> Anyway, the film is good, might watch it again soon.

good couple of posts TT, it was indeed a wonderfully great film,saw
the IMAX version when it was out. Liked the way it showed the passion/
love he had for the music and dancing - he was indeed a brilliant
performer, wish had seen him live. actually had tickets to his London
show but sadly the doctor did what he allegedly did :(
P.S. to say "There is no doubt in my mind that he was a child
molester." is to ignore pretty much all the facts, Court_1 is clearly
one of those dumbos that just reads headlines and goes totally on
that, forget any actual reportage or evidence, if you'd actually read
anything about the child molestation cases you'll find they're
baseless and were nothing more than attempts to extort/steal money
from a rich quirky guy - in my view Jackson was only as weird as
almost anyone else if you examine their lives under a microscope.

[drew]

On Sep 29, 1:17 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> I personally believe he was innocent...and indeed he was never found
> guilty.

We'll never know for sure but I would say that the guy was either
naive or he was using his
money to get his way with little boys. Many people WANT to believe
the worst of
weird people like Michael Jackson because it all fits. The opposite
point of view...that he was
generous to children and was with them just because he was still
essentially a child himself....
that is a real possibility. He paid the price, either way.

He was loaded with sedatives because he couldn't sleep but I don't
think he was a physical
wreck like Elvis when he died. It's kind of a tightrope walk when
these guys load up on drugs.
You can have an iron constitution and self-discipline like Keith
Richards and William Burroughs.
These guys knew their limits and had successful lives with heavy use
of recreational drugs. Or
you can be head case like Jackson and Elvis and so many others who use
drugs because they
need them to get up and they need them to get down. That's the road
to hell.

[William]

On Sep 28, 7:53 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

> I just watched the film "This is it" - and Jackson was in pretty good
> physical shape I would say, it was the anaesthetic that killed him.
>

That film made me pissed that Jackson died before that tour happened.
I don't care about the personal lives of stars. Anyone remember Emil
Jannings? Anyway, Jackson's professionalism and talent are incredible.
Too bad.

William

[drew]

On Sep 29, 7:56 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

- in my view Jackson was only as weird as
> almost anyone else if you examine their lives under a microscope

Really? Are you saying that you are as weird as Michael Jackson? Or
do you exclude yourself with the 'almost anyone' clause?

Jackson was a strange cat...doesn't mean he was necessarily a bad
guy...
but I wouldn't leave him alone with my kids for 5 minutes, even if it
turns
out he was completely innocent. Any guy who whispers in a high voice
like a little fairy and acts like a child when he is around
children....all the
time....that's a guy who hasn't quite dealt with the idea of being an
adult.

[bob]

i know nothing of MJ but 1 thing is certain: in usa, ultra rich famous
people like him are huge targets for shakedowns. happens frequently.
could've been the case with him, not sure.

think i'll watch the movie too.

bob

[Sakari Lund]

On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>You forgot to say Jackson was a pedohphile and a serious drug addict.

According to TT Federer is a pedophile and Djokovic is a drug addict,
but Jackson is innocent :-)

[TT]

Well said Icy.

[TT]

29.9.2011 17:59, drew kirjoitti:
> On Sep 29, 7:56 am, Iceberg<iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> - in my view Jackson was only as weird as
>> almost anyone else if you examine their lives under a microscope
>
>
> Really? Are you saying that you are as weird as Michael Jackson? Or
> do you exclude yourself with the 'almost anyone' clause?
>

Well... considering circumstances he could have been as normal as anyone
else who would have had similar life.

Lost childhood + incredible fame. Couldn't go to a supermarket without
every normal person turning into a screaming/fainting fan...unbelievable
wealth with motive to build walls around oneself, separating him from
the adoring/hating crowd.

> Jackson was a strange cat...doesn't mean he was necessarily a bad
> guy...
> but I wouldn't leave him alone with my kids for 5 minutes, even if it
> turns
> out he was completely innocent. Any guy who whispers in a high voice
> like a little fairy and acts like a child when he is around
> children....all the
> time....that's a guy who hasn't quite dealt with the idea of being an
> adult.
>

Yeah, he was a strange cat and I think he had some sort of mental
problems with his self image...as acting like a child and his facial
operations demonstrate.

Now a normal person would assume that other people would suspect
something fishy is going on with sleepovers... But Jackson
didn't...which probably tells us something about his weirdness/mental state.
In fact many experts say that MJ did NOT fit profile of a
pedophile...some pedos do have toys etc to lure children, but they don't
act like children themselves as Michael did.

Then again, Michael doesn't fit any profile, really. :)

I admit that I wouldn't either let my children sleep with him, even
though I think he might have been innocent...5% doubt is enough to play
it safe. Yet some parents did...is that normal and what does it tell
about the parents?

The problem with having a thread about something related to MJ is that
often talk turns into child molestation, even when the initial post had
nothing to do with it...

[TT]

29.9.2011 17:35, drew kirjoitti:
> On Sep 29, 1:17 am, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>> I personally believe he was innocent...and indeed he was never found
>> guilty.
>
> We'll never know for sure but I would say that the guy was either
> naive or he was using his
> money to get his way with little boys. Many people WANT to believe
> the worst of
> weird people like Michael Jackson because it all fits. The opposite
> point of view...that he was
> generous to children and was with them just because he was still
> essentially a child himself....
> that is a real possibility. He paid the price, either way.
>

Yes. Maybe he felt left out in childhood, which he was...maybe he felt
comfortable with kids because they treated him differently, not as God
etc. Culkin suspects it was the latter...says that MJ liked him treating
Michael as any normal person.

We can only guess, as with many things related to MJ...some claim that
that not only many wild rumours were just that...rumours - but these
rumours were actually started by MJ himself, for publicity. Hyperbaric
chambers and whatever.

I find it interesting that Oprah said Michael talked to him with more
normal, lower, voice when cameras were not on.

[TT]

Yes. I, too, felt somewhat sad about what happened to him, after
watching the film. Sort of left you thinking that he still had much to
offer and how incredible the concerts would have been.

He sort of went on top of his game still, stuff of legends.

[drew]

On Sep 29, 2:15 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

> He sort of went on top of his game still, stuff of legends.

If he'd pulled off the planned tour and died during or after then you
might
say he died while on top of his game but reality is that he hadn't had
any
popular success with his music for a long time and his appearances in
public
always seemed to feed into the image of MJ as a strange guy...dangling
his
kid over the balcony of a hotel for people to see, for example....the
evolution
of his physical appearance into something more like a cartoon
character than
a real person...yet in interviews denying that he had more than one
procedure
on his face (nose)....clearly a lie...what was that all about?

