Jacko

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 6:53 pm

Actually, in this whole discussion, the comment that amused/stunned/disappointed me the most (and I sincerely hope it was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek), was that by so lacklustre, to whit: "Have faith, come judgement day he'll burn in hell. I trust the good lord on this." - if that is the comment of a christian, then I am glad I have no religion at all. If it was a joke, then it was extremely funny

.

No joke - he's a bible thumping maniac - fundamentalist arm of the Church of England. He'll be drinking strychnine and handling snakes soon.

King Hoarse · Post by **King Hoarse** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:21 pm

My two pennies worth:

When me & my boyhood friends had sleepovers we sometimes shared beds. No sex. I wouldn't have shared a bed with a female friend my age then because that would have been sexual. I think that's why Michael doesn't invite young girls to sleep with him. He thinks and feels like a young boy, and feels secure when can play (innocently) with other young boys.

I'm sad about the fact that a grown man can't be close to a young boy in our society if they're not related. (This doesn't apply to Michael, who obviously doesn't behave like a grown up, it's more of a general observation.)

Of course Michael is hardly your typically butch male role model and he's taken a lot of shit for it even before these accusations, but does anyone really think he's gay? My queer pals are 100% sure that he is not, and their "gaydar" seldom fails.

Disclaimer: However, when young boys feel insecure about their sexuality they sometimes experiment on each other, which is OK. I'm sure Michael's had lots of such doubts too, or still has, having missed out on his teen years, and so it's quite possible that he's asked a young "friend" to masturbate with him when he's needed to act on these doubts in what he feels is a safe environment. Of course he needs therapy.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:40 am

Gillibeanz wrote:Noise - that was a case which you say you had inside information on - you 'knew' he was guilty. You have no inside information on Jacksons case so how can you possibly make such a superior judgement to say he is guilty?

Wasn't it jesus who said 'Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone'?

If you're going to quote Jesus, quote him in context. He said that to a crowd that set a woman up to stone her and trap him. She was guilty of adultery, but so was the man, and they weren't going to stone him. Also, some in the crowd had hidden and watched so as to catch the two in the act--all of which is a violation of the same Jewish law they were quoting against the woman. Jesus called them on their hypocrisy. The crowd wanting to do the stoning was deserving of the same punishment. That's what is meant by "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

It has no bearing at all on this situation. I have never molested children and so am not a hypocrite when I call Michael Jackson a pedophile. I say let he who has a stone throw it.

And my comments about the "inside information" were not addressed to you, but to lawngnome, who made the incredible claim that being found not guilty is the same as being innocent. The bastards who murdered Emmit Till were found not guilty, as were the cops who beat the hell out of Rodney King. All guilty as sin. For fuck's sake, they got the cops beating King on video tape. They were still found not guilty. The system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and the white. Good thing for Jackson he's both.

Gilli, I understand you don't think he's guilty. But don't act like I'm coming out of left field with the presumtion that he is. Much more of the evidence suggests that he is. If he weren't pop star Michael Jackson--if instead he were just some working class schlub who invited neighborhood boys to his house for sleepovers--we wouldn't even be having this debate. Some average Joe who has had only the kind of contact with prepubescent boys that Jackson has admitted to would be reviled, avoided, and probably in jail. No one wants to believe that the musical genius is a monster. That's just what makes monsters so monstrous though, isn't it?

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:44 am

King Hoarse,

But at 47, that activity is totally unhealthy. Sleepovers with boys when you're a grown man are completely off the charts. Asking young boys to masturbate with him would be completely inappropriate. (I can't quite believe I have to even type that.) Perhaps he does think of himself as a young boy. But he's not. Maybe he needs psychological help. Fine, let him get it. But he should not be allowed to roam free. And trust me--if he survives another decade, this will come up again.

As for the gay question, I don't think Jackson's gay. I think he molests boys. Not the same thing at all. Homosexuality and pedophelia don't necessarily go together. Lots of pedophiles of young boys are attracted to adult women. They're not mutually exclusive at all.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 7:27 am

noiseradio wrote:Gilli, I understand you don't think he's guilty.

I dont necessarily think hes innocent Noise, of course there will always be doubt there - but the point is I dont know and neither do you. Therefore im not going to go around on this board or anywhere else saying he is a child molester because there is a 50% chance he isnt - and that is one of the worst accusations on this earth to make against anyone unless you are 100% sure.

In this country you are innocent unless proven guilty and Michael Jackson has not been proven guilty - end of chat.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:21 am

Gillibeanz wrote:Therefore im not going to go around on this board or anywhere else saying he is a child molester because there is a 50% chance he isnt

This is a bit off-topic, but I would just like to point out that just because there are two possibilities does not mean that they are equally likely. It could rain tomorrow, or it could not. That doesn't mean there is a 50% chance of rain.

