It was still small change he owned so many lucrative catalogues it was unreal whoever advised him to advised him to buy into them was a fecking genius
Music Michael Jackson is Dead (All general comment)
- Thread starter Alex
- Start date
It was still small change he owned so many lucrative catalogues it was unreal whoever advised him to advised him to buy into them was a fecking genius
I'm not English, if that's meant to be a dig at me.
Also, I'm sure the English do, but the English weren't the ones who were making the verdict on Jackson's guilt or not.
Nothing in the news but the quote seems to be doing the rounds on the net, could be made up by a super-fan though.
It's not legit.
It is, the internet doesn't lie.
I thought OJ got away with it because Johnny Cochran was a genius?
You are aware, right, that OJ is behind bars right now?
Also, I had the feeling that an awful lot of people - maybe even the majority - expected Jackson to be found guilty.
I certainly don't think you can argue that a prevailing sense of his innocence is what decided the verdict.
That's very interesting if true. I'm sure the news outlets will pick up on it in the next few days if it's legit, though I still don't think it takes away the facet of his unhealthy infatuation with children - it'll just make clear that he didn't actually molest them (which I don't think he did anyway).
Then again, as you say, it could just be a super-fan trying to win over some of the doubters in the same way the media tried to make him the most hated man in the world.
You're doing exactly the same thing, in reverse.
That second bit is crystallised tripe. OJ got off on a technicality of racism within the police force - there was uncertainty about a policeman who had control of some 'critical' evidence; that individual had a history of racism. Look at the facts before you make assumptions about other trials and their relevance in determining what actually happened.
Bashir said that he didn't think Michael Jackson did anything untoward with children. His first hand experience of MJ, and others corroborating, mean a lot more than your ridiculous leaps in logic and assumptions. Although unorthodox at times, Jackson is and was, by all accounts, an exceptionally caring father. Fifty celebrities and reputable people stood in defence of Jackson and, if there was any doubt that he was guilty, they wouldn't have done so. Spin that fact.
OJ is behind bars for a separate incident, where he actually admitted he had done it. His defence wasn't that he'd not done it, but that he'd been justified doing so. Even the cult of celebrity doesn't extent to delusion, just denial.
Where you from?
As if I don't know. You're a United supporter. Which almost certainly makes you Irish...
Oh they were and still are, as are people all over the world. That's the point I'm making. Just because the trial took place in California does not mean the verdict and its interpretation are the express domain of Americans.
The English remark was more aimed at the fact that they have just as big a celebrity tabloid culture as the US.
Thats the crux right there, enough evidence to support both sides of the argument. Added to the fact we don't know much about the reality.
I'm not sure that fame will absolve you and exclude you from being called into account for your actions, well that's only true for his super-fans, and while there are a lot they aren't dotted around the globe in all the places of power.
It's all a bit conspiracy theory.
MJ was a 33rd degree freemason, the New World Order used there infinite power to quash the charges and silence the relevant personalities, you heard it here first. - Alex Jones.
Spin what fact? I think he was innocent of child molestation. The things I judge him for are things he actively admitted to doing, and things we can know he did without needing a trial to prove it - he had no hesitance in readily talking about them because he thought he was doing nothing wrong.
There was something not right about the man. He liked children too much for an adult. That might be acceptable as a child, but he wasn't a child, he was a grown man. No amount of excuses can cover up that fact.
It's a fecking incredible leap in logic.
Similar to the religious one...
'I can't quite see it/him but i know it's/he's there somewhere'
Yes it is strange, but there's been reasons but forth as to why he felt the need to be around children.
And if nothing untoward happened, and all he did was make children (Often underprivileged) happy, then is there really a problem?
Yes, he admitted he'd taken the items but he did defend himself in court. He claimed he had every right to take his belongings back and also that he was unarmed.
My point was that it's not that hard to think of examples of American celebrities found guilty in court - even down to the fact that the example you used is in fact currently serving time.
And what about my other point - I thought Johnny Cochran's contribution to the defence is recognised in legal circles as having been the deciding factor in getting him off the hook that time round?
What can i be definitively proven to know feck all about? Jacksons suitablity for father hood? Probably true, but then you know nothing either, my opinion is as valid as yours, I'm speculating on an internet forum, as are you..
The traits suitable for parenthood? Well yes I do think I'm qualified. Just because i don't have children doesn't mean I can't claim I think he's unfit for it. I have countless relatives and 2 god children and have looked after younger children for most of my life. I think anyone with a sensible moral grounding is entitled to opinions on what constitutes good parenting.
Your the one who started throwing insults and names at me personally for no particular reason...I'd say your agenda was with me an not my argument.
Since he never admitted doing something wrong, and was never found guilty of doing something wrong, what does he have to apologise for?
It's incredible really. I'm absolutely not a Michael Jackson fan, and I'd never have expected myself to be drawn into defending him like this, but the level of prejudice against him takes my breath away.