The white skin thing was from taking monbenzyl of hydroquinone for his
vitiligo and
that's entirely understandable....it's just that the results of this
treatment look radical
when done by a black man...the drug slowly destroys the melanocytes so
you become
very white....he became essentially a white negro. Severe vitiligo
that does not respond
to photochemotherapy is psychologically difficult for any black
person.

[drew]

On Sep 29, 1:53 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

> I admit that I wouldn't either let my children sleep with him, even
> though I think he might have been innocent...5% doubt is enough to play
> it safe. Yet some parents did...is that normal and what does it tell
> about the parents?

Very poor judgement from the parents. Greed or starstruck or both.
All involved
were children playing a high risk game....somebody had to get hurt.

[TT]

29.9.2011 21:52, drew kirjoitti:
> On Sep 29, 2:15 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>> He sort of went on top of his game still, stuff of legends.
>
> If he'd pulled off the planned tour and died during or after then you
> might
> say he died while on top of his game but reality is that he hadn't had
> any
> popular success with his music for a long time and

His last record still sold huge amount, although small compared to himself.

Now could anyone else have sold all those 50 concerts? I don't think so.

[drew]

On Sep 29, 2:08 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

> I find it interesting that Oprah said Michael talked to him with more
> normal, lower, voice when cameras were not on.

This is a behavior that has been noted in effeminate male children.
If they are
feeling insecure or threatened they often retreat into expressing
themselves with a little,
high pitched voice. This doesn't necessarily translate into
homosexuality when these
male children reach adulthood. In fact, when I read the study...one
that included a whole
spectrum of behaviors, I thought to myself that it would be fairly
common for a small
boy to react this way...

[number_six]

On Sep 28, 4:53 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
> snip< [Jackson was] Most talented artist

> ever? I sincerely think so.
>

Dang, "ever" is a long time. I'll stick with Bach myself, but if MJ
gets some votes, so be it.

[TT]

I wonder if Bach was any good at dancing and performing on-stage? :)

[number_six]

I don't know about his dancing shoes, but he had 18 kids so there was
certainly some lust for life in the man.

Alas, there are no recordings, but historical accounts tell us that as
a performer, Bach was a top-rank organist and keyboard player, one of
the very best in Europe. His improvisational skills were considered
without peer. He was also a successful kapellmeister, and, in my
estimation, not only the greatest composer, but the most towering
figure in all of the arts.

"A man can be destroyed but he cannot be defeated."
-- Hemingway

"No one wants to be defeated."
-- Michael Jackson

[The Loan Arranger]

"TT" <as...@usenet.org> wrote in message
news:dj4hq.4025$RY6....@uutiset.elisa.fi...

To my knowledge, Bach wasn't sleeping with young children.

[AndyNYC]

I like that you pointed this out. I have Vitiligo in large patches on
my face, but I am a pale-skinned white person, so it is only visible
when I tan. I think people make assumptions about Jackson turning
white that stem, in part, from being misinformed about this condition--
which I can say from personal experience is poorly understood by
doctors and largely untreatable at present.

Jackson clearly had Vitiligo to some degree on his face and other
areas, which can be seen in old photos of him from the early to mid
80s when he still looked like a dark-skinned black person. A lot of
times it was concealed by makeup. Anyone with Vitiligo can tell you
that the condition generally spreads over time and gets worse, but it
depends on the person and is quite random.

What I have learned is that a radical treatment for dark-skinned
people with Vitiligo, especially in areas of the world where there is
a stigma attached to having it, is to bleach the entire body to match
the depigmented areas, restoring uniform coloring to the skin.
Obviously, Jackson went that route.

So, I think a common misconception about him is that he "wanted to be
white" instead of black, and was "ashamed" of being black. In reality,
he underwent this known treatment for Vitiligo, and did legitimately
have the condition.

Unfortunately, he is largely responsible for the negative assumptions
people have made about his skin color change, simply because he wasn't
forthright about the reason for it. He basically started changing
color drastically, getting ever more "white" from the mid-1980s
onward, and it wasn't until a 1993 Oprah interview that he BARELY
addressed this question for the first time, when confronted about it.
Even though he did address it in that interview, acknowledging that
his skin was lighter, he still didn't do it in the right way, had his
intention been to quell all of the tabloidal speculation and
increasingly negative public reaction to his changing appearance. In
that interview he made it sound like his skin--as in, his ENTIRE BODY--
changed color due to Vitiligo. Unfortunately, most people know that
Vitiligo occurs in patches and, while it can become very widespread,
cases of "Vitiligo Universalis" are very rare (potentially not even
possible). What he should have said is something like:

"I have Vitiligo. It was spreading over large parts of my body and
would have been very hard to cover up without makeup. There are few
treatment options for this condition. I chose one of the few options,
which is to depigment all of my skin to match the areas in which the
pigment was destroyed. Unfortunately, with few other treatment
options, this was the best option for me. I still consider myself to
be black..." etc.

That is really ALL he needed to say to end the negative comments and
speculation about him "turning white." It certainly did not help his
image that this sort of public statement, quickly and thoroughly
explaining what was going on, was never made. True, it was his private
medical affair and thus his business to share or or not share, but as
a public figure and entertainer you would assume he would just make a
statement and get the truth out in the open. Admitting to having
Vitiligo and getting treated for it is not like admitting you murdered
someone or were born a hermaphrodite (so we can forgive Jaime Lee
Curtis for keeping mum) or something. I honestly think the press would
have quickly lost interest in harping on his whitened skin once the
truth was out in the open.

Obviously, his other eccentricities did not help the public understand
what was going on with the skin color change, either. He obviously had
multiple plastic surgeries (again, why deny it?... take the Jocelyne
Wildenstein route for Christ's sake and 'fess up--you did it, you
wanted it done, and you liked the changes you made to your face, so
critics of it can screw...okay?) and the public viewed those physical
changes as disturbing. The two changes were assumed to be entwined. To
some degree they were, of course--both involved a dissatisfaction with
appearance, etc. He could have just accepted the Vitiligo and walked
around with large, bleached patches on his face and body. But that's
probably a very difficult thing to face for a dark-skinned person,
never mind one who made his living as an elite entertainer, always in
the spotlight.

As for the molestation stuff, I tend to believe some untoward stuff
happened with those "victims." Bottom line, the circumstances were
certainly suspect, but I suppose we will never know for sure what went
on... but the fact is Jackson placed himself in a lot of inappropriate
situations with minor children, to say the least.

As for the current trial, yes... Jackson obviously had major addiction
and mental issues that weren't treated properly or even addressed to
begin with. He partly brought on his own death, for sure, but I do
believe the Doctor was negligent and caused his death by administering
a serious anesthetic outside of a hospital, without proper equipment
and staff on hand. There's no way that can't be considered reckless
practice. I'm not sure that Jackson wouldn't have died soon
regardless, though, considering he was surrounded by "yes" men, a
(largely) money-grubbing family more concerned with getting handouts
than looking out for his welfare, etc., and other shady types. I
really cannot picture things ending well for him with all of the
negative influences/happenings in his life in the last decade or so.