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 8:59 am

noiseradio wrote:
Gillibeanz wrote:Noise - that was a case which you say you had inside information on - you 'knew' he was guilty. You have no inside information on Jacksons case so how can you possibly make such a superior judgement to say he is guilty?

Wasn't it jesus who said 'Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone'?
If you're going to quote Jesus, quote him in context. He said that to a crowd that set a woman up to stone her and trap him. She was guilty of adultery, but so was the man, and they weren't going to stone him. Also, some in the crowd had hidden and watched so as to catch the two in the act--all of which is a violation of the same Jewish law they were quoting against the woman. Jesus called them on their hypocrisy. The crowd wanting to do the stoning was deserving of the same punishment. That's what is meant by "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

It has no bearing at all on this situation. I have never molested children and so am not a hypocrite when I call Michael Jackson a pedophile. I say let he who has a stone throw it.

And my comments about the "inside information" were not addressed to you, but to lawngnome, who made the incredible claim that being found not guilty is the same as being innocent. The bastards who murdered Emmit Till were found not guilty, as were the cops who beat the hell out of Rodney King. All guilty as sin. For fuck's sake, they got the cops beating King on video tape. They were still found not guilty. The system is rigged in favor of the wealthy and the white. Good thing for Jackson he's both.

Gilli, I understand you don't think he's guilty. But don't act like I'm coming out of left field with the presumtion that he is. Much more of the evidence suggests that he is. If he weren't pop star Michael Jackson--if instead he were just some working class schlub who invited neighborhood boys to his house for sleepovers--we wouldn't even be having this debate. Some average Joe who has had only the kind of contact with prepubescent boys that Jackson has admitted to would be reviled, avoided, and probably in jail. No one wants to believe that the musical genius is a monster. That's just what makes monsters so monstrous though, isn't it?

Yeah, I misspoke. I admitted and corrected my error. I meant innocent of the charges, since thats what we were talking about. And I know damn well that guilty people sometimes arent charged, as well as that innocent people sometimes get cruficied too. But look at what you just said. Till and King- thats only 2 cases! Yeah, I know there are more- plenty more. But do you honestly think that juries mess up enough to discredit themselves? In 225 years do you think there's been so many errors that we should just get rid of the whole system? Maybe we should just let you dispense justise- you seem to know everything! Just because two cases, cases that occoured in a very turbulent, corrupt times, were mishandled that Jackson jury is wrong?? Maybe I'm just young and stupid, but that makes no fucking sense! You know what else makes no sense? Your extreme conviction that he's guilty, despite that fact that you don't know everything about the case, and the people that do (the jury) thought he didnt do it! Where do you get your info? Fox News? The Daily Show? Your own mind? If you can provide one small shred of EVIDENCE (not speculation (which is all you've provided so far), not accusations, but evidence) that Jackson is guilty or that the Jackson jury was corrupt, then I'll give you my kidney. Until then, speculate and spin all you want, but please don't try to pass off your opinions as fact. Thank you.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 9:47 am

miss buenos aires wrote: This is a bit off-topic, but I would just like to point out that just because there are two possibilities does not mean that they are equally likely. It could rain tomorrow, or it could not. That doesn't mean there is a 50% chance of rain.

I was merely albiet badly trying to point out that theres just as much a possibility he is innocent as he is guilty

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:55 am

I was merely albiet badly trying to point out that theres just as much a possibility he is innocent as he is guilty

In other words a 50-50 possibility rather than 50%.

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:27 pm

Boy With A Problem wrote:In other words a 50-50 possibility rather than 50%.

Doesn't that just mean the same thing?

Boy With A Problem · Post by **Boy With A Problem** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:33 pm

miss buenos aires · Post by **miss buenos aires** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 1:48 pm

Gotcha.

ice nine · Post by **ice nine** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:23 pm

King Hoarse wrote: I'm sad about the fact that a grown man can't be close to a young boy in our society if they're not related.

Isn't this how the Roman Empire started to crumble?

so lacklustre · Post by **so lacklustre** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 3:42 pm

Boy With A Problem wrote:
Actually, in this whole discussion, the comment that amused/stunned/disappointed me the most (and I sincerely hope it was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek), was that by so lacklustre, to whit: "Have faith, come judgement day he'll burn in hell. I trust the good lord on this." - if that is the comment of a christian, then I am glad I have no religion at all. If it was a joke, then it was extremely funny
.

No joke - he's a bible thumping maniac - fundamentalist arm of the Church of England. He'll be drinking strychnine and handling snakes soon.

You speak with forked tongue oh american one. However, forgiveness is in my heart and I shall spare you the fires of hell this time.

Time wrote

then it was extremely funny.

Thanks man, I'm glad someone admires comic genius.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Thu Jun 16, 2005 11:58 pm

Gillibeanz wrote: In this country you are innocent unless proven guilty and Michael Jackson has not been proven guilty - end of chat.

