Michael Jackson - paedo or not to paedo?
Mike
Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
audience.
So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
What did happen is some greedy bastards who had already enjoyed MJ's
lavish hospitality and gifts, got paid some �20,000,000 for their
'trouble'.
Then this 'wholesome' American
http://pastclimbs.summitfordanny.org/sfd2000/images/sneddon.jpg
persued him in order to prove something which to this day MJ was never
found guilty of, despite Seddon's 10 year mission to do so in which MJ
answered to some 10 counts of abuse laid against him.
So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical legacy
never seen before and the like of which will probably never be seen
again.
Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
Speedgazebo MOTP #1
> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
> audience.
>
> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
Possibly that they had paid to go to a Take that concert, not a MJ
tribute ?
--
Speedgazebo
Andy Bonwick
snip>
>So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
>about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
>year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
>And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical legacy
>never seen before and the like of which will probably never be seen
>again.
>
>Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
What the hell has that got to do with it?
I'm more curious as to your motives in posting to two totally
different newsgroups because apart from provoking a pointless
discussion you're actually giving nothing of value to the World.
Btw, I'm convinced that if the alleged offenses had taken place in
this country he would have had a couple of months in court being given
the opportunity to clear his name. Paying off an alleged victim
shouldn't close a case.
Tom
> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
> audience.
>
> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>
> For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
> evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
Of course not dear, of course not......
Nige
Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
--
Nige,
BMW K1200S
Range Rover Vogue
Suzuki GSX-R600 Racebike
Eiron
I thought it could have been because they were music lovers
but then I realized that they had paid to go to a 'Take That' concert.
--
Eiron.
johannes
Aaaaaaaaaaooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Take that!
johannes
Nope, I was good.
Michael,
Black Hummer limousine
Private Learjet
Harley Davidson V8 motorbike.
Nige
nutter.
Chris
news:7amkpfF...@mid.individual.net...
Could you two please play "Top Trumps" quietly.
Thank you,
Chris
--
I'm not exactly sure which orifice you pulled this out of but I do hope you
disinfected it before you started waving it around like that.
- Antispam in NANAE
Martin Milan
I don't think he was guilty either. He was incredibly naive, but I don't
think he was abusing children.
Let's not forget the fact that he was cleared in a court of law. That
should count for something.
Martin
Tom
Let's face it. None of Take that nor Jackson can play a note. There's
not a 'musician' amongst them.
Tom
It counts as a demonstration of what you can get away with if you are
famous and have money. Ask OJ.
Nige
>
> Could you two please play "Top Trumps" quietly.
> Thank you,
Learn to snip, fuckwit.
Gavsta
> Chris wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Could you two please play "Top Trumps" quietly.
>> Thank you,
>
>
> Learn to snip, fuckwit.
And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is what we call a WHOOSH!
--
Gavin.
For the road: GSXR600K1
For the track: <gone>
Current project: Peugeot Speedfight 2
For everything else: Citro�n Berlingo
MSN: gavs...@hotmail.com
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gavin_wilby
Blog: http://www.stoof.co.uk
Mike
>Well, I'm not a particular Michael Jackson fan, but I would have to say
>I don't think he was guilty either. He was incredibly naive, but I don't
>think he was abusing children.
A reasonable viewpoint. I agree, and if he did do anything at worst he
made some "kids" feel uncomfortable for a short period of time.
>Let's not forget the fact that he was cleared in a court of law. That
>should count for something.
Regrettably it does not in *this* civilised part of the world.
Mike
Entirely different.
Mike
>What? Well apart from my regular standing orders to a few cancer
>charities which come off around now ... nothing.
>
>Would you rather we join in with all the fucking fake mass grief and
>hysteria that seems to accompany every fucking Z list "celeb" who
>snuffs it these days?
Are you claiming "booer" status then?
Blah
> Nige wrote, and I quote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>
>> Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>
That would be Elvis then, and the Beales if you accept groups.
MJ is the same league as Bing Crosby, who was err - shite.
>
> Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
or yours..
Hog
> Krusty <dontw...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Andy Bonwick wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:42:46 +0100, Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>>> So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
>>>> about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a
>>>> 50 year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive
>>>> childhood. And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and
>>>> musical legacy never seen before and the like of which will
>>>> probably never be seen again.
>>>>
>>>> Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
>>>
>>> What the hell has that got to do with it?
>>>
>>> I'm more curious as to your motives in posting to two totally
>>> different newsgroups because apart from provoking a pointless
>>> discussion you're actually giving nothing of value to the World.
>>
>> I believe the youngsters call it 'trolling'.
>
> Bear in mind that Andy's in his fifties now - he's no idea about
> youngsters ;-)
Oh hark at the teenage tottie!
I can sort of understand why MJ paid off the cunts first time around and
from what close friends say he wasn't one to be contradicted, but it was a
huge mistake. He should have faced them down in public, he was perfectly
capable of using humour against them, and used his (at the time) huge wealth
and raped them in court. But when you cave in once there are bound to me
more scum lining up behind.
--
Hog
allan tracy
If you cared to look beyond the boy band thing you would see that Gary
Barlow is a very good songwriter.
Mike
>Mike wrote:
>> Nige wrote, and I quote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>> Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>>
>> "Best selling artist of all time"
>
>
>That would be Elvis then, and the Beales if you accept groups.
>
>MJ is the same league as Bing Crosby, who was err - shite.
Depends on which stats you use to distort the end result, but in terms
of a "single artist" he's officially second to Elvis on his own work.
Same result if you include groups and so include the Jackson 5 work
where he still surpassed the beatles.
IYHO of course.
>> Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
>
>or yours..
