Originally Posted By SpokkerJones Which pop star do you think is going to buy Michael Jackson's bones?
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin <<Despite his obvious madness, I cannot generate much sympathy for him.>> One does not sympatize with the deceased, one sympatizes with the bereaved. So I hope you're just unable to conceptualize death, and you aren't as harsh and thoughtless as that statement made you sound.
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin sympathize...it's really late. Something else that has been troubling me, is that as a parent, if someone had molested my child there would be no dollar amount that would keep me from making sure that the person who committed such a heinous act against my child would spend a long stretch in jail. So, yes I would have taken the money AFTER the criminal trial to ensure my child got the psychiatric help they would need. But the first family took the money that was offered to just go away and he was aquited in the next case. I just find it strange...
Originally Posted By Sara Tonin Which is not to say I'm sure he did/didn't do it...but, just saying..
Originally Posted By SpokkerJones "One does not sympatize with the deceased, one sympatizes with the bereaved." What if the bereaved are just as crazy? Didn't Latoya say she believed the allegations and then shut up when the family shunned her?
Originally Posted By Mr X Yeah, cause LaToya is such a reasonable and stable citizen. <--rolls eyes. They're ALL nuts, but she'd take the cake herself if it weren't for having Michael for a brother...there's just no topping THAT!
Originally Posted By andyll <<Unless you have proof maybe it's best not to launch such outrageous and defamatory conclusions.>> Please. It was neither outrageous nor defamatory. There is plenty of proof out there. The USA courts have to take a limited view of the evidence because of 'their' presumption of innocence. Civil courts and the public can take a look at the evidence as a whole. Just like OJ the proof as a whole is significent. Over time the truth will come out as those paid hush money open up.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Has this been posted yet? Cool and bizarre at the same time: Philippine prisoners rehearsing "Thriller." <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMnk7lh9M3o" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...k7lh9M3o</a>
Originally Posted By pecos bill Am I harsh and thoughtless because I dont give a rat's behind about this guy? I get the feeling that I am somehow expected to show some respect for this "great artist" who left the world such a better place. A man who, on national television admitted his desire to share a bed with children who were not his own? A man who repeatedly paid millions of dollars to buy the silence of his victims and families. Yet somehow, because he is Michael Jackson, he gets away with it. Our society is so celebrity obsessed, it makes me sick.
Originally Posted By queenbee <<One does not sympatize with the deceased, one sympatizes with the bereaved.>> Pecos Bill, do you not understand the difference between the deceased and the bereaved?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Rather than pick at Pecos' choice of words, his opinion on this is rather clear. It's a lot like mine. I don't begrudge others' in the way they choose to deal with Jackson's death. I feel for them if he meant that much to him. However, while Jackson had about as messed up a childhood as one could get, nothing excuses his behavior with young boys. Nothing. That alone makes it impossible for me to feel bad the guy's gone. For me, his immense talent (one that seemed used up and gone for the last 10-15 years anyway) was completely overshadowed by the fact he was a pedophile.
Originally Posted By danyoung >For me, his immense talent (one that seemed used up and gone for the last 10-15 years anyway) was completely overshadowed by the fact he was a pedophile.< Assuming facts not in evidence. Was Michael Jackson screwed up? Yup. Did he do inappropriate things with young boys? Pretty sure he did. Did he do anything sexual with them? There's the big question, the one that can never be answered except perhaps by the boys involved. Everyone has their opinion. But to say that he is a pedophile, no doubt about it . . . well, you can't be sure. Would I let my 12 year old son spend the night at Neverland? Not a chance. But do I miss the artist that gave us a lot of incredible music? Absolutely. And that has nothing to do with celebrity worship. It's just my opinion based on how much his music and videos meant to me.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Would I let my 12 year old son spend the night at Neverland? Not a chance. But do I miss the artist that gave us a lot of incredible music? Absolutely. And that has nothing to do with celebrity worship. It's just my opinion based on how much his music and videos meant to me.>> Thank you. There is a difference between the art and the artist and the two should never be conflated. Many scholars have postulated that DaVinci was sexually active with his teenage boy apprentices, yet no one advocates dismissing his works because of it. I'm not suggesting that Jackson was on the same level as DaVinci; I'm merely pointing out that personal behavior and professional behavior are two separate entities and should be treated as such.
Originally Posted By barboy ///There is plenty of proof out there./// ---then maybe you can bring it before us to examine. ///Over time the truth will come out as those paid hush money open up./// And you would assume that that type of testimony would be truthful and reliable? I wouldn't. Not way! Anyone looking for a payday can not be trusted: he might be telling the truth or he might be telling BK Double Whoppers.
Originally Posted By barboy As for the video in #167, that bading stole the show. I see badings everywhere in the Philippines--- and the heteros find them entertaining.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Assuming facts not in evidence. Was Michael Jackson screwed up? Yup. Did he do inappropriate things with young boys? Pretty sure he did. Did he do anything sexual with them? There's the big question, the one that can never be answered except perhaps by the boys involved. Everyone has their opinion. But to say that he is a pedophile, no doubt about it . . . well, you can't be sure." Nope, sorry. As I said much earlier, in my job you get to know a few people and hear some things. Through Johnnie Cochran, he completely bought off the charges in 1993. In 2005, Cochran flat out told Jackson he was on his own this time, he wasn't helping him. He warned him the first time that it had better be the last. Weak, bought off testimony got him acquitted the second time. Screwed up childhood and warped in the head in no way whatsoever excuses pedophilia.
Originally Posted By ecdc <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Michael-Jackson-predicted-death-months-ago.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ago.html</a> I have no idea if the Daily Mail can be trusted - it's a tabloid, I believe. But so is TMZ, and the outdid every other news source. Tabloids were so obsessed with Jackson that I'm inclined to believe they did have some good sources. It's a sad article. Make of it what you will. And SPP, I've always been up in the air about Jackson's guilt. I'm certainly inclined to trust your judgment and your knowledge, but I would say that settling out of court is not an indication of guilt. Short of trustworthy witnesses or a confession from Jackson, I'm not sure how anyone can be positive he was a pedophile who acted on his urges.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Maybe I haven't been clear enough. He molested children. He bought his way out of convictions. People from the judge in the first case, to the prosecutors, to the police were furious. And they let people know.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Maybe I haven't been clear enough. He molested children. He bought his way out of convictions. People from the judge in the first case, to the prosecutors, to the police were furious. And they let people know.<< No, you've been clear. But I still haven't heard evidence that proves his guilt beyond what we've already heard. That he "bought his way" is not an indication of guilt. Nor is anger on the part of police and prosecutors, many of whom have been wrong long before now in their certainty about a defendant's guilt. Just look at O.J. KIDDING! Again, I don't want to overstate my case. I'm not a Jackson fan or apologist. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not sure if Michael Jackson molested children or not. If he did, then he belonged in jail. If he didn't, he was still a deeply disturbed human being who had terribly inappropriate relationships with children. I just want to know what evidence there is, beyond the testimony of very shady people (again, doesn't mean he's not guilty) that Jackson molested children. That's all.
