Music Michael Jackson is Dead (All general comment)

[Younited.7]

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.

You're clearly not though.

You said that you 'don't think he was guilty of child molestation' but you mention the 'OJ trial' and 'the fact that... all his free time with them [with them]', which he wasn't/didn't, but why would you make this blatant assumption - you don't even know what you're arguing but you're arguing to support a tenuous opinion grounded on speculation and hyperbole. You say 'he wasn't guilty of child molestation' but continue to forward arguments that suggest he was - make up your bloody mind and stop flirting with this idea that something was going on in his head based on x, y and a little bit of z (that aren't sufficient for you to make a psychological analysis, really) when the best judge we have of MJ, is from the people that actually knew him, not some mug that thinks he's weird based on a few memorable instances and unsubstantiated premises.

 

[Younited.7]

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?

Because the gravity of the allegation doesn't/wouldn't match any motive for being so.

You seem to think that hundreds of people would stand up for a man, committing some of the most vile acts, just because they are a family/friend/acquaintance, under oath and in front of the world.

 

[BaldwinLegend]

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?

Yes, if that's what I'd based my thoughts on. But I've actually based my thoughts on having seen what a bad bunch he'd surrounded himself with. Starting with his father, through the endless agents and managers happy to whore him out right up to the doctors who agreed to savage his face and prescribe him insane amounts of drugs. In other words, he was seen as such a cash cow he was milked by everyone - must have been hard to retain any grip on reality after all that and I'm not surprised he sought comfort in his own odd self-created world.

 

[afrocentricity]

Turned out to be an interesting thread, once people calmed down.

 

[Mockney]

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

No problem

So what is your problem then? Me? My opinion is only that, my opinion, but I'm trying to make it as eloquent and formulated as possible...Try it, it might help your arguent

 

[Younited.7]

No problem

So what is your problem then? Me? My opinion is only that, my opinion, but I'm trying to make it as eloquent and formulated as possible...Try it, it might help your arguent

Ironic that, eh?

 

[esmufc07]

Yes, if that's what I'd based my thoughts on. But I've actually based my thoughts on having seen what a bad bunch he'd surrounded himself with. Starting with his father, through the endless agents and managers happy to whore him out right up to the doctors who agreed to savage his face and prescribe him insane amounts of drugs. In other words, he was seen as such a cash cow he was milked by everyone - must have been hard to retain any grip on reality after all that and I'm not surprised he sought comfort in his own odd self-created world.

That's an extremely good point, and one which I completely agree with. Like he said in an interview I watched him on before (Thanks, Youtube), he said the reasons why he loved spending time with children was because all they wanted was fun. Adults were always out to make money off him and most had ulterior motives, whereas children didn't. They would come, stay over have countless of hours of fun, and, as I believe him to be, he was innocent, if there anything really so wrong with that?

 

[Count Duckula]

You're clearly not though.

You said that you 'don't think he was guilty of child molestation' but you mention the 'OJ trial' and 'the fact that... all his free time with them [with them]', which he wasn't/didn't, but why would you make this blatant assumption - you don't even know what you're arguing but you're arguing to support a tenuous opinion grounded on speculation and hyperbole. You say 'he wasn't guilty of child molestation' but continue to forward arguments that suggest he was - make up your bloody mind and stop flirting with this idea that something was going on in his head based on x, y and a little bit of z (that aren't sufficient for you to make a psychological analysis, really) when the best judge we have of MJ, is from the people that actually knew him, not some mug that thinks he's weird based on a few memorable instances and unsubstantiated premises.

The not guilty arguments are aimed at those who point to the fact that he was acquitted as clear proof that he was perfectly innocent. I don't think they can show anything as clear-cut as that.

My argument is not that he molested children (I don't think I ever said it was), but I do think he acted inappropriately towards them and in such a way that if he hadn't been Michael Jackson then people wouldn't be ignoring it quite so casually.