I'm not the idiot who can't accept something must be good, purely
because it's not to my own taste. It's takes a certain level of 'dim'
to achieve that. Congrats.
Mike
>
>If you cared to look beyond the boy band thing you would see that Gary
>Barlow is a very good songwriter.
As is Mark Owen..
But Tom is just 'playing' the bad boy troll here, badly I might add.
Beelzebub
> Andy Bonwick wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:42:46 +0100, Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
> >
> > snip>
> >
> > > So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
> > > about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
> > > year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
> > > And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical
> > > legacy never seen before and the like of which will probably never
> > > be seen again.
> > >
> > > Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
> >
> > What the hell has that got to do with it?
> >
> > I'm more curious as to your motives in posting to two totally
> > different newsgroups because apart from provoking a pointless
> > discussion you're actually giving nothing of value to the World.
>
dpyd...@hotmail.com
> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
> audience.
>
> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>
> For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
> evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
>
> What did happen is some greedy bastards who had already enjoyed MJ's
> lavish hospitality and gifts, got paid some £20,000,000 for their
> 'trouble'.
>
> persued him in order to prove something which to this day MJ was never
> found guilty of, despite Seddon's 10 year mission to do so in which MJ
> answered to some 10 counts of abuse laid against him.
>
> about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
> year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
> And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical legacy
> never seen before and the like of which will probably never be seen
> again.
>
> Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
Who knows?
The case for the prosecution: apart from the "unusual" nature of the
intimate friendship between a man and a pubescent boy, one of the boys
appeared to be able to give a detailed and accurate description of
Michael Jackson's penis. You don't get that from playing top trumps.
The case for the defence: paedophiles invariably have a history of
offending if they have the opportunity, and given the number of kids
passing through his life and the financial rewards for a successful
complaint, you would expect far more victims/chancers to have come
forward if there was fire rather than just smoke.
--
Remember Dr Folkman
Mike
>On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:42:46 +0100, Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>
>snip>
>
>>So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
>>about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
>>year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
>>And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical legacy
>>never seen before and the like of which will probably never be seen
>>again.
>>
>>Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
>
>What the hell has that got to do with it?
Tina Turner?
>I'm more curious as to your motives
Ah, the retort of a typical cynic. Do you assume 'he must have done
it' too?
>in posting to two totally
>different newsgroups
ul: obvious; discussion about a legal/moral issue in a legal group
ukrm: never succumbed to trolls and many regs will offer reasoned
argument.
>because apart from provoking a pointless
>discussion you're actually giving nothing of value to the World.
On that basis all discussion is pointless so why are you here?
>Btw, I'm convinced that if the alleged offenses had taken place in
>this country he would have had a couple of months in court being given
>the opportunity to clear his name. Paying off an alleged victim
>shouldn't close a case.
I agree, and it may well have done him more good than harm indeed, he
may well still be alive today had he allowed the legal route to take
its course on that first allegation.
Mike
>Mike wrote:
>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>> audience.
>>
>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>>
>> For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
>> evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
>
>Of course not dear, of course not......
Oh well, there you go.. "Tom" has the case aaaaaalll wrapped up.
Say, why not dispense with the courts and just go back to public
flogging and witch-hunt style law.
Mike
>Mike wrote:
>
>Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
"Best selling artist of all time"
Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
Nige
Like Bubbles spunk dribbles I give a fuck, you dummy.
Mike
>On 2009-06-27 16:48:32 +0100, Mike <mi...@home.now> said:
>
>>>>
>>>> Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
>>>
>>> What? Well apart from my regular standing orders to a few cancer
>>> charities which come off around now ... nothing.
>>>
>>> Would you rather we join in with all the fucking fake mass grief and
>>> hysteria that seems to accompany every fucking Z list "celeb" who
>>> snuffs it these days?
>>
>> Are you claiming "booer" status then?
>
>No, I claim the "I'm fucking indifferent to all this celebrity pish,
>wind and shite" status. Now, did you stand up in the middle of the
>concert and shout at all the booers and tell them how terrible they all
>were?
"Last evening my wife and daughter attended......"
>No, I bet you fucking well didn't.
Well no, as I wasn't even there....
> But you're more than happy to
>come onto this forum and have a whine and a girn thinking we'd all
>agree with you.
Nope, I was hoping for some reasoned debate about why 'people' very
often act as "judge and jury" when there hasn't been a trial and then
ignore the verdict when there has. Especially when there was no real
evidence in the first place.
Why boo a group who offered a simple tribute to a man who just died;
and what does that say about those people, even if Jackson had been
found guilty?
The man is dead, those who didn't like him or were stupidly convinced
of his guilt could at least have enough self-respect to let him rest
in peace.
<snip: idiotic rant>
Cane
What remarkable and utter rubbish
Mike
>On 27 June, 13:42, Mike <m...@home.now> wrote:
>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>> audience.
>>
>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>Who knows?
>
>The case for the prosecution: apart from the "unusual" nature of the
>intimate friendship between a man and a pubescent boy, one of the boys
>appeared to be able to give a detailed and accurate description of
>Michael Jackson's penis. You don't get that from playing top trumps.
When I was a boy I often went swimming at my local baths. Used
communal showers, bet I could have grabbed a description of some
blokes nob if I felt like (and prior to) crying "Abuse!!"
>The case for the defence: paedophiles invariably have a history of
>offending if they have the opportunity, and given the number of kids
>passing through his life and the financial rewards for a successful
>complaint, you would expect far more victims/chancers to have come
>forward if there was fire rather than just smoke.
Indeed. The sad thing is, IMHO, that he was just a boy in a man's
skin. Playing tents with your 10 year old mates is ok, unless you
happen to be a mentally pre-pubescent 40 year old.