AndyNYC

[Court_1]

On Sep 29, 7:56 am, Iceberg <iceberg.ru...@gmail.com> wrote:

> almost anyone else if you examine their lives under a microscope.-

I am the last person who reads a headline and "goes on that" as you
say. I don't believe much of what I read.

I started to read a lot about MJ's child molestation cases as I was a
fan who wanted to try and reconcile the fact that I was a big fan with
the fact that he was facing all of these awful charges. I did not want
to believe any of it for a long time but when I started reading a lot
about it and arming myself with information, the truth was as clear as
day and there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that MJ was a child
molestor. I have taken into account all of the good things written
about MJ along with the bad and come to an informed decision and I
believe he was a child molester. I still think he was a talented
entertainer but one thing has nothing to do with the other and I have
learned to separate the two extremes.

First of all the fact that MJ was found not guilty does NOT mean he
was innocent. It just means there was not enough evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt to convict him, at least according to that jury. OJ
Simpson was innocent too don't you know? (*wink*)

No offense but I think you are the dumbo who blindly believes all of
the MJ spin out there in an attempt to make MJ seem like an "innocent"
who was extorted and blackmailed, a lover of children who would not
hurt a fly and a great giver of multiple charities. MJ paid millions
and millions of dollars to hire a team of people including PR people
and agencies who deal with the rebuilding of a famous and wealthy
person's image. Plus he had the entertainment industry behind him.
Also, lol at you using M. Culkin(was it you or TT?) as evidence that
MJ was innocent. M Culkin is in the entertainment industry as well and
he would have no reason to tell the truth of what really may have
happened with MJ. Do you think he would come out and say MJ molested
him when he was a young boy? How naive are you?
People in the entertainment industry stick together just as doctors
stick together when there is a medical malpractice suit.

Yes extortion cases do exist amongst the famous and wealthy but ask
yourself this question, why did the same child molestation claims from
different children follow MJ for over 20 years? Normally if there is
an extortion case it is handled behind the scenes if possible and kept
quiet or if not it is dealt with in public and then that is it. In
MJ's case he had children accusing him of molestation over and over
again for over 20 years. Many cases the public were not made aware of
because MJ paid the families off. In any case MJ fit EVERY single
detail and sign of a pedophile, every single one.

I am not going to get into more detail about my opinon and I could go
on and on about this topic forever because as I said I read tons, but
here are a few interesting links on MJ:

1) Link detailing evidence that was found at Neverland Ranch. Yes all
men who are not inerested in young boys look at book after book and
video after video of nude boys (sarcasm) Yes this evidence by itself
does not necessarily mean that MJ was a pedophile but put this
evidence together with the mountain of other evidence and you have an
overwhelming case imo.

http://quintaldo.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/michael-jackson-pedophile/

2) http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2004/03/orth200403
Great article in Vanity Fair by Maureen Orth on MJ.

3) http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/case-against-michael-jackson

The Smoking Gun is a great source for all stuff MJ regarding his
molestation cases and they have all of the documents that were part of
the molestation cases or many of them.

[Court_1]

On Sep 29, 11:19 am, Sakari Lund <sakari.l...@welho.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Court_1
>

> <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You forgot to say Jackson was a pedohphile and a serious drug addict.
>
> According to TT Federer is a pedophile and Djokovic is a drug addict,
> but Jackson is innocent  :-)

Ha, ha, go figure! :)

[Ulysses]

Michael Jackson was in "pretty good physical shape in 2009...."

LOL!

He was 5'10 and 127 pounds, a massive drug addict who had not done any
exercise in a decade.

Would he be able to run a mile in even 10 minutes? NO. (He could not
have even walked a mile in 15 minutes without collapsing).

Could he do any sustained cardio for longer than a few minutes? NO.

Could he do any sustained strength training beyond 5 pound barbells
for longer than one set? NO.

He never left the house, he never did ANY exercise, and he was an
almost unbelivably serious drug addict.

Claiming MJ was in reasonable shape in 2009 is like saying Lennon was
in "good shape" while a heroin addict in '69 or Clapton was in good
shape in '71, while in the throes of the identical addiction.

[Court_1]

His handlers wanted you to believe MJ was in good shape but the
reality was quite the opposite. He frequently cancelled appointments
and was said to have used body doubles
to attend some of his commitments. Apparently he was only able to make
some of the "This is It" rehearsals and cancelled many rehearsals for
it and he was in no way ready for the grueling 50 city tour or
whatever it was and his handlers and insurance company were worried.
He was beyond a serious drug addict and had been for over 20 years
supposedly since the Pepsi accident which burnt his scalp.

[TT]

30.9.2011 0:21, AndyNYC kirjoitti:
> As for the current trial, yes... Jackson obviously had major addiction
> and mental issues that weren't treated properly or even addressed to
> begin with. He partly brought on his own death, for sure, but I do
> believe the Doctor was negligent and caused his death by administering
> a serious anesthetic outside of a hospital, without proper equipment
> and staff on hand. There's no way that can't be considered reckless
> practice.

Agreed. Having read a bit about the trial so far, the defence apparently
claims that Michael took both drugs himself??? Can't understand
that...why was doctor there at the scene in first place then...
Also interesting tidbit is that the doctor asked to get back to the
house when he learned at hospital that Jackson had died, claiming to
remove some stuff that "Michael wouldn't have wanted found". His lawyer
claims that he actually wanted to pick up his car only, contradicting
those two testimonies.

Not to mention one argument of the defence that the doctor had a
contract, which MJ didn't "have time" to sign, which would have given
him better equipment for situations like this - regardless Murray being
quoted saying that MJ was in great shape...there's some contradiction
imo...why need such equipment for a perfectly healthy patient in first
place...because of dangerous drugs?

Looks to me that it was negligence or poor professional skill at best...
and all that plus actually endangering life of a perfectly healthy
patient for the sake of money at worst. The charge is involuntary
manslaughter; it's a tough question but he probably should be found
guilty... doctor risking his patient's life for money, not good.

Looks to me that those abuse charges when he was alive...and ironically
even his death were caused by greed.

> I'm not sure that Jackson wouldn't have died soon
> regardless, though, considering he was surrounded by "yes" men,

Perhaps. One could say that Murray was overly glorified and overly paid
drug dealer...1.8 million dollars a year for administering those drugs.
Guess his moral defence could be that if he had not done it, someone
else would...

Couple more comments on the film: The picture and sound editing were
flawless, full songs gathered from various rehearsal and other clips.
Also I might have forgot to mention Michael's attitude towards the crew
he worked with: without a hint of arrogance and utmost
professionalism...well at least in the clips that were selected from all
hours of original material.