Also, the people who actually knew him are hardly going to be the "best judges". They'll have their own agendas, just like everyone else.

 

[BaldwinLegend]

No problem

I hate being a bugger, but:

Your the one who started .

If your forming your opinions from them, your getting a heavily watered down version of the events

You're

 

[Younited.7]

That's an extremely good point, and one which I completely agree with. Like he said in an interview I watched him on before (Thanks, Youtube), he said the reasons why he loved spending time with children was because all they wanted was fun. Adults were always out to make money off him and most had ulterior motives, whereas children didn't. They would come, stay over have countless of hours of fun, and, as I believe him to be, he was innocent, if there anything really so wrong with that?

No, but...

The darkest, most imaginative portrait of human existence always prevails.

(As Adam Curtis - a real psychologist - says)

 

[Count Duckula]

No problem

So what is your problem then? Me? My opinion is only that, my opinion, but I'm trying to make it as eloquent and formulated as possible...Try it, it might help your arguent

Mockney, no offence but you really ought not to correct other people on their spelling and punctuation.

 

[Alex]

No problem

So what is your problem then? Me? My opinion is only that, my opinion, but I'm trying to make it as eloquent and formulated as possible...Try it, it might help your arguent

Oh my god you are so smart, you da boss mocks. Usually I am a fan of you BS but not on *** occasion dudie. In my opinion, my opinion is great and fair and your opinion is shit but *** is dust me opiniano mon frere

 

[afrocentricity]

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.

I think its a sick evil act, but I accept that some people can and do commit evil acts unknowingly due to having a messed up state of mind.

 

[Spoony]

That's an extremely good point, and one which I completely agree with. Like he said in an interview I watched him on before (Thanks, Youtube), he said the reasons why he loved spending time with children was because all they wanted was fun. Adults were always out to make money off him and most had ulterior motives, whereas children didn't. They would come, stay over have countless of hours of fun, and, as I believe him to be, he was innocent, if there anything really so wrong with that?

Yet after the Jordan Chandler settlement he still continued to invite children around, knowing full well (presuming he's innocent) that parents of these kids could possibly make further allegations, in future - basically, using their children as vehicle to make money out of him. The whole thing doesn't make any sense whatsover.

 

[Mockney]

Because the gravity of the allegation doesn't/wouldn't match any motive for being so.

You seem to think that hundreds of people would stand up for a man, committing some of the most vile acts, just because they are a family/friend/acquaintance, under oath and in front of the world.

I don't actually, and I don't think he molested kids, I just see you specifically as a very biased supporter of MJ and thought that the notion that everyone on the prosecution was biased, but everyone on the defense wasn't a little OTT. I know your sticking up for him, and thats all cool, but you must admit he didn't do himself any favors. Sleeping with young kids after these allegations had been made was inappropriate and irresponsible. You've dodged that question so far...

Yes, if that's what I'd based my thoughts on. But I've actually based my thoughts on having seen what a bad bunch he'd surrounded himself with. Starting with his father, through the endless agents and managers happy to whore him out right up to the doctors who agreed to savage his face and prescribe him insane amounts of drugs. In other words, he was seen as such a cash cow he was milked by everyone - must have been hard to retain any grip on reality after all that and I'm not surprised he sought comfort in his own odd self-created world.

I agree...he was a deeply troubled man. And I think he was probably very sweet and very caring. But this own little world of his could have been damaging for his kids. As could the amount of drugs he could have been taking. These all are reasons I was questioning his parenting. I don't think he's an evil man in any way shape or form, but I think he was allowed to get away with a lot because he was rich and famous (not court cases, excentricity wise, and the sleeping with kids in his bed stuff), and when people questioned him he shut himself off, like a child, and complained it was unfair and mean...These aren't things a middle aged man with 2 kids should do..It's hardly setting a good example is it?