Blah
> Blah wrote, and I quote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Nige wrote, and I quote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>>> "Best selling artist of all time"
>>
>> That would be Elvis then, and the Beales if you accept groups.
>>
>> MJ is the same league as Bing Crosby, who was err - shite.
>
> Depends on which stats you use to distort the end result, but in terms
> of a "single artist" he's officially second to Elvis on his own work.
So NOT best selling artist then?
>
> Same result if you include groups and so include the Jackson 5 work
> where he still surpassed the beatles.
>
> IYHO of course.
In which case McCartneys output added to the Beatles?
Oh, you'd have to toss for the joint Macca/Jacko hit.
>
>>> Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
>> or yours..
>
> I'm not the idiot who can't accept something must be good, purely
> because it's not to my own taste. It's takes a certain level of 'dim'
> to achieve that. Congrats.
>
Who said I did Fuckwit - I was merely refuting your statement that he
wasn't NO1 selling artist - which you now admit - so you clearly had a
'delusion' which I pointed out...
MJ's music wasn't shite - but he was a bit of a tosser...
Mike
>Most of which was off the back of the zombie video that John Landis
>made. But since when was financial success ever a measurement of
>talent? Were the Bay City Rollers the best band of the 1970s? The
>Spice Girls the best of the 80s? Take That the best of the 90s or
>whenever it was they were around?
Not quite the point though is it? MJ was one of the greatest and most
talented music and dance artists in the world, ever. That's not
"arguably" so, it is a fact. I was merely using the sales success to
make that point in the face of an idiot calling something not to his
taste, "shite".
Mike
>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>
>>Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>>Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>>late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>>what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>>audience.
>>
>>So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>>
>>For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
>>evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
<snip>
>I don't know how it works in America, but here settling out of court
>is seen as an admission of guilt. Both he and the music label that
>leeched from him would have been able to afford top lawyers, so if
>they advised settling out of court they must have expected him to
>lose.
Very possibly true. My own /opinion/ is that he probably did
something "inappropriate" due to his own immaturity with relationships
and lack of a real childhood. I do not accept any claims of "abuse"
and I think it is clear that he never really or actually harmed anyone
in his entire life.
Mike
>Mike wrote:
>> Blah wrote, and I quote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>> Nige wrote, and I quote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>>>> "Best selling artist of all time"
>>>
>>> That would be Elvis then, and the Beales if you accept groups.
>>>
>>> MJ is the same league as Bing Crosby, who was err - shite.
>>
>> Depends on which stats you use to distort the end result, but in terms
>> of a "single artist" he's officially second to Elvis on his own work.
>
>So NOT best selling artist then?
"Depends on which stats........"
>> Same result if you include groups and so include the Jackson 5 work
>> where he still surpassed the beatles.
>>
>> IYHO of course.
>
>In which case McCartneys output added to the Beatles?
>Oh, you'd have to toss for the joint Macca/Jacko hit.
"Depends on which stats........"
He was good enough to be considered, er, "good" by anyone with half a
brain.
>>>> Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
>>> or yours..
>>
>> I'm not the idiot who can't accept something must be good, purely
>> because it's not to my own taste. It's takes a certain level of 'dim'
>> to achieve that. Congrats.
>>
>Who said I did Fuckwit
You did.
>- I was merely refuting your statement that he
>wasn't NO1 selling artist - which you now admit - so you clearly had a
>'delusion' which I pointed out...
In that instance, about achieving a certain level of 'dim', I was
referring to your new input about Bing Crosby.
Sorry, what was that about a "fuckwit" ?
Dan L
> On 27 June, 13:42, Mike <m...@home.now> wrote:
> > Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
> > Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
> > late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses'
> > of what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
> > audience.
> >
> > So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
> >
> > For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
> > evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
> >
> > What did happen is some greedy bastards who had already enjoyed MJ's
> > lavish hospitality and gifts, got paid some �20,000,000 for their
> > 'trouble'.
> >
> > Then this 'wholesome'
> > Americanhttp://pastclimbs.summitfordanny.org/sfd2000/images/sneddon.
> > jpg persued him in order to prove something which to this day MJ
> > was never found guilty of, despite Seddon's 10 year mission to do
> > so in which MJ answered to some 10 counts of abuse laid against him.
> >
> > So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
> > about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
> > year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
> > And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical
> > legacy never seen before and the like of which will probably never
> > be seen again.
> >
> > Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
>
> Who knows?
>
<snip>
Or indeed cares.
He's dead.
End of.
If he had any real friends, or family who GAF then my thoughts are with
them.
--
Dan L
vulgarandmischevious
>For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
>evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
Blah
> Blah wrote, and I quote:
>
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Blah wrote, and I quote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>> Nige wrote, and I quote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>>>>> "Best selling artist of all time"
>>>> That would be Elvis then, and the Beales if you accept groups.
>>>>
>>>> MJ is the same league as Bing Crosby, who was err - shite.
>>> Depends on which stats you use to distort the end result, but in terms
>>> of a "single artist" he's officially second to Elvis on his own work.
>> So NOT best selling artist then?
>
> "Depends on which stats........"
>
>>> Same result if you include groups and so include the Jackson 5 work
>>> where he still surpassed the beatles.
>>>
>>> IYHO of course.
>> In which case McCartneys output added to the Beatles?
>> Oh, you'd have to toss for the joint Macca/Jacko hit.
>
> "Depends on which stats........"
Well cite some if your so sure...
>
> He was good enough to be considered, er, "good" by anyone with half a
> brain.
That covers you then. Note that I haven't said he wasn't 'good' once - I
merely seek to clarify your muppetry.