Interesting info about vitiligo btw.

[TT]

30.9.2011 2:31, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Also, lol at you using M. Culkin(was it you or TT?) as evidence that
> MJ was innocent.

That was just an example. There are many others as well. The thing is
that Culkin is most quoted.

> he would have no reason to tell the truth of what really may have
> happened with MJ.

Probably not. Nor would he have had motive to take it up the arse,
pardon me.

> Yes extortion cases do exist amongst the famous and wealthy but ask
> yourself this question, why did the same child molestation claims from
> different children follow MJ for over 20 years?

Because he settled the first case with huge sum of money.

I'm not aware of that many cases, but the cases I know of looks like
district attorney Sneddon had a personal vendetta going against
Jackson...he searched for years evidence and never found anything!

Now you probably ask why did he settle then...well innocent people are
found guilty every day, why risk it; court battle could take long time
and lots of energy; maybe he didn't want pictures of his penis being
shown in court etc etc.

Of course he should not have settled the first case.

> In any case MJ fit EVERY single
> detail and sign of a pedophile, every single one.

Actual experts disagree, as I've already mentioned.

> 1) Link detailing evidence that was found at Neverland Ranch. Yes all
> men who are not inerested in young boys look at book after book and
> video after video of nude boys (sarcasm)

That's not "sarcasm" as you believe he did it.

I did hear that they found some book/video...
In fact that was the biggest factor I thought at the time that he might
be guilty...I as well did follow those cases closely. Anyway, provide us
with a credible link which states what was it that they found exactly,
I've forgotten...

But then again he didn't have a small library and fans who knew he likes
children did send him lots of stuff he didn't know of. That was his
explanation which I only now discovered...might even have been in the
link I posted in this thread. Sounds like a fair explanation to me.

Looked at one link you posted and found the usual stuff by
sensationalist media.

[TT]

30.9.2011 2:39, Ulysses kirjoitti:
> Michael Jackson was in "pretty good physical shape in 2009...."
>
> LOL!
>
> He was 5'10 and 127 pounds, a massive drug addict who had not done any
> exercise in a decade.
>

Well that's bs. You can see it by watching "This is it".

Now you are GOING TO read from many articles how he had lost some weight
recently, apparently because of becoming a full time drug addict - well,
the explanation can also be that he loses weight always before a
tour...he's a perfectionist and trains a lot before hitting tour - a fact.
His brother said that Michael showed him sixpack just before the tour
and that he had been training 4 hours a day, dancing. Well, that might
be court speak but you get the picture.

[TT]

Bs.

Arguing against baseless accusations from you two dingbats bore me...

[Court_1]

Now there is a reliable source--Michael's brother! Yep, you are going
to get the truth that MJ was a raving drug addict straight from one of
his brothers!

Seriously, are you denying MJ was a drug addict now? I go to my
dermatologist's office daily to get demerol injections and I have
propofol, an anesthetic used only in hospital settings regularly
administered but nope, I am not a drug addict. (*rolls eyes*)

Michael Jackson has the biggest nutcase fanbase on the planet. Just
when you think you have witnessed the nuttiest of idol worshippers of
any famous person, you have witnessed nothing until you see the MJ
freaks in action. Are you one of them?

[Court_1]

> Arguing against baseless accusations from you two dingbats bore me...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Ditto right back at you with your hero-worshipping of famous people--
Nadal and Michael Jackson. Isn't it all very silly?

My accusations are not baseless. There are those who choose to believe
in MJ's innocence and there are those who do not. My mind is made up
and has been for a long time on this issue. If you don't agree with
me, that is fine.

[Whisper]

On 30/09/2011 1:16 AM, bob wrote:
>
> i know nothing of MJ but 1 thing is certain: in usa, ultra rich famous
> people like him are huge targets for shakedowns. happens frequently.
> could've been the case with him, not sure.

He's an obvious target for leeches. I think anyone would turn out a
little odd growing up like he did.

>
> think i'll watch the movie too.
>
> bob

I bought it on bluray a yr ago - will make sure I watch it soon.

[Whisper]

Agreed. MJ was death warmed up.

[drew]

On Sep 29, 9:06 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>

> Now you are GOING TO read from many articles how he had lost some weight
> recently, apparently because of becoming a full time drug addict - well,
> the explanation can also be that he loses weight always before a
> tour...he's a perfectionist and trains a lot before hitting tour - a fact.
> His brother said that Michael showed him sixpack just before the tour
> and that he had been training 4 hours a day, dancing. Well, that might
> be court speak but you get the picture.

The pictures I saw were not of a guy who could train 4 hours a day
dancing. Looks can
be deceiving but that was a man in poor physical shape. The weight
loss could have
been self-imposed...he was so unhappy with his own appearance that he
would doubtless
be uneasy with the effects that middle-age have upon fat
redistribution. He probably decided
that he would rather have no fat at all...then went about starving
himself. That's more consistent
than weight loss due to drug use.

The reason many drug addicts lose weight is the same reason that they
are homeless or
live in hovels....they spend all of their money on drugs, leaving
nothing for food or lodgings. Not a problem if you're Michael
Jackson. Lots of money for food AND drugs.

Elvis was a drug addict and a food addict. He was as fat as a pig
when he died.

[TT]

30.9.2011 16:26, Whisper kirjoitti:
> Agreed. MJ was death warmed up.

Couple days before his death.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THQDBQpZ9AM&feature=related

[TT]

30.9.2011 5:48, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> Michael Jackson has the biggest nutcase fanbase on the planet. Just
> when you think you have witnessed the nuttiest of idol worshippers of
> any famous person, you have witnessed nothing until you see the MJ
> freaks in action. Are you one of them?

Ah, bullying attempt.

It appears his detractors are even nuttier:

[TT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftcrU2LVuE

[wkhedr]

On Sep 28, 11:51 pm, Court_1 <Olympia0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 7:53 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > I just watched the film "This is it" - and Jackson was in pretty good

> > physical shape I would say, it was the anaesthetic that killed him.
>
> > If you're even a tiny bit Michael Jackson fan, the film is a must see.
> > It's behind the scenes footage of his tour rehearsals...which I believe
> > would have been most spectacular (series of) concert(s) ever...based on
> > the film. Mind you that none of the songs are sung or danced with 100%
> > Jacko intensity...they're from a rehearsal. Regardless, his genius sort
> > of shines through and it's rather a compelling sight seeing him
> > practising his routines and communicating with rest of the crew.
>
> > "This is it" shows us Jackson's expertise with pretty much everything
> > related to his show...well, he did write most of those songs and
> > apparently had a foot in dance routines as well. Most talented artist
> > ever? I sincerely think so.
>
> > --
>
> > This is it for Murray?
>
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/8793179/Conr...
>

> You forgot to say Jackson was a pedohphile and a serious drug addict.