I know i'm just speculating, and if I'm coming across like I'm quoting gospel truth I really don't mean too, I probably just present my arguments that way to make them more convincing...but I know that I wouldn't want him raising my goddaughters, based on stuff like that, not tabloid gossip or court cases. IMO anyway

 

[Younited.7]

The not guilty arguments are aimed at those who point to the fact that he was acquitted as clear proof that he was perfectly innocent. I don't think they can show anything as clear-cut as that.

My argument is not that he molested children (I don't think I ever said it was), but I do think he acted inappropriately towards them and in such a way that if he hadn't been Michael Jackson then people wouldn't be ignoring it quite so casually.

Also, the people who actually knew him are hardly going to be the "best judges". They'll have their own agendas, just like everyone else.

So basically you're saying that you think he is guilty of something; despite him being 'innocent of child molestation'.

What are you accusing him of then? Or are you not sure, but sure that he has done something (despite saying allegations weren't true, with regards to the 'innocent' comment).



What is 'inappropriate' toward them?

So you believe some of the allegations but not all of them. Right, so what you are essentially saying is that the individuals lied about the molestation but we're telling the truth about something they didn't even say. Bizarre that you could contradict yourself so fantastically there.

What 'agendas' do they have?

You don't even have a bloody argument. You're defending a stance that doesn't exist because of your fundamental prejudice.

 

[esmufc07]

Yet after the Jordan Chandler settlement he still continued to invite children around, knowing full well (presuming he's innocent) that parents of these kids could possibly make further allegations, in future. The whole thing doesn't make sense whatsover.

I think the fact he carried on inviting children around shows he wasn't doing anything wrong. You'd have thought, if he was molesting children, that the fact one of them came forward and nearly destroyed his career would put him off inviting any child over again. But as he was innocent (Again, in my opinion) why should he stop spreading joy and happiness to thousands of children?

He enjoyed the company of children and liked to make them happy. I see nothing wrong with that. My auntie works in a nursery, because she loves spending time with children and making them happy; should she and millions of others be objected to the scrutiny Jackson has? Or is it down purely to the fact he let them sleep in his bed at the same time as him?

 

[Iron Stove]

Even his biggest fans have to realise he was a weird fecker. The Chandler story put me off MJ forever. Sure he wasn't convicted but it seems pretty obvious that there was something funny going on there with him paying his parents who miraculously proceeded to drop the case.

His talent as a musician is obvious, but it's scary how far some people are ready to go just in protecting their idols just because they wrote pretty songs. It's like nothing else matters.

 

[Mockney]

Ironic that, eh?

I hate being a bugger, but:

You're

Mockney, no offence but you really ought not to correct other people on their spelling and punctuation.

Bloody hell....That ruined my wind up!!..at least I've got better with where and were!

Oh my god you are so smart, you da boss mocks. Usually I am a fan of you BS but not on *** occasion dudie. In my opinion, my opinion is great and fair and your opinion is shit but *** is dust me opiniano mon frere

Mate, I really don't know what your problem is with me..honestly I don't. I haven't presented any of my arguments as facts or had a go at you. Care to explain what your bug is?

 

[Younited.7]

I don't actually, and I don't think he molested kids, I just see you specifically as a very biased supporter of MJ and thought that the notion that everyone on the prosecution was biased, but everyone on the defense wasn't a little OTT. I know your sticking up for him, and thats all cool, but you must admit he didn't do himself any favors. Sleeping with young kids after these allegations had been made was inappropriate and irresponsible. You've dodged that question so far...

I'm not bias. If i thought he was actually a paedophile then i wouldn't have anything to do with him. Don't question my integrity in that case.

You're trying to rationalise something that he clearly saw as perfectly normal. You have said so yourself.

'You don't think he molested children', which is centric to the allegations, but you do think he was guilty of something. Unorthodoxy? Ignorance?

He was or he wasn't...

You've moved from the camp that said he did do something to the camp that say he 'must've thought, or possibly done, something' - that doesn't stand to reason, does it?