>
>>>>> Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
>>>> or yours..
>>> I'm not the idiot who can't accept something must be good, purely
>>> because it's not to my own taste. It's takes a certain level of 'dim'
>>> to achieve that. Congrats.
>>>
>> Who said I did Fuckwit
>
> You did.
No I didn't, you are seeing things - I said 'Bing Crosby is shite'
MJ is in the same league for sales.
Learn to frigging read!
>
>> - I was merely refuting your statement that he
>> wasn't NO1 selling artist - which you now admit - so you clearly had a
>> 'delusion' which I pointed out...
>
> In that instance, about achieving a certain level of 'dim', I was
> referring to your new input about Bing Crosby.
>
> Sorry, what was that about a "fuckwit" ?
What the fuck are you ON and what are you ON ABOUT?
try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists
Bing equal with MJ
or
http://www.pandora.com/music/artist/bing+crosby
Bing Crosby was, without doubt, the most popular and influential media
star of the first
half of the 20th century.
The undisputed best-selling artist until well into the rock era (with
over half a billion records in circulation)
or
http://www.mp3free4all.com/best_selling_music_artists.html
Artists Reputed Sales
500 million records or more
Artist Country Period Genre Source
The Beatles UK 60s-70s Rock / Arena Rock / Pop / Psychedelic Rock [1] [2]
Bing Crosby U.S. 20s-70s Jazz / Swing / Vocal / Easy Listening / Pop [3]
Michael Jackson U.S. 60s-00s Pop / New Jack Swing / R&B / Rock / Funk
/ Disco / Gospel [4]
Have you learned anything yet?
Blah
There is a significant amount of doubt about him in lots of ways.
Of course, this wasn't 'bad' was it:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,392473,00.html
just misunderstood.
Blah
Andy Bonwick
wrote:
>Andy Bonwick wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:42:46 +0100, Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>
>> snip>
>>
>> > So all you booers and hissers, what execatly is it you are hissing
>> > about? Apart from being confused about a "man" who actualy died a 50
>> > year old boy, having never recovered from his own abusive childhood.
>> > And yet he still managed to give the world a dance and musical
>> > legacy never seen before and the like of which will probably never
>> > be seen again.
>> >
>> > Tell us all you booers, what have you given to the world today?
>>
>> What the hell has that got to do with it?
>>
>> I'm more curious as to your motives in posting to two totally
>> different newsgroups because apart from provoking a pointless
>> discussion you're actually giving nothing of value to the World.
>
>I believe the youngsters call it 'trolling'.
If that's what it was then it's no wonder I didn't recognise such a
poor effort.
Andy Bonwick
Alternatively just do what the fuck you want and pay the victims to
shut up.
I'm afraid that he did himself more harm than good by paying off the
accusers because I doubt if many believe he did it to spare the kids a
court appearance.
Steve Walker
> Edster wrote, and I quote:
>
>> Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Nige wrote, and I quote:
>>>
>>>> Mike wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>>>
>>> "Best selling artist of all time"
>>>
>>> Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
>>
>> Most of which was off the back of the zombie video that John Landis
>> made. But since when was financial success ever a measurement of
>> talent? Were the Bay City Rollers the best band of the 1970s? The
>> Spice Girls the best of the 80s? Take That the best of the 90s or
>> whenever it was they were around?
>
> Not quite the point though is it? MJ was one of the greatest and most
> talented music and dance artists in the world, ever.
Quite possibly - but you'll never hear people saying what a great caretaker
Ian Huntley was....
bombthrower
"Blah" <Bl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7an334F...@mid.individual.net...
dead men cant sue and the stories will soon be coming out .
millions are waiting to be paid out for headline tell all accounts of what
went on.
Chris
news:h25a81$cab$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Nige wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Could you two please play "Top Trumps" quietly.
>>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>> Learn to snip, fuckwit.
>
> And that, Ladies and Gentlemen, is what we call a WHOOSH!
>
>
Indeed!
Chris
--
Bigamy is having one wife too many.
Marriage is the same.
Simian
> Edster wrote, and I quote:
>
> >Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Nige wrote, and I quote:
> > >
> > > > Mike wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
> > >
> > > "Best selling artist of all time"
> > >
> > > Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
> >
> > Most of which was off the back of the zombie video that John Landis
> > made. But since when was financial success ever a measurement of
> > talent? Were the Bay City Rollers the best band of the 1970s? The
> > Spice Girls the best of the 80s? Take That the best of the 90s or
> > whenever it was they were around?
>
> Not quite the point though is it? MJ was one of the greatest and most
> talented music and dance artists in the world, ever.
That's a bit like saying "John Smith was one of the greatest and most
talented carpenters and yodellers in the world, ever."
I mean, I'm fairly sure that there have been a very large number of
greater 'music artists', and an enormous collection of more talented
'dance artists' in the last 15 billion years, so you must mean combined.
Even then, he wrote the lyrics to what, 1/5th of the stuff he
released, and he didn't have a spectacular singing voice, so most
of that is resting on his ability to dance and sing in tune, rather
than compose or anything.
I guess you might include choreography in the dance bit, but a random sampling of
his video credits shows shared credit for that on all of them...
So perhaps you mean: greatest and most talented pop artist ever
who wrote a few of his own songs, helped with the choreography
of his act, could sing in tune, and could also dance competently.
In the 1980s.
> That's not "arguably" so, it is a fact.
Ah, sorry, I didn't know.
Beav
"Tom" <TomT...@tiscali.com> wrote in message
news:4a4624e6$0$29139$6e1e...@read.cnntp.org...