> No doubt he was a super talented entertainer but my view of him over
> the past 15 years has really moved

Do you have any evidence to support your accusation?

[bob]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:35:30 +1000, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.com>
wrote:

>On 30/09/2011 1:16 AM, bob wrote:
>>
>> i know nothing of MJ but 1 thing is certain: in usa, ultra rich famous
>> people like him are huge targets for shakedowns. happens frequently.
>> could've been the case with him, not sure.
>
>He's an obvious target for leeches. I think anyone would turn out a
>little odd growing up like he did.

the other thing is once a guy becmes a target, people come out of the
woodwork thinking that since 1 person has already discrediited him,
the pickings might be easier for future claims. just a theory.

>> think i'll watch the movie too.
>

>I bought it on bluray a yr ago - will make sure I watch it soon.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 16:39:56 -0700 (PDT), Ulysses <uly...@mscomm.com>
wrote:

didn't his dancing count as cardio exercise?

bob

[Court_1]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftcrU2LVuE- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Nobody who is in the entertainment business is going to speak out
about Michael Jackson especially somebody like Gladys Knight who knew
Jacskon since he was a kid. That is your evidence that all was well in
Jackson Land? LOL.

[Court_1]

So what? They had him propped up on uppers or whatever else to get him
alert for a couple of hours. He was not able to rehearse for long
periods of time for This Is It. Just do a little reading and don't be
such a starstruck moronic fan that you can't see reality.

He was NOT in good shape for This Is It; he was a drug addict for
goodness sake!

[Court_1]

> Do you have any evidence to support  your accusation?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Just do some reading on MJ for god's sake and form your own opinon as
I have formed mine. Many of the legal documents for his cases are
available online. I have formed my own opinion based on tons of
reading that I have done about his child molestation cases and about
MJ himself. I am not here to offer up evidence, that is not my job. I
was not the prosecutor in any of the child molestation cases and I am
not in court trying to argue the case.

[Mack A. Damia]

Jackson was a child - an adult child. Living in relative seclusion
the way he did, he never learned right from wrong; he never learned
that certain behaviors become inappropriate (and illegal) after a
certain age.

He was a child; he acted as a child acts, and he played the same
childlike sexual games we all played when were were young kids. But
in his case, the games were downright childish.

He just never saw the line in the sand.

[TT]

1.10.2011 4:36, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> He was not able to rehearse for long
> periods of time for This Is It

And how do you know this?

The point is that he wasn't in condition of a dying man by any stretch
of imagination, as you should see from "this is it" material.

Yes, he apparently used some drugs, but that doesn't change the case at
all...in fact it just makes his doctor administering Propofol even worse.

[TT]

It's not evidence you dumb cunt. It's just a character witness...and she
certainly appears like a very grounded person.

What is your evidence contrary... police never found anything contrary
despite more than decade long vendetta by Sneddon. So you better shut
the fuck up or provide some evidence.

[TT]

The fact is that you have nothing, and neither did police. Yet you
insist on dragging the matter to this thread, which was about the film
and Jackson's death.

You're merely making wild claims while presenting yourself as some sort
of expert on the subject, which obviously you're not. The only thing you
know of is exploitative tabloid journalism...and some twisted vendetta
against Jackson or anybody saying positive things about him.

I quote you:

"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"

...That sentence alone about sums up where you're coming from.

[Court_1]

> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftcrU2LVuE-Hide quoted text -

>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Nobody who is in the entertainment business is going to speak out
> > about Michael Jackson especially somebody like Gladys Knight who knew
> > Jacskon since he was a kid. That is your evidence that all was well in
> > Jackson Land? LOL.
>
> It's not evidence you dumb cunt. It's just a character witness...and she
> certainly appears like a very grounded person.
>
> What is your evidence contrary... police never found anything contrary
> despite more than decade long vendetta by Sneddon. So you better shut

> the fuck up or provide some evidence.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Listen to you. What is your problem? Do you fantasize about Michael
Jackson the same way you do about Nadal? You need serious help if you
take all of this stuff so seriously and you can't understand that
there are other opinons out there. I don't have to offer up any more
evidence as I said I am not one of the prosecutors prosecuting MJ and
I am not in court where I have to offer up evidence. I have formed an
opinion and as far as I know opinons are allowed and not illegal in
this world.

Wash your mouth out with soap you half-wit and get out of the house
and do something other than fantasize about Nadal or MJ.

[Court_1]

> ...That sentence alone about sums up where you're coming from.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I am not presenting myself as some sort of expert but as a lawyer I
have more legal training than you do when reading legal documents. I
have formed an opinon and have expressed it in this thread.

You don't like it? Tough!

[bob]

correct, as no matter how many national enquirer articles she has read
on the subject, the man wasn't convicted and whatever happened between
him and little kids isn't known to the public and is only subject to
opinion. 1 thing for sure - he was a target, whether he deserved to be
or not.

bob

[Court_1]

He was a drug addict in the worse sense possible. How blind are you?

Go continue to masturbate to MJ as obviously you cannot see reason so
there is no point arguing with somebody like that. Continue to glorify
MJ the innocent child lover who merely took "some drugs." LOL.

[TT]

Perhaps, but have you ever considered that what if the accusations were
not true to begin with, what if he was totally innocent to sexual
allegations?

What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
appear even Christ-like...

This is what Gladys Knight says about Michael:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftcrU2LVuE

[Court_1]

That is correct. You get a gold star! I have read what is out there
and have formed an opinion. Not illegal to do so and if my opinion
differs from yours so be it.

[TT]

No, you need serious help here - coming to this thread your ONLY purpose
being to raise up the tired old and unproven pedophile talk again.

So fuck off.
That's all you do here: try to troll about these sort of topics.

[bob]

but what does your ability to read legal documents have to do with
your knowledge of what really happened? none. because even the people
testifying had motives, right or wrong.

was he or was he not proven guilty?

bob

[bob]

that's just it - i didn't form an opinion as i don't know enough about
it and the public evidence wasn't strong enough.

i formed an opinion about OJ and casey anthony but not MJ. not that i
like MJ, i'm neutral. just didn't see the same type of evidence. maybe
you did or just wanted to find him guilty in your mind, i don't know.

bob

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 30, 10:32 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> Perhaps, but have you ever considered that what if the accusations were
> not true to begin with, what if he was totally innocent to sexual
> allegations?
>
> What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
> appear even Christ-like...

Er, no. The way Jackson behaved with children was immoral, IMO,
whether or not it was illegal or constituted some form of sexual
abuse. There are types of intimacy that an adult should not attempt to
impose on a young child who is not a close relative. Children should
not be treated as the equivalent of stuffed animals to comfort and
pamper a wealthy but emotionally stunted eccentric. Whether their
irresponsible parents consented to the arrangements is irrelevant to
the propriety of Jackson's behavior. He may not have been a criminal,
but he was certainly no saint. I suggest that you direct your
reverence elsewhere.