You're reflecting your connotative depiction of paedophiles onto Michael Jackson and suggesting that he 'wasn't guilty' but he 'was guilty of something', which is unorthodoxy and being 'weird'. It's as irrational as the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[afrocentricity]

I know i'm just speculating, and if I'm coming across like I'm quoting gospel truth I really don't mean too, I probably just present my arguments that way to make them more convincing...but I know that I wouldn't want him raising my goddaughters, based on stuff like that, not tabloid gossip or court cases. IMO anyway

Tabloid gossip, hearsay and court caes are probaly whainfluenced yor interpretaion pf thos events thogh. Much like the love for their hero has influenced the super-fans and their interpretation of those same events.

 

[Spoony]

I think the fact he carried on inviting children around shows he wasn't doing anything wrong. You'd have thought, if he was molesting children, that the fact one of them came forward and nearly destroyed his career would put him off inviting any child over again. But as he was innocent (Again, in my opinion) why should he stop spreading joy and happiness to thousands of children?

He enjoyed the company of children and liked to make them happy. I see nothing wrong with that. My auntie works in a nursery, because she loves spending time with children and making them happy; should she and millions of others be objected to the scrutiny Jackson has? Or is it down purely to the fact he let them sleep in his bed at the same time as him?

Yes, but you said he invited children around because they're innocent and aren't using him for ulterior motives, yet he's was fully aware that their parents were using them to do exactly that - make money out of his misfortune. Again, I ask, what the hell were his advisors doing?! I mean, feck me - he's already had an out of court settlement, you'd have thought he/they(his people) would've made sure it wouldn't have happened again. As I said above, these children were being used/whored by their parents and he probably knew that.

 

[Alex]

Bloody hell....That ruined my wind up!!..at least I've got better with where and were!





Mate, I really don't know what your problem is with me..honestly I don't. I haven't presented any of my arguments as facts or had a go at you. Care to explain what your bug is?

I think you are a GREAT poster Mocks, one of the few on here, and probably not me, but on this I disagree sorry bro

 

[afrocentricity]

Aaah, some man-love... bromance in the air.

 

[esmufc07]

Yes, but you said he invited children around because they're innocent and aren't using for ulterior motives, yet he's was fully aware that their parents were using them to do exactly that - make money out of his misfortune. Again, I ask, what the hell were his advisors doing?! I mean, feck me - he's already had an out of court settlement, you'd have thought he/they(his people) would've made sure it wouldn't have happened again. As I said above, these children were being by there parents and he probably knew that.

But how many did that? There was Chandler ($22m), and Arvizo (not guilty, but millions in legal fees), and a couple of other minor cases I think. And that's it, out of thousands upon thousands of children who visited their over the years, yet only 2 high profile cases. It's great strength and courage on his part that he continued to do invite children after the Chandler case.

Arvizo had cancer aswell I think, or a terminally ill disease of some sort, as did thousands of the children Jackson invited over the years. I find it digusting that the parents would stoop so low as to destroy a man who was trying to make children's lives better for the sake of money. They're far worse than Jackson ever was.

I feel incredibly sorry for the man and all the things he had to put up with, but then I suppose that comes with the territory of being a genius as he was. Which is a shame.

 

[Count Duckula]

So basically you're saying that you think he is guilty of something; despite him being 'innocent of child molestation'.

No, I'm saying the man indulged in very dubious pasttimes.

What are you accusing him of then? Or are you not sure, but sure that he has done something (despite saying allegations weren't true, with regards to the 'innocent' comment).

I'm "accusing" him of having an obssession with children that we wouldn't find permissable with anyone else. That those who portray him as whiter than white are glossing over the fact that he had some very unsavoury habits. He still slept with children - something that is not acceptable behaviour in anyone's book.

I think it was Confucius who said, "to include laughing green smileys to support one's argument is to admit that you've already lost."

What is 'inappropriate' toward them?

Spending vast amounts of time surrounded by children. Talking of how "beautiful" children are, and not in the loving way a parent might look upon them, but in a somewhat displeasingly eerie way. Allowing children to sleep in his bed despite allegations that he was a child abuser.