> johannes wrote:
>>
>> Eiron wrote:
>>> Speedgazebo MOTP #1 wrote:
>>>>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>>>>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>>>>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>>>>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>>>>> audience.
>>>>>
>>>>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>>>>
>>>> tribute ?
>>> I thought it could have been because they were music lovers
>>> but then I realized that they had paid to go to a 'Take That' concert.
>>
>> Aaaaaaaaaaooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
>>
>> Take that!
>
> Let's face it. None of Take that nor Jackson can play a note. There's not
> a 'musician' amongst them.
And having the ability to write music doesn't count? Granted, their music
isn't to everyone's taste, [1] but I have a feeling that both Take That and
Wakko will be remembered for their music for a fair bit longer than you will
be.
[1] Mine for a start.
--
Beav
VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19
Nige
"Beav" <beavis....@ntlwoxorld.com> wrote in message
news:mXw1m.361$_d....@newsfe14.ams2...
Gary Barlow is a very good songwriter.
Beav
"Mike" <mi...@home.now> wrote in message
news:h25ig8$9fl$1...@news.datemas.de...
> dpyd...@hotmail.com wrote, and I quote:
>
>>On 27 June, 13:42, Mike <m...@home.now> wrote:
>
>>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>>> audience.
>>>
>>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>
>>Who knows?
>>
>>The case for the prosecution: apart from the "unusual" nature of the
>>intimate friendship between a man and a pubescent boy, one of the boys
>>appeared to be able to give a detailed and accurate description of
>>Michael Jackson's penis. You don't get that from playing top trumps.
>
> When I was a boy I often went swimming at my local baths. Used
> communal showers, bet I could have grabbed a description of some
> blokes nob if I felt like (and prior to) crying "Abuse!!"
I wonder which local swimming baths MJ and the Jordan kid frequented at the
same time.
>
>>The case for the defence: paedophiles invariably have a history of
>>offending if they have the opportunity, and given the number of kids
>>passing through his life and the financial rewards for a successful
>>complaint, you would expect far more victims/chancers to have come
>>forward if there was fire rather than just smoke.
>
> Indeed. The sad thing is, IMHO, that he was just a boy in a man's
> skin. Playing tents with your 10 year old mates is ok, unless you
> happen to be a mentally pre-pubescent 40 year old.
Be that as it may, he didn't do much for his own reputation by buying the
kid(s) off and being a little mentally underdeveloped doesn't give you carte
blanche to fiddle with kids.
vulgarandmischevious
>Gary Barlow is a very good songwriter.
Sure, if you're the kind of cunt who likes Elton John, he is.
Mike
>you've never posted here
>previously
Really?
lol.
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember Blah <Bl...@hotmail.com> saying
something like:
>That would be Elvis then, and the Beales if you accept groups.
That Ian can't sing worth a shit.
Grimly Curmudgeon
<vulgarandm...@gmail.com> saying something like:
Interesting.
On the other hand, some 13 year olds (and their parents) are cunning,
deceitful little cunts.
So, I don't know one way or the other. I await the emergence of evidence
of serial victims; as has been pointed out, it's very common for
perpetrators to carry on a pattern of behaviour. If others exist and
have been bought off, no gagging clause will stop them now.
Blah
Lol... I quite like Elvis Costello tho.
Blah
>
> Indeed. The sad thing is, IMHO, that he was just a boy in a man's
> skin. Playing tents with your 10 year old mates is ok, unless you
> happen to be a mentally pre-pubescent 40 year old.
no - he was a man trying to get inside a boys skin!
Colin Irvine
>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>I don't know how it works in America, but here settling out of court
>is seen as an admission of guilt.
Rubbish.
>Both he and the music label that
>leeched from him would have been able to afford top lawyers, so if
>they advised settling out of court they must have expected him to
>lose.
Which different from being guilty.
--
Colin Irvine
ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5
http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
vulgarandmischevious
I dunno. Maybe I'm gullible, but I read that document and it made me
fel sick. It didn't read to me like a kid making shit up; it read
like a kid relating what happened.
dpyd...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> So, I don't know one way or the other. I await the emergence of evidence
> of serial victims; as has been pointed out, it's very common for
> perpetrators to carry on a pattern of behaviour. If others exist and
> have been bought off, no gagging clause will stop them now.
It depends who was counterparty in the "gagging clause" agreement
which they signed. If it was Jackson personally then it does seem
unlikely that his estate can now enforce the agreement, so it's open
season. However, if they signed an agreement with a corporate entity,
that entity will still exist and the obligations will still bind them.
The Older Gentleman
> >>I don't know how it works in America, but here settling out of court
> >>is seen as an admission of guilt.
> >
> >Rubbish.
>
> Of course it is. People only settle out of court because they think it
> will be cheaper. Anyone who was innocent would fight no matter what
> the cost. Especially someone to whom money means nothing.
You have no idea. People routinely settle out of court, even when
they're in the right, legally and morally, simply to avoid the hassle
factor (and the cost).
Insurance companies, to take a classic example, do it frequently.
Now fuck off and come back only when you've learned something.
Aside to the general populace: why is it that almost every poster with
one of these 'privacy' addresses or similar is a complete wankstain?
There are exceptions, I grant you, but not many.
--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F & XBR500 Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. And RTFM.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
The Older Gentleman
> no gagging clause will stop them now.
That's a splendid expression to use, under the circumstances.
Eiron
It doesn't read like that to me.
Whatever the child wrote or said, it looks like it was rewritten by an adult.
And who wouldn't do all that for $20 million? Seems like quite a bargain. :-)
--
Eiron.
Mike
>Mike wrote:
>>>> I'm not the idiot who can't accept something must be good, purely
>>>> because it's not to my own taste. It's takes a certain level of 'dim'
>>>> to achieve that. Congrats.