[Court_1]

> bob- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

He was found not guilty and that is NOT the same as actually being not
guilty. Who cares if he was found not guilty or not? OJ Simpson was
found not guilty. Are we not supposed to talk about our opinons just
because somebody is found not guilty in a trial?
Give me a break, how stupid is that? Dumb logic.

[bob]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
<josephm...@netzero.com> wrote:

>On Sep 30, 10:32 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps, but have you ever considered that what if the accusations were
>> not true to begin with, what if he was totally innocent to sexual
>> allegations?
>>
>> What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
>> appear even Christ-like...
>
>Er, no. The way Jackson behaved with children was immoral, IMO,
>whether or not it was illegal or constituted some form of sexual
>abuse. There are types of intimacy that an adult should not attempt to
>impose on a young child who is not a close relative.

not a close relative? huh?

> Children should
>not be treated as the equivalent of stuffed animals to comfort and
>pamper a wealthy but emotionally stunted eccentric. Whether their
>irresponsible parents consented to the arrangements is irrelevant to
>the propriety of Jackson's behavior. He may not have been a criminal,
>but he was certainly no saint. I suggest that you direct your
>reverence elsewhere.

bob

[TT]

You certainly are not a lawyer. Any case we have noticed that you have
most of the time zero ability to form opinions based on facts, or argue
coherently - thus claiming to be an authority can hardly make you look
less ridiculous.

And nobody asked you to present your opinion about MJ's possible
paedophilia in this thread. This thread had nothing to do with it.

Obviously you have axe to grind against Jackson or anyone who likes him.
How about just letting others enjoy his music and this film without
getting into couple decades old debates about unproven claims? Is that
too much to ask? What do you want from the guy still, he's dead ffs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydP-2hu8dS0&hd=1

[Court_1]

> bob- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I did NOT want to find him guilty in my mind as I was a huge MJ fan as
I have stated already on here. If anything I never wanted to form an
opinon that he was a child molestor.

You just stated the whole important factor when you said YOU have not
done enough reading on the subject. While I have and I have formed an
opinion. So the fact that you have read enough about the OJ Simpson
case and have formed an opinion does that mean your opinon in that
case is the law? LOL. Who cares if YOU have not read enough and formed
an opinon about the MJ case? I have read many many things on the
subject and have formed an opinion. End of story.

[Joe Ramirez]

On Sep 30, 10:52 pm, bob <stein...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Sep 2011 19:48:42 -0700 (PDT), Joe Ramirez
>

> <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 10:32 pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>
> >> Perhaps, but have you ever considered that what if the accusations were
> >> not true to begin with, what if he was totally innocent to sexual
> >> allegations?
>
> >> What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
> >> appear even Christ-like...
>
> >Er, no. The way Jackson behaved with children was immoral, IMO,
> >whether or not it was illegal or constituted some form of sexual
> >abuse. There are types of intimacy that an adult should not attempt to
> >impose on a young child who is not a close relative.
>
> not a close relative? huh?

Four words: which of them is a mystery to you?

[bob]

>quote joe: "there are types of intimacy that an adult should not attempt to impose on a young child who is not a close relative."

again, huh?

bob

[bob]

your opinion is fine, just that of the public evidence (which is teh
same evidence you are privy to) there was nothing about MJ that i ever
heard that didn't have a strong shakedown motive. not that he's not a
perverted molestor, but i have not proof to think so.

bob

[bob]

i've seen the MJ case on TV like everybody else, and heard TV
reporters discuss their opinions, the facts, the evidence, etc. i.e.
some public knowledge. not even if you were jackson's attorney do i
believe you would know the truth - maybe jackson's close
friends/relateives know, and of course the kids know. i don't think
even their parents know - they just smelled $$$. you have a right to
form your opinion - but it's not fact.

bob

[Court_1]

> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftcrU2LVuE-Hidequoted text -

>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Nobody who is in the entertainment business is going to speak out
> >>> about Michael Jackson especially somebody like Gladys Knight who knew
> >>> Jacskon since he was a kid. That is your evidence that all was well in
> >>> Jackson Land? LOL.
>
> >> It's not evidence you dumb cunt. It's just a character witness...and she
> >> certainly appears like a very grounded person.
>
> >> What is your evidence contrary... police never found anything contrary
> >> despite more than decade long vendetta by Sneddon. So you better shut
> >> the fuck up or provide some evidence.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Listen to you. What is your problem? Do you fantasize about Michael
> > Jackson the same way you do about Nadal? You need serious help if you
> > take all of this stuff so seriously and you can't understand that
> > there are other opinons out there.
>
> No, you need serious help here - coming to this thread your ONLY purpose
> being to raise up the tired old and unproven pedophile talk again.
>
> So fuck off.

> That's all you do here: try to troll about these sort of topics.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL, that is a joke coming from you. I have formed an opinion on the
MJ case which you brought up by posting the thread so NO, I will not
fuck off. You post night and day how you think Roger Federer is a
pedophile and that is ok, but when I tell you I have formed an opinion
about Michael Jackson who was actually publicly accused of child
molestation unlike Federer, you take offense to it? Grow up! If you
don't want people's opinions don't post about MJ in a friggin tennis
forum moron!

[TT]

You're just projecting your own morals and fears against him. Certainly
there's nothing wrong with spending time with kids.

[TT]

I have my doubts about you ever being his fan.

[felangey]

>What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
>appear even Christ-like...

Whutwhutwhut? :) You are a curious egg Mr TT.

[TT]

1.10.2011 5:29, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Sep 30, 10:00 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 1.10.2011 4:36, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>>
>>> He was not able to rehearse for long
>>> periods of time for This Is It
>>
>> And how do you know this?
>>
>> The point is that he wasn't in condition of a dying man by any stretch
>> of imagination, as you should see from "this is it" material.
>>
>> Yes, he apparently used some drugs, but that doesn't change the case at
>> all...in fact it just makes his doctor administering Propofol even worse.
>
> He was a drug addict in the worse sense possible. How blind are you?
>

Learn to read.

"In the worse sense possible" - what, did he rob people and sell drugs
to cover for his heroin addiction?

You just want to talk smack, because that's the sort of person you are.
All about gossip, beach pics, rumours etc...you have hard on when
talking about this stuff.

In other words you came this thread to troll. well done.

[Joe Ramirez]

Of course they're my own morals, but I believe most people share them,
although Jackson evidently did not. But it's not "projecting" -- it's
judging.

>Certainly there's nothing wrong with spending time with kids.