So you believe some of the allegations but not all of them. Right, so what you are essentially saying is that the individuals lied about the molestation but we're telling the truth about something they didn't even say. Bizarre that you could contradict yourself so fantastically there.

Actually, I believe things that Michael Jackson said. You see, when words come out of his mouth I generally take them to be true. The fact that he slept in the same bed as children that were not his is not an "allegation", but a cold hard fact, uttered and repeated by the man himself. I'm not contradicting myself when I repeat something he has already said.

What 'agendas' do they have?

You don't see how the family and friends of a man accused of a crime might have a certain interest in seeing him avoid prison? I hope to God no one ever depends on your loyalty in a tight spot.

You don't even have a bloody argument. You're defending as stance that doesn't exist because of your fundamental prejudice.

Actually, I do have an argument. I think I've explained myself pretty well. And disagree with me if you might, but don't say my opinion is worthless because of my "fundemental prejudice" when you're clearly just as biased, but at the other end of the Jackson Support Scale.

 

[Younited.7]

Michael Jackson is a true humanitarian, an example to us all. He has devoted much time and money to a wide range of charities. He loves children and takes time out when touring secretly visting sick children. He also has special rooms at his home Neverland for sick and terminally ill children to stay over. He was listed in the 2000 edition of the Guiness Book Of World Records for breaking the world record for the "Most Charities Supported By a Pop Star". It states that Michael Jackson has supported 39 charity organizations either with monetary donations through sponsorships of their projects or by participating in their silent auction.

We have made an alphabetical list of known charities that Michael Jackson has individualy supported publically throughout his career. Michael Jackson also helped set up Heal The World Foundation, the charities this has supported have not been listed. Read our Heal The World/kids page for details of this foundation.

AIDS Project L.A.
American Cancer Society
Angel Food
Big Brothers of Greater Los Angeles
BMI Foundation, Inc.
Brotherhood Crusade
Brothman Burn Center
Camp Ronald McDonald
Childhelp U.S.A.
Children's Institute International
Cities and Schools Scholarship Fund
Community Youth Sports & Arts Foundation
Congressional Black Caucus (CBC)
Dakar Foundation
Dreamstreet Kids
Dreams Come True Charity
Elizabeth Taylor Aids Foundation
Juvenile Diabetes Foundation
Love Match
Make-A-Wish Foundation
Minority Aids Project
Motown Museum
NAACP
National Rainbow Coalition
Rotary Club of Australia
Society of Singers
Starlight Foundation
The Carter Center's Atlanta Project
The Sickle Cell Research Foundation
Transafrica
United Negro College Fund (UNCF)
United Negro College Fund Ladder's of Hope
Volunteers of America
Watts Summer Festival
Wish Granting
YMCA - 28th Street/Crenshaw

http://www.allmichaeljackson.com/charities.html

It's all a big, big lie - he was actually a manipulative paedophile.

I bet he molested those terminally ill children.

In fact, he was lying in 1985 as well, writing songs for charities in order to further his 'inappropriate' scheming.

He bought the entire jury. It's America after all.

His surgery also shows that he was definitely a paedophile. Any man that wants to turn from black to white - despite his telling us that he had a skin condition (villocolid (as seen here: http://atozbeauty.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/vitigilo22.jpg - i bet you can understand why he may have bleached if that was happening to his skin and the profound effects this can have on psychological problems) another lie!)

He truly is a weird - horrible - person.

 

[Spoony]

But how many did that? There was Chandler ($22m), and Arvizo (not guilty, but millions in legal fees), and a couple of other minor cases I think. And that's it, out of thousands upon thousands of children who visited their over the years, yet only 2 high profile cases. It's great strength and courage on his part that he continued to do invite children after the Chandler case.