>>>>
>>> Who said I did Fuckwit
>>
>> You did.
>
>No I didn't, you are seeing things - I said 'Bing Crosby is shite'
>MJ is in the same league for sales.
>Learn to frigging read!
lol... I really am dealing with a complete fuckwit here.
I shall try, just once more; you said....
> ...... 'Bing Crosby is shite'
>>>> I'm not the idiot who can't accept something must be good, purely
>>>> because it's not to my own taste. It's takes a certain level of 'dim'
>>>> to achieve that. Congrats.
You just did the 'dim' thing about Bing Crosby.
I'm not keen on Bing Crosby; I would never refer to him as 'shite'
because I'm not dim and there is far too much evidence to refute such
a stupid comment. Besides, Christmas would never be the same. lol
hth hand.
Mike
>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>
>
>>Edster wrote, and I quote:
>>
>>>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nige wrote, and I quote:
>>>>
>>>>>Mike wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Who gives a flying fuck, he was shite.
>>>>
>>>>"Best selling artist of all time"
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm excuse me if I don't accept your delusions.
>>>
>>>Most of which was off the back of the zombie video that John Landis
>>>made. But since when was financial success ever a measurement of
>>>talent? Were the Bay City Rollers the best band of the 1970s? The
>>>Spice Girls the best of the 80s? Take That the best of the 90s or
>>>whenever it was they were around?
>>
>>Not quite the point though is it? MJ was one of the greatest and most
>>talented music and dance artists in the world, ever. That's not
>>"arguably" so, it is a fact.
>
>I don't see how you can claim facts about something as subjective as
>music or dance. It's not like running or throwing a stick, where you
>can measure people's different talent on an agreed scale. The best you
>could say would be "out of all the singers and dancers that I am aware
>of, my opinion is that he is the greatest". But your opinion would be
>no more fact than someone else's opinion that he was shite.
Nah, sorry, that's just clap trap for those who want an excuse to be
offensive or rude about something they don't like or appreciate. If an
artist achieves such levels of appreciation as MJ did by the general
public, not only in their own country but also across the entire globe
regardless of language or culture, you cannot refer to them as "shite"
and be considered realistic in your opinion.
>>I was merely using the sales success to
>>make that point in the face of an idiot calling something not to his
>>taste, "shite".
>
>And like I said, financial success is no measurement of talent.
It's not about the finances, it is about the number of people willing
to purchase and own his recordings.
Mike
>
>"Mike" <mi...@home.now> wrote in message
>news:h25ig8$9fl$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> dpyd...@hotmail.com wrote, and I quote:
>>
>>>On 27 June, 13:42, Mike <m...@home.now> wrote:
>>
>>>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>>>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>>>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>>>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>>>> audience.
>>>>
>>>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>>
>>>Who knows?
>>>
>>>The case for the prosecution: apart from the "unusual" nature of the
>>>intimate friendship between a man and a pubescent boy, one of the boys
>>>appeared to be able to give a detailed and accurate description of
>>>Michael Jackson's penis. You don't get that from playing top trumps.
>>
>> When I was a boy I often went swimming at my local baths. Used
>> communal showers, bet I could have grabbed a description of some
>> blokes nob if I felt like (and prior to) crying "Abuse!!"
>
>I wonder which local swimming baths MJ and the Jordan kid frequented at the
>same time.
Yes, I expected that reply. It was simply an example of how it could
happen as I'm sure you understood.
>>>The case for the defence: paedophiles invariably have a history of
>>>offending if they have the opportunity, and given the number of kids
>>>passing through his life and the financial rewards for a successful
>>>complaint, you would expect far more victims/chancers to have come
>>>forward if there was fire rather than just smoke.
>>
>> Indeed. The sad thing is, IMHO, that he was just a boy in a man's
>> skin. Playing tents with your 10 year old mates is ok, unless you
>> happen to be a mentally pre-pubescent 40 year old.
>
>Be that as it may, he didn't do much for his own reputation by buying the
>kid(s) off and being a little mentally underdeveloped doesn't give you carte
>blanche to fiddle with kids.
Agreed.
Mike
>Whether Jackson actually did anything or not wouldn't really make any
>difference. The accusation would be enough to damn him forever.
Thank you.
" So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people? "
:-)
Mike
>Mike wrote:
>> Edster wrote, and I quote:
>>
>>> Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>>>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>>>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>>>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>>>> audience.
>>>>
>>>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>>>>
>>>> For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
>>>> evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I don't know how it works in America, but here settling out of court
>>> is seen as an admission of guilt. Both he and the music label that
>>> leeched from him would have been able to afford top lawyers, so if
>>> they advised settling out of court they must have expected him to
>>> lose.
>>
>> Very possibly true. My own /opinion/ is that he probably did
>> something "inappropriate" due to his own immaturity with relationships
>> and lack of a real childhood. I do not accept any claims of "abuse"
>> and I think it is clear that he never really or actually harmed anyone
>> in his entire life.
>>
>Of course its not 'clear' or half your concerts wouldn't have booed him.
>There is a significant amount of doubt about him in lots of ways.
>
>Of course, this wasn't 'bad' was it:
>http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,392473,00.html
Yes, it was bad, it was bloody awful and stupid. The sort of thing an
immature, irresponsible, excited young boy might do.
>just misunderstood.
Now you're getting it; unless you really believe he deliberately and
with full consideration decided to endanger the life of his own baby
child. I mean come on, he'd need to keep the kid alive so he could
abuse it later, wouldn't he?
Mike
>Nice to see you have no answer to the point of your pishy post then.