He wasn't proven guilty by those prosecutors in that courtroom according to that jury. Legally, constitutionally, that means he's a free man. I'm not arguing that. But in the non-legally binding court of public opinion, he's seen as guilty something like 4-1. And if the exact same evidence had been presented to 12 other people, he may well have been found guilty. There's not just as much chance that he's guilty or innocent. There's a much greater chance, based on the evidence, that he's guilty but that the jury just wasn't convinced of that. Not the same thing at all.

I don't mean any offense, but I think it's simplistic to say, "you can't know for sure so it's not right to have an opinion." No jury is ever composed of eyewitnesses. If you're a witness, you testify, but you're not allowed to sit on a jury. Had he been found guilty, it would have been by 12 people who didn't see any more or less evidence than I did. I came to the conclusion based on that evidence that he was guilty. Had I and 11 others reached the same conclusion, we would call that being proven guilty. But you still wouldn't know any more than you do one way or the other. The fact is, we trust juries to reach the best conclusion that they can, and they often decide the wrong thing. I'm all for the presumed innocence thing, but presumed innocence under the law isn't anything like innocence. I maintain that Jackson is a free man who is guilty of crimes for which he was not convicted. There are many more who agree with me than not.

And evidently, the chat didn't actually end.

Jackson Monk · Post by **Jackson Monk** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:06 am

noiseradio wrote:
Gillibeanz wrote: In this country you are innocent unless proven guilty and Michael Jackson has not been proven guilty - end of chat.
He wasn't proven guilty by those prosecutors in that courtroom according to that jury. Legally, constitutionally, that means he's a free man. I'm not arguing that. But in the non-legally binding court of public opinion, he's seen as guilty something like 4-1. And if the exact same evidence had been presented to 12 other people, he may well have been found guilty. There's not just as much chance that he's guilty or innocent. There's a much greater chance, based on the evidence, that he's guilty but that the jury just wasn't convinced of that. Not the same thing at all.

I don't mean any offense, but I think it's simplistic to say, "you can't know for sure so it's not right to have an opinion." No jury is ever composed of eyewitnesses. If you're a witness, you testify, but you're not allowed to sit on a jury. Had he been found guilty, it would have been by 12 people who didn't see any more or less evidence than I did. I came to the conclusion based on that evidence that he was guilty. Had I and 11 others reached the same conclusion, we would call that being proven guilty. But you still wouldn't know any more than you do one way or the other. The fact is, we trust juries to reach the best conclusion that they can, and they often decide the wrong thing. I'm all for the presumed innocence thing, but presumed innocence under the law isn't anything like innocence. I maintain that Jackson is a free man who is guilty of crimes for which he was not convicted. There are many more who agree with me than not.

And evidently, the chat didn't actually end.

Not at all. Michael (as i like to call him) just loves and care for all the lil' children of the world............as long as they have willies and are aged between 8-12 years old.

Gillibeanz · Post by **Gillibeanz** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 3:30 am

noiseradio wrote: And evidently, the chat didn't actually end.

Oh yes it has for me Noise thats why I wrote it- ive said all im going to say on this subject!

Mike Boom · Post by **Mike Boom** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 8:04 am

Had he been found guilty, it would have been by 12 people who didn't see any more or less evidence than I did. I came to the conclusion based on that evidence that he was guilty.

errr - I dont necessarily believe he is innocent, but you cant say this Noise, you werent IN the courtroom, you didnt actually see as much evidence as the Jury, in fact you didnt SEE ANY evidence at all.

lawngnome · Post by **lawngnome** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:23 am

Opinions are fine, until a person fails to realize that just because you think something is right does not make it fact. But you know what, its doesn't matter what people think in this. He wasn't convicted. Got that?? He was found not guilty! So sprout all the the nonsense you want, you already lost. Now, I'm going to find a livelier horse to beat. Good luck.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:12 pm

Gillibeanz wrote:
noiseradio wrote: And evidently, the chat didn't actually end.
Oh yes it has for me Noise thats why I wrote it- ive said all im going to say on this subject!

And yet you're still chatting.

Jackson,

That was priceless. You just made my day.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:13 pm

lawngnome wrote:Opinions are fine, until a person fails to realize that just because you think something is right does not make it fact. But you know what, its doesn't matter what people think in this. He wasn't convicted. Got that?? He was found not guilty! So sprout all the the nonsense you want, you already lost.

Actually, the one who has lost is his next victim.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 1:29 pm

Did anyone see the story about the paedophile who was arrested in San Jose yesterday? Frightening stuff. He supposedly had notebooks full of information on all of the children he molested or attempted to molest. Police say the incidents of sexual abuse may number in the thousands.

Lock him up and throw away the key. I can't get my mind around this kind of evil.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Fri Jun 17, 2005 2:09 pm

Actually, Who Shot Sam, he was just a nice old man who loved children. He shared his bed with them, but it wasn't sexual.