Arvizo had cancer aswell I think, or a terminally ill disease of some sort, as did thousands of the children Jackson invited over the years. I find it digusting that the parents would stoop so low as to destroy a man who was trying to make children's lives better for the sake of money. They're far worse than Jackson ever was.

I feel incredibly sorry for the man and all the things he had to put up with, but then I suppose that comes with the territory of being a genius as he was. Which is a shame.

Weren't they enough? The first case should've been a big enough indication.

 

[Mockney]

You're trying to rationalise something that he clearly saw as perfectly normal. You have said so yourself.

Yes, and I think the fact he saw it as perfectly normal was the problem. The fact that he couldn't see it wasn't, and refused to accept other people saying it was seems to me like the actions of a child.

'You don't think he molested children', which is centric to the allegations, but you do think he was guilty of something. Unorthodoxy? Ignorance?

He was or he wasn't...

You've moved from the camp that said he did do something to the camp that say he 'must've thought, or possibly done, something' - that doesn't stand to reason, does it?

No I don't. I've never said he was guilty, or even suggested it. I've raised the question that the possibility of his guilt should prevent people from dropping the questions about it, as it's a serious allegation...I've never said that he 'must' be guilty of something...Your confusing me with someone else

You're reflecting your connotative depiction of paedophiles onto Michael Jackson and suggesting that he 'wasn't guilty' but he 'was guilty of something', which is unorthodoxy and being 'weird'. It's as irrational as the Spanish Inquisition.

What the flibeddy gibbet are you on about!? I'm the one not having the peadophile argument. I'm arguing that his inability to see himself at fault for anything, and the way he decried criticism as 'unfair' and 'mean' extremely childish and as such, an irresponsible and immature thing for a middle aged father of 2 to do...

My argument was about his children, and whether the fact that someone in his state of mind was a fit parent, and the fact that he had these children with a mother who doesn't hold any claim to them, and they dont seem to bare any biological resemblance to him...My point is simply, if this was a normal man, wouldn't you question it? I mean, why does this woman have no claim over them? why are they white? is he a good role model? they're perfectly reasonable questions..nothing to do with Paedophillia though.

The paedophile argument your having with someone else and have confused me with them I'm sure

 

[Count Duckula]

It's all a big, big lie - he was actually a manipulative paedophile.

I bet he molested those terminally ill children.

In fact, he was lying in 1985 as well, writing songs for charities in order to further his 'inappropriate' scheming.

Grow up. I could make an equally ridiculous counter-post, but the argument was just descend into childish fascetiousness.

He bought the entire jury. It's America after all.

I find that unlikely.

His surgery also shows that he was definitely a paedophile. Any man that wants to turn from black to white - despite his telling us that he had a skin condition (villocolid (as seen here: http://atozbeauty.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/vitigilo22.jpg - i bet you can understand why he may have bleached if that was happening to his skin and the profound effects this can have on psychological problems) another lie!)

Again... grow up.

He truly is a weird - horrible - person.

And I thought you'd been his biggest fan in this thread.

I think we can safely assume you've finally lost your mind.

 

[esmufc07]

Weren't they enough? The first case should've been a big enough indication.

1 is enough yes, and being falsely accused of molesting children must be one of the most horrific and trying ordeals anybody can go through, nevermind the most famous man in the world at that time.

But if he was molesting children he would have done it more than the two times he was accused of doing so.

 

[esmufc07]

Well I think we can safely assume you've finally lost your mind.

It was a good post actually, better than most of the shite you've been spouting in this thread in any case.

 

[Spoony]

1 is enough yes, and being falsely accused of molesting children must be one of the most horrific and trying ordeals anybody can go through, nevermind the most famous man in the world at that time.

But if he was molesting children we would have done it more than the two times he was accused of doing so.

Possibly but again we're just speculating.

He was either the most naive person, ever or incredibly stubborn - assuming he was innocent.

 

[esmufc07]

Possibly but again we're just speculating.

He was either the most naive person, ever or incredibly stubborn - assuming he was innocent.