>
>Post Activity for mi...@home.now
>
> Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
>1998 1
>2005 1 4 1
>2006 1 2 1
>2008 1 1
>2009 19
Just not fair is it m8?
--
Mike
BoTAFOT#48 SbS#38
Mike
Exactly. Why the hell can't some people at least consider this and
keep their idiotic and equally distasteful booos to themselves. At
least until they have something 'proven' to boooo about.
My missus and my daughter aren't opinionated or adverse to the
reasonable opinions of others. But they were shocked when one band
offered a simple jesture of respect to someone who had just died, and
were boo'd for their trouble.
Mike
>"Nige" <nigel.i...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>Gary Barlow is a very good songwriter.
>
>Sure, if you're the kind of cunt who likes Elton John, he is.
lol... I despair.
Hankjam
>Edster wrote, and I quote:
>
>>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>
>>
<snipped>
>
>Not quite the point though is it? MJ was one of the greatest and most
>talented music and dance artists in the world, ever. That's not
>"arguably" so, it is a fact. I was merely using the sales success to
>make that point in the face of an idiot calling something not to his
>taste, "shite".
Is this how it works?
Fact:
A Statement: MJ was "one" of the greatest and most talented music and
dance artists in the world"
Then you define the criteria that makes this a fact....
Clearly it is your opinion.
Fact: I never bought any of his output, heard one you've heard them
all and they are all over the frigging place at the moment.
Hj
johannes
Tom wrote:
>
> johannes wrote:
> >
> > Eiron wrote:
> >> Speedgazebo MOTP #1 wrote:
> >>> On Jun 27, 1:42 pm, Mike <m...@home.now> wrote:
> >>>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
> >>>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
> >>>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
> >>>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
> >>>> audience.
> >>>>
> >>>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
> >>>
> >>> Possibly that they had paid to go to a Take that concert, not a MJ
> >>> tribute ?
> >> I thought it could have been because they were music lovers
> >> but then I realized that they had paid to go to a 'Take That' concert.
> >
> > Aaaaaaaaaaooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
> >
> > Take that!
>
> Let's face it. None of Take that nor Jackson can play a note. There's
> not a 'musician' amongst them.
But I can't take that take that song!
Aaaaaaaaaaooooooooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Ugh, that's painful!
Grimly Curmudgeon
something like:
>Whatever the child wrote or said, it looks like it was rewritten by an adult
It always is.
Tip: Next time you're getting fitted up, insist on writing your own
statement.
R. Mark Clayton
"Mike" <mi...@home.now> wrote in message news:h2545t$9fl$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
> audience.
>
> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>
> evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
If a bloke in the pub told me that he had spent the night with a [unrelated]
ten year old boy in his bed, I would find it very hard not to punch his
lights out. I certainly stopped buying any of his products after he paid
hush money over the first incident.
I will not be celebrating his death, but let's not pretend his entanglements
with children, including sadly his own, were in any way wholesome.
The Older Gentleman
> >> Of course it is. People only settle out of court because they think it
> >> will be cheaper. Anyone who was innocent would fight no matter what
> >> the cost. Especially someone to whom money means nothing.
> >
> >You have no idea. People routinely settle out of court, even when
> >they're in the right, legally and morally, simply to avoid the hassle
> >factor (and the cost).
>
> To save cost.
So now you're saying they*do* settle out of court when they're
'innocent'.
Nice of you to agree with me, but it does rather cast a shadow on your
ratiocination skills.
Mike
>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>>I don't see how you can claim facts about something as subjective as
>>>music or dance. It's not like running or throwing a stick, where you
>>>can measure people's different talent on an agreed scale. The best you
>>>could say would be "out of all the singers and dancers that I am aware
>>>of, my opinion is that he is the greatest". But your opinion would be
>>>no more fact than someone else's opinion that he was shite.
>>
>>Nah, sorry, that's just clap trap for those who want an excuse to be
>>offensive or rude about something they don't like or appreciate. If an
>>artist achieves such levels of appreciation as MJ did by the general
>>public, not only in their own country but also across the entire globe
>>regardless of language or culture, you cannot refer to them as "shite"
>>and be considered realistic in your opinion.
>
>Just as you can't be considered realistic in your opinion that he was
>one of the greatest and most talented music and dance artists. The
>reality will be somewhere between those two extremes. I don't know
>much about him myself, but someone else said that he didn't even write
>his own songs? He certainly doesn't play his own music. Is there any
>unofficial live recordings to download so that I can judge his singing
>talents for myself?
Unofficial? Bit hard to find for most artists, but one song he
co-wrote with Alan 'Buz' Kohan for the Sammy Davis Jr tribute has
stuck in my mind since I first saw it on telly in the early 90's...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmalHcQh54
better (or louder) sound quality...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPZWuhMIc_o
He only sang it that one time. My understanding is that Kohan wrote
most of the lyrics while Jackson wrote the music and some lyrics.
Jackson did write his own songs, just not all of them.
>>>>I was merely using the sales success to
>>>>make that point in the face of an idiot calling something not to his
>>>>taste, "shite".
>>>
>>>And like I said, financial success is no measurement of talent.
>>
>>It's not about the finances, it is about the number of people willing
>>to purchase and own his recordings.
>
>Isn't that the same thing? There might be thousands of better singers
>than him, but unless they have sold lots of records you would just
>dismiss them.
Not true at all, in the 70's I was a huge Northern Soul fan and the
most sought after stuff was by artists people had never heard of. Even
now I seek out stuff that's not mainstream or necessarily "popular".
"El Camino del Rey" (orig on Brightcove now on youtube) and "michael
darius - magic of politics" springs to mind, among others.