Not the way he did it. It's one thing for a parent to come home, hug
his/her child, and sit down on the couch with the child to read a book
or watch a TV show together. The parent feels relaxed and happy, and
the child feels secure and loved. That is how families interact.
Creating a synthetic version of that kind of interaction with random
children of neighbors, employees or fans, as a weird form of
consolation for the adult, is wrong. It's exploitative. Children are
not therapy dogs.

[TT]

1.10.2011 6:25, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
> On Sep 30, 11:13 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>> 1.10.2011 5:48, Joe Ramirez kirjoitti:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 30, 10:32 pm, TT<as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> Perhaps, but have you ever considered that what if the accusations were
>>>> not true to begin with, what if he was totally innocent to sexual
>>>> allegations?
>>
>>>> What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
>>>> appear even Christ-like...
>>
>>> Er, no. The way Jackson behaved with children was immoral, IMO,
>>> whether or not it was illegal or constituted some form of sexual
>>> abuse. There are types of intimacy that an adult should not attempt to
>>> impose on a young child who is not a close relative. Children should
>>> not be treated as the equivalent of stuffed animals to comfort and
>>> pamper a wealthy but emotionally stunted eccentric. Whether their
>>> irresponsible parents consented to the arrangements is irrelevant to
>>> the propriety of Jackson's behavior. He may not have been a criminal,
>>> but he was certainly no saint. I suggest that you direct your
>>> reverence elsewhere.
>>
>> You're just projecting your own morals and fears against him.
>
> Of course they're my own morals, but I believe most people share them,
> although Jackson evidently did not. But it's not "projecting" -- it's
> judging.
>

Even worse.

>> Certainly there's nothing wrong with spending time with kids.
>
> Not the way he did it. It's one thing for a parent to come home, hug
> his/her child, and sit down on the couch

You can not compare your life to Jackson's. He lived in different world,
he lived in Neverland...

In other words he lived in different culture from yours, his worldviews
were different...things in some cultures are acceptable while in others
they are not.
Now of course he lived in same country physically, so he had to obey
laws....but if he did that, I don't think your morals are valid to judge
him - in fact, it could be him that is "right" and us who are "wrong".

About therapydogs...well, if the children enjoyed their time and Michael
enjoyed his time...can't see nothing wrong with it.

What is your case anyway, that people should not have dogs? I agree,
keeping an animal is a weird thing - An adult human being should never
spend time with them... what can they get from an animal? Sex?
See what I did there.

[TT]

No I didn't.

> so NO, I will not
> fuck off.

You should.

> You post night and day how you think Roger Federer is a
> pedophile and that is ok,

I joke about Federer, you're serious about Jackson. Federer is alive,
Jackson is dead.

[Joe Ramirez]

Which culture did the children live in? Jackson's freakish worldview
did not entitle him to utilize OTHER PEOPLE in his self-medication,
especially people who were too young to protect themselves.

> Now of course he lived in same country physically, so he had to obey
> laws....but if he did that, I don't think your morals are valid to judge
> him - in fact, it could be him that is "right" and us who are "wrong".

I understand that you are a committed contrarian, but let's try to
keep it within manageable bounds. Cartesian skepticism applied to
morality is disastrous. If you had children, I doubt that you would be
so cavalier.

[TT]

You sidestepped my question about what was the harm if children liked
their time with Jackson and vice versa...

>> Now of course he lived in same country physically, so he had to obey
>> laws....but if he did that, I don't think your morals are valid to judge
>> him - in fact, it could be him that is "right" and us who are "wrong".
>
> I understand that you are a committed contrarian, but let's try to
> keep it within manageable bounds. Cartesian skepticism applied to
> morality is disastrous. If you had children, I doubt that you would be
> so cavalier.

I wouldn't call myself contrarian or Cartesian here. I'm merely arguing
that Jackson was not proven as paedophile. The way I see it, you're in a
way defending claims that he was, by approving the view that he
shouldn't have spent time with these children anyway.

[Court_1]

> >>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yftcrU2LVuE-Hidequotedtext -

> Jackson is dead.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So what? So we can only talk about live people but not dead ones? Ha,
ha. TT's LAWS from the Twilight Zone! Who caers if MJ is dead?

[Court_1]

> I have my doubts about you ever being his fan.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

LOL. You are a riot. Why would I lie and ever say anything about me
being a MJ fan? I don't lie about a thing. I was a huge fan. I saw him
live twice in the Thriller days. I loved MJ as an entertainer. Ask my
mom who found me listening to MJ in my room all the time. I was a fan
and still am a fan of his music but I have formed an opinion about his
other proclivities. Just deal with it. We don't all have to share
similar opinions about things.

[TT]

There are moral laws of decency when talking about dead people, as I'm
sure Joe will tell you.

However that was not my main point you dumb cunt.

[Joe Ramirez]

Don't be silly. Little children don't know what's best for themselves.
You don't judge the propriety of behavior toward children by asking
whether the kids liked it or not.

> >> Now of course he lived in same country physically, so he had to obey
> >> laws....but if he did that, I don't think your morals are valid to judge
> >> him - in fact, it could be him that is "right" and us who are "wrong".
>
> > I understand that you are a committed contrarian, but let's try to
> > keep it within manageable bounds. Cartesian skepticism applied to
> > morality is disastrous. If you had children, I doubt that you would be
> > so cavalier.
>
> I wouldn't call myself contrarian or Cartesian here. I'm merely arguing
> that Jackson was not proven as paedophile. The way I see it, you're in a
> way defending claims that he was, by approving the view that he
> shouldn't have spent time with these children anyway.

It's impossible to *defend* the view that Jackson should have behaved
toward children the way he did. I could poll 100 decent parents at
random anywhere and achieve unanimity on that point. I've already
stated that I do not know whether Jackson was in fact guilty of the
crimes of which he was acquitted or whether any sexual abuse occurred.
I see little point in arguing about the unknowable; I'm simply
rebutting the terribly incorrect claim that Jackson was some sort of
holy man.

[TT]

You would lie about it to sound more impartial...as if you had nothing
against him.

Of course we can see that you do have axe to grind with him, jumping in
this thread like a deranged dingbat decade down.

[number_six]

Supposedly, the proverbial fly on the wall was really there when
Descartes hatched the idea of using coordinates to plot its position.

[TT]

Their parents decided, didn't they. And you STILL didn't answer my
question...