The sum of all the anti-Jackson camp's arguments is: he looks weird and I've read so many weird stories about him so he must be guilty.
No, it's that he spent an unhealthy amount of time around young children, up to and including spending nights sleeping with them in his bed.
I'm not speculating though. I've not offered my thoughts on his parenting abilities for the simple reason that I don't feel remotely qualified to do so. My only comments on the subject thus far are that you can't possibly know what you're talking about.
I think anyone who proclaims themselves to have 'sensible moral grounding' should know better than to use a 3 second episode blown out of all proportion by the press to make sweeping judgements about a person's suitability to being a parent.
I couldn't give a toss about you and I believe I called you 'Victor Mature'. Sorry if that causes you sleepless nights.
Yes, but he had a mental age of a child - despite being astute enough to buy The Beatles back catalogue, and making a huge profit out of it.
I would think even someone with the mental age of a child could work out that buying the rights to songs by Lennon and McCartney was going to be a good idea.
I suspect that Jackson had nothing to do with it though and that it was all done on his behalf.
Surely that was due to a whisper in his ear
An 'unhealthy infatuation' 'there was something not right about the man' - who are you to act as the judge, jury and prosecution of a man based on SFA?
All you have done is dismiss the context of his/the situation and judge it by your own, rather mundane/outdated/irrelevant, standards.
BaldwinLegend is speaking absolute sense here. You're giving him a media trial based on what you have read in the the unscrupulous rags - whereas every primary source, bar the accusers who are slightly bias, say that he was an incredible person and incapable of doing anything untoward to children.
He was strange, yes. The bloke had an image issue - hence the surgery, hence the drugs and hence his mysterious existence. This 'fragility' doesn't add any weight to any argument that seeks to portray him as 'not right'. Every account that we have, bar the sensationalist nonsense you spout, portrays him as a perfectly fine/capable human being. I'm guessing they were either paid off or have the 'Michael Jackson bug'®... silly slander, not an argument based on anything concrete (just prejudice and spurious comparison).
Wasn't it Sir Paul McCartney who told him the value of owing catalogues and that is why he bought it?
Let's say you've suspected correctly. Then where were these whispers in his ears telling him not to invite children around to his place for the night? Look, I want him to be innocent - but you can't honestly tell me you don't have your doubts? would you've sent your kids round his gaff?
Must say, I really do feel sorry for him, though. Which I guess is a strange thing to feel considering he's a huge cultural icon - something us mortals couldn't even dream of becoming.
Elv, according to his ex manager, he was more switched on than most people seem to think. Whether he had a gripe with him, we'll never know.
OK, thats fair enough.
I mentioned the '3 second incident' (by which I assume you mean the baby dangling incident) but I also mentioned a host of other things and wrote quite a detailed and thought out account of his behaviour over several years and my deductions because of it as well...through, as you said, the 50 or so posts I've posted. I used the baby dangling incident in one or two, you've picked it out as my only argument. It's clearly not.
You came out of no where in a 34 page thread to suddenly have a dig at me, which I found rather odd amidst the realm of people calling him a paedophile, you chose to rally against the person critisizing his state of mind for parenthood.... and yes, I find the name Victor hideously offensive
But fair enough, I get your point, I was more wound up by being barraged by people when I was trying to be as laisez faire as I could be on Jackson
Er, no, I'm judging him based on the fact that he shared his bed with children and spent all his free time with them.
Sorry, you've lost me. You're saying there's nothing wrong with sleeping with children who aren't yours?
OTT...you must agree its a very inappropriate and irresponsible thing for a middle aged father of 2 to do...especially after he's already been accused of molestation.
No, he didn't.
No idea, but he was pissed off - in fact, I think he ended his friendship with MJ after he bought the catalogues.
To be honest, I never really gave the accusations and trial much thought. I just listened to the music. But what I've read over the last couple of days has certainly pushed me towards thinking he's innocent and that he is the real victim in this.
I guess a lot of it comes down to people's general reaction to paedophiles. I tend to agree with the side of the argument which suggests they are ill and probably not able to help themselves (rather than pure evil) and are therefore more in need of help, possibly even rehabilitation, than punishment.
So even if Jackson was guilty of some of the things he's accused of, my reaction would still be to feel deeply sorry for him. Either way, it's an awful waste of a life.
Can you not see the bias in this post?..Why should the other primary sources, who where friends and family be any less bias? I also remember a maid came forward for the prosecution...She could well have been talking shit, but where does her bias stand in your judgement of correct biasness?
For the sake of playing devils advocate here, if your conclusions have been reached mainly from the eulogies of him in the last few days...don't you think that could be a very unreliable source of information?...I actually remember watching reconstructions of the trials at the time, and some of it was horrid horrid stuff that I doubt would have been printed in the fluff pieces being rushed out after his death
If your forming your opinions from them, your getting a heavily watered down version of the events
So says Mockney Revil, in the end what the feck do you even know? I have know problrm with people hating MJ and questioining him but to say they know something when they dont that is bullshit