Colin Irvine
> People only settle out of court because they think it
>will be cheaper.
Or quicker, or less embarrassing, or kinder to someone else.
>Anyone who was innocent would fight no matter what
>the cost.
Not if they can't afford to lose. Innocence doesn't guarantee victory.
Timo Geusch
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:18:30 +0100, Edster squeezed out the following:
>
>> People only settle out of court because they think it
>>will be cheaper.
>
> Or quicker, or less embarrassing, or kinder to someone else.
Quicker and more control over the outcome, I would say.
>>Anyone who was innocent would fight no matter what
>>the cost.
>
> Not if they can't afford to lose. Innocence doesn't guarantee victory.
Indeed. Lawyer's first rule. That's why you hire the nastiest one you
can find in the first place.
--
Morini Corsaro 125 | XL250 Motosport | R1150RT
Laverda SF2 | Harley FXD BOTAFOF #33 TWA#10
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.ukrm.net/faq/index.html
"Je profite du paysage" - Joe Bar
DR
>Nice of you to agree with me, but it does rather cast a shadow on your
>ratiocination skills.
^^^^^^^^^
A very nice word that, rarely seen.
--
Darren
GSF1200N K3
The Older Gentleman
> The Older Gentleman posted:
>
> >Nice of you to agree with me, but it does rather cast a shadow on your
> >ratiocination skills.
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> A very nice word that, rarely seen.
They hibernate, you know. And only emerge when there's a chance of
their being used in an insult, preferably aimed at those who don't
actually know what the word means.
Gerry
> "Mike" <mi...@home.now> wrote in message news:h2545t$9fl$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> Last evening my wife and daughter attended a Take That concert in
>> Manchester. The band offered one of their songs as a tribute to the
>> late Michael Jackson and in doing so incurred the 'boos and hisses' of
>> what my wife considered an unexpectedly large percentage of the
>> audience.
>>
>> So my question is this... What the fuck is wrong with people?
>>
>> For a start, he was never convicted. There was also never any real
>> evidence that he ever did anything to any "child". None!
>
> If a bloke in the pub told me that he had spent the night with a [unrelated]
> ten year old boy in his bed,
'Unrelated'? You don't quite understand the problem do you?
The Todal
"Colin Irvine" <lo...@bottom.of.home.page> wrote in message
news:ilse45lhmenmd3d7q...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 06:18:30 +0100, Edster squeezed out the following:
>
>> People only settle out of court because they think it
>>will be cheaper.
>
> Or quicker, or less embarrassing, or kinder to someone else.
Nobody ever settles out of court if (a) they are advised that they are very
likely to win at trial plus (b) they can afford the fees involved in going
to trial.
So yes, I think we can safely reach the conclusion that Jackson settled with
his accuser because he expected to lose at trial. Of course, that doesn't
mean he was guilty. It may be that the Plaintiff told a plausible story and
would have charmed the pants of the members of the jury. If Jackson had
lost at trial it would have had a huge impact on his album sales. On the
other hand, if he had lost and still proclaimed his innocence, thousands of
loyal fans would have believed him and remained loyal.
>
>>Anyone who was innocent would fight no matter what
>>the cost.
>
> Not if they can't afford to lose. Innocence doesn't guarantee victory.
Very true. Also, innocence doesn't guarantee that an adult will look after
you rather than abuse you.
Mike
>Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>>>Just as you can't be considered realistic in your opinion that he was
>>>one of the greatest and most talented music and dance artists. The
>>>reality will be somewhere between those two extremes. I don't know
>>>much about him myself, but someone else said that he didn't even write
>>>his own songs? He certainly doesn't play his own music. Is there any
>>>unofficial live recordings to download so that I can judge his singing
>>>talents for myself?
>>
>>Unofficial? Bit hard to find for most artists, but one song he
>>co-wrote with Alan 'Buz' Kohan for the Sammy Davis Jr tribute has
>>stuck in my mind since I first saw it on telly in the early 90's...
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmalHcQh54
>>better (or louder) sound quality...
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPZWuhMIc_o
>
>It doesn't look unofficial, it looks pro-shot and recorded. What I
>want is to hear what his voice sounds like live, without any studio
>trickery. I would need an unauthorised audience recording.
Then I suggest google.
Also, looks like I am not alone in my opinion....
http://www.nme.com/news/michael-jackson/45704
"Michael Jackson dominates the UK chart
He scores album number one and almost a quarter of entire top 200
single countdown"
* Jun 28, 2009
Blah
Sunday - LOL!
Blah
> Edster wrote, and I quote:
>
>> Mike <mi...@home.now> wrote:
>
>>>> Just as you can't be considered realistic in your opinion that he was
>>>> one of the greatest and most talented music and dance artists. The
>>>> reality will be somewhere between those two extremes. I don't know
>>>> much about him myself, but someone else said that he didn't even write
>>>> his own songs? He certainly doesn't play his own music. Is there any
>>>> unofficial live recordings to download so that I can judge his singing
>>>> talents for myself?
>>> Unofficial? Bit hard to find for most artists, but one song he
>>> co-wrote with Alan 'Buz' Kohan for the Sammy Davis Jr tribute has
>>> stuck in my mind since I first saw it on telly in the early 90's...
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjmalHcQh54
>>> better (or louder) sound quality...
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPZWuhMIc_o
>> It doesn't look unofficial, it looks pro-shot and recorded. What I
>> want is to hear what his voice sounds like live, without any studio
>> trickery. I would need an unauthorised audience recording.
>
> Then I suggest google.
>
Fucking hell - 12 hours on Usenet!
Run out of tissues?
Lol
Blah
Have you been up all night working out your responses?
Get A life!