>>>> Now of course he lived in same country physically, so he had to obey
>>>> laws....but if he did that, I don't think your morals are valid to judge
>>>> him - in fact, it could be him that is "right" and us who are "wrong".
>>
>>> I understand that you are a committed contrarian, but let's try to
>>> keep it within manageable bounds. Cartesian skepticism applied to
>>> morality is disastrous. If you had children, I doubt that you would be
>>> so cavalier.
>>
>> I wouldn't call myself contrarian or Cartesian here. I'm merely arguing
>> that Jackson was not proven as paedophile. The way I see it, you're in a
>> way defending claims that he was, by approving the view that he
>> shouldn't have spent time with these children anyway.
>
> It's impossible to *defend* the view that Jackson should have behaved
> toward children the way he did. I could poll 100 decent parents at
> random anywhere and achieve unanimity on that point. I've already
> stated that I do not know whether Jackson was in fact guilty of the
> crimes of which he was acquitted or whether any sexual abuse occurred.
> I see little point in arguing about the unknowable; I'm simply
> rebutting the terribly incorrect claim that Jackson was some sort of
> holy man.

But your initial reply was to my post which clearly said that what IF he
was completely innocent with children. Now if he was innocent in that
respect what harm could there be for those children...

And looking at his interviews/behaviour and comments about him from
those who knew him he indeed strikes me as a holy man...

[TT]

Yup, Joe is looking at coordinates but doesn't see they can be positive
as well.

[number_six]

On Sep 30, 9:38 pm, TT wrote:
> There are moral laws of decency when talking about dead people, as I'm
> sure Joe will tell you.

Most people would agree, at least in theory, that we owe no less to
the living.

[Joe Ramirez]

More. E.g., the law does not recognize libel of the dead.

[TT]

Not entirely true.

[Court_1]

> this thread like a deranged dingbat decade down.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't have an axe to grind with him, I just have formed an opinion
that he was far from the innocent holier than thou image that his PR
people would have stupid people like you belive. ;)

[Court_1]

What is not entirely true about it? Is MJ disguised as the devil going
to come back and sue us for having an opinion? The man was already
bankrupt and had a dozen lawsuits or more filed against him for not
paying his bills. He blew all of his money on drugs and god knows what
else.

[Court_1]

On Oct 1, 12:42 am, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:

> this thread like a deranged dingbat decade down.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No dimwit, I was a big MJ fan, now shut up with your stupid theories.
We get it, you would like to blow MJ if he were alive(too bad he would
not take you up on it unless you are a 12 year old boy) just like you
do Nadal, but not everybody has to share these same thoughts and if
they have different thoughts, deal with it. ;)

[Joe Ramirez]

Your nonexistent children are thanking you for not having them and
resolving doubts about their well-being in favor of wacky celebrities.

> > And looking at his interviews/behaviour and comments about him from
> those who knew him he indeed strikes me as a holy man...

Gag. One thing that all great moral traditions, Western and Eastern,
have in common is recognizing that self-indulgence and holiness are
TOTAL OPPOSITES. Jackson was nothing if not self-indulgent.

[TT]

You're avoiding answering my arguments here... We're not discussing
whether it's okay to give your children to strangers: your claim was
that Jackson's behaviour was "immoral" - REGARDLESS whether he was
indecent with the kids.

Thus I'm STILL expecting your answer to the question what harm would it
have done to these children if Jackson behaved well and both the
children and Jackson had good time?
....and how the hell does that make Jackson less good a person or
"immoral" as you called him?

You need to answer that or withdraw your original statement and blame
the parents instead.

[TT]

Which you see fit to discuss to the kingdom come, regardless that the
topic is old and lame and this thread had nothing to do with it.

> that he was far from the innocent holier than thou image that his PR
> people would have stupid people like you belive. ;)

That must be it. I must be stupid or uninformed. Now I see that MJ was
sold for sex to studio execs etc. Thanks.

[TT]

You're not just presenting your thoughts about something discussed in
this thread...you started the whole crap discussion by claiming:

"You forgot to say Jackson was a pedohphile and a serious drug addict."

Unnecessary and false. Troll.

[Joe Ramirez]

As usual in your debates, the answer is staring you in the face but
you refuse to acknowledge it. I explained my reasoning in my first
post in this thread -- the one that responded to your fatuous
assertion that Michael Jackson was Christ-like:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.tennis/msg/88d4264dbfe454f3

If you don't understand that answer, my advice is to go out and gain
some broader knowledge of the world. Sometimes your perspective on
ordinary human affairs seems astonishingly naive -- almost Martian-
like in its evident lack of Erlebnis. Set aside your fanboyish loyalty
to Jackson and talk to some wiser people about the propriety of using
young children as flesh-and-blood antidepressants for wealthy
fetishists.

[TT]

So in other words you have no answer to my argument and regardless
refuse to draw back your statement.

You're basically saying that I don't understand your argument while
being unable to answer my questions and thus explain it. That's weak
Joe. Case dismissed.

Thanks for the insults btw, do you always do this when losing an argument?

[Rockinghorse Winner]

Joe Ramirez <josephm...@netzero.com> writes:

>On Sep 30, 10:32=A0pm, TT <as...@usenet.org> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps, but have you ever considered that what if the accusations were
>> not true to begin with, what if he was totally innocent to sexual
>> allegations?
>>
>> What would he look as a character then. I'd say his personality would
>> appear even Christ-like...

>Er, no. The way Jackson behaved with children was immoral, IMO,
>whether or not it was illegal or constituted some form of sexual
>abuse. There are types of intimacy that an adult should not attempt to
>impose on a young child who is not a close relative. Children should
>not be treated as the equivalent of stuffed animals to comfort and
>pamper a wealthy but emotionally stunted eccentric. Whether their
>irresponsible parents consented to the arrangements is irrelevant to
>the propriety of Jackson's behavior. He may not have been a criminal,
>but he was certainly no saint. I suggest that you direct your
>reverence elsewhere.

That is a legitimate pov. However, it IS a very recent development that this
suspicion of adult contact with children has arisen. There would never have
been this criticism of these types of actions in any decade before the 80's.
So, like I said, it is a legitimate opinion, but quite contemporary in tone.

Terry

[TT]

Indeed, it's rather contemporary...and cultural as well.

The problem is that Joe is claiming Jackson's behaviour to be
immoral...while immorality requires ill intention - which Jackson didn't
have according to my argument which Joe was replying to...

[Mack A. Damia]

The phenomenon has intensified in exposure, but it has always been a
part of our culture . I recall incidents in grade and high school
back in the 1950s and 1960s. For instance three of us, aged about
ten, were approached by a pervert in the late 1950s. He showed us a
"French deck" - playing cards with photos of gay pornography on the
backs of the cards.

We quickly left on our bicycles as soon as we could, went to the local
police, and he was arrested. The idiot even stayed around the area -
a swimming spot. We understood that he got about two years in prison
for his attempt to seduce us with explicit language.

There were other incidents involving children, too, but America has a
guilt complex about sex - not that pedophilia is justifiable, but the
witch hunt is unparalleled. I recall 9th grade boys going to avail
the services of prostitutes, too.

How about those photos of twelve year old girls who are made to look
older for women's magazine covers? Ethical?