Speculating is all we can do, the only people who will ever truely know now is Chandler and Arvizo.

 

[Mockney]

I think you are a GREAT poster Mocks, one of the few on here, and probably not me, but on this I disagree sorry bro

Fair enough, and thankyou for the compliment...I'm still not sure what it is you disagree with me about though! ...I'm sure we can kiss and make up and I'll cook you some delightful carbonara and we can spoon and you can tell me all about it!

 

[Younited.7]

No, I'm saying the man indluged in very dubious pasttimes.

Which - euphemistically - suggest that he was doing something.

Why else would you bother posting?

I'm "accusing" him of having an obssession with children that we wouldn't find permissable with anyone else. That those who portray him as whiter than white are glossing over the fact that he had some very unsavoury habits. He still slept with children - something that is not acceptable behaviour in anyone's book.

You've already said that he 'doesn't know the difference' - there isn't anything illegal in doing what he did. I wouldn't do it or condone it but i can sympathise with the exceptional circumstance that he is and you have already pointed out. By your standards, or suspicions, this is not 'acceptable' - what is 'unacceptable' about it though? Unless you think he was attaining dark gratification from it...

I think it was Confucius who said, "to include laughing green smileys to support one's argument is to admit that you've already lost."

Then you're an idiot. You don't appear to have a coherent argument apart form the 'dubious' nonsense you keep rattling off.

Spending vast amounts of time surrounded by children. Talking of how "beautiful" children are, and not in the loving way a parent might look upon them, but in a somewhat displeasingly eerie way. Allowing children to sleep in his bed despite allegations that he was a child abuser.

You're beyond help. You keep reducing this to a normal circumstance despite referring to it and him as quite an exceptional one.

Actually, I believe things that Michael Jackson said. You see, when words come out of his mouth I generally take them to be true. The fact that he slept in the same bed as children that were not his is not an "allegation", but a cold hard fact, uttered and repeated by the man himself. I'm not contradicting myself when I repeat something he has already said.

You don't have a fecking case you blabbering tool. It isn't illegal for him to do anything he did - it is strange but it doesn't mean he did it with bad intention (as pointed out - all of the evidence suggested he was affectionate and loving, not sick and twisted).

You don't see how the family and friends of a main accused of a crime might have a certain interest in seeing him avoid prison? I hope to God no one ever depends on your loyalty in a tight spot.

You are utterly blinkered. I think most people have the moral conscience to let a man go down if he had done the things that he was accused of doing. You're suggesting the allegations are true again, based on your previous statements that are beyond ridiculous.

Actually, I do have an argument. I think I've explained myself pretty well. And disagree with me if you might, but don't say my opinion is worthless because of my "fundemental prejudice" when you're clearly just as biased, but at the other end of the Jackson Support Scale.

You've invented a story that didn't happen. Your story is based on uninformed conjecturing and huge assumptions.

 

[Count Duckula]

You've invented a story that didn't happen. Your story is based on uninformed conjecturing and huge assumptions.

So he didn't admit to sleeping in beds with children then?

 

[Younited.7]

Grow up. I could make an equally ridiculous counter-post, but the argument was just descend into childish fascetiousness.

I find that unlikely.

Again... grow up.

And I thought you'd been his biggest fan in this thread.

I think we can safely assume you've finally lost your mind.

I was portraying the inner-dialogue of a pathologically prejudiced and imaginative individual.

I thought it would be fun.

 

[Count Duckula]

I was portraying the inner-dialogue of a pathologically prejudiced and imaginative individual.

I thought it would be fun.

Ah, I see. You were taking my argument and repeating it so that I could see the ludicrousness of it?

Thing is, I'm not an imaginative individual.

 

[Younited.7]

So he didn't admit to sleeping in beds with children then?

That's not the point.

He is 'not guilty of child molestation' - what is he guilty of? Unorthodoxy?

You're just using something very basic, that you know people fundamentally disagree with (in general), without even considering the context in which it happened.

A story.