Michael Jackson and Farrah died today

**OntarioVanMan** · 07-01-2009, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by aristotle

OVM... mine is a minority opinion with a constituency of one. Michael Jackson not only moonwalks, he skates.

Past tense...."skated"

I did not like the goings on...either...since they were under-age of consent... the parents that allowed this should have also been highly scrutinized...They sold their kids for a moment of fame...

**flattop40** · 07-01-2009, 01:23 PM

What gets me is how this is such a hot topic. To date this is post #167. No matter what side of this fence you are on, you are still on a side. Which to me shows just how popular MJ was.
AS with everyone with time his reputation will be smoothed over.

He may go down in history like say.... Edgar Allen Poe great poet but (he MAY have used alot of drugs)

Kinda like Barry Bonds. Holds the homerun record but (he MAY have used roids)

So Michael Jackson, great singer, song writer, performer but(he MAY have done bad things with little boys)

**Pilgrim** · 07-01-2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by RLENT

To you sir, I would suggest that you might find the former Soviet Union as a more ideal place to reside, as I understand that their practices are apparently more in-line with your way of thinking.

It's obviously beyond my meager abilities to communicate my main point effectively with someone on your level of intellectual superiority. However, I'll give it another stab by repeating this simple question based on the assumption you're a parent:

WOULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED YOUR 11 YEAR-OLD SON TO "SLEEP OVER" WITH MICHAEL JACKSON UNCHAPERONED??

**flattop40** · 07-01-2009, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

WOULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED YOUR 11 YEAR-OLD SON "SLEEP OVER" WITH MICHAEL JACKSON UNCHAPERONED??

I know this was not directed at me but when my boy was 11 he was 5'10" and over 175# and could take care of himself.

**OntarioVanMan** · 07-01-2009, 01:50 PM

Not a chance...What would be the net gain for me or my son? The infamy? Ego?

Flattop you are correct...superstar with an asterisk ***

**Pilgrim** · 07-01-2009, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by flattop40

I know this was not directed at me but when my boy was 11 he was 5'10" and over 175# and could take care of himself.

And I'll bet he wasn't inclined to do "sleep overs" in the same bed with somebody like MJ or any other 45 year-old man

**cheri1122** · 07-01-2009, 02:08 PM

[QUOTE=flattop40;314280]What gets me is how this is such a hot topic. To date this is post #167. No matter what side of this fence you are on, you are still on a side. Which to me shows just how popular MJ was.

I'm impressed by your refusal to 'get it': it's not about MJ at all - it's about the fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It's about the sad fact that folks are too quick to condemn what they don't understand, or like.
It's about how a false accusation can ruin anyone's life, including yours or mine.
When intelligent folks [yes, I'm crediting you & Aristotle with intelligence] can see that the facts don't support the ONE accusation, and still pronounce the man guilty, I fear for the existence of justice in America.

**flattop40** · 07-01-2009, 02:34 PM

[QUOTE=cheri1122;314291]

Originally Posted by flattop40

What gets me is how this is such a hot topic. To date this is post #167. No matter what side of this fence you are on, you are still on a side. Which to me shows just how popular MJ was.

I'm impressed by your refusal to 'get it': it's not about MJ at all - it's about the fundamental right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. It's about the sad fact that folks are too quick to condemn what they don't understand, or like.
It's about how a false accusation can ruin anyone's life, including yours or mine.
When intelligent folks [yes, I'm crediting you & Aristotle with intelligence] can see that the facts don't support the ONE accusation, and still pronounce the man guilty, I fear for the existence of justice in America.

First of all Cheri thank you for targeting me yet again. Secondly,I DO "GET IT". I have intentionally left out what side of the fence I am on but if you look hard enough I think even you may figure it out. I am all about innocent until proven guilty. I was just remarking about how popular this thread is and how the death of MJ has become such a hot topic but then you throw me in with Aristotle. What basis do you do this? Have I once said anything about him being a pedifile or molester. I think not. I actually have enjoyed his music. I still get up and dance to Billy Jean, PYT, etc.. I on 2 occasions have said he was a great singer, song writer, and performer.

So am I not innocent until proven guilty? So get off your perch (I can see your string) and quit trying to be all hi and mighty over every little post I make.

**cheri1122** · 07-01-2009, 03:08 PM

"Targeting" you? Puhleeze - a classic deflection, that one. [Responding to the messenger instead of the message].
I replied to your query re: allowing our children to sleep with MJ. The question was irrelevant, and inflammatory, which indicates to me that you believe MJ was a pedophile.
It is that belief, in spite of any proof, [and with plenty to demonstrate the motive of the sole accuser was money] that I [and Turtle, Pjjjjj, Relent, et al] are attempting to decipher. Because if folks can believe in guilt on the evidence presented, there is no hope of justice in a court of law.
I worry, because a false accusation can destroy a life, and can happen to anyone, famous or not.
Including you and me.

**cheri1122** · 07-01-2009, 03:12 PM

O yeah: what string? Please elaborate, I'm all ears.

**flattop40** · 07-01-2009, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by cheri1122

"Targeting" you? Puhleeze - a classic deflection, that one. [Responding to the messenger instead of the message].
I replied to your query re: allowing our children to sleep with MJ. The question was irrelevant, and inflammatory, which indicates to me that you believe MJ was a pedophile.

I am assuming you are talking about my response about my boy being as big as he is. And if so why didn't you quote it and not my other post. The reason for my commenting about his size is because at the age of 11 he could defend himslelf IF NEED BE and that 11 year olds are not as small and helpless as some seem to think they are. The sad thing is I am actually on your side, yet your infatuation

with me is curbing your judgement.

And yes you have been targeting me. Not only on this thread but on others and if it persists I may have to get a mod. envolved.

**cheri1122** · 07-01-2009, 03:45 PM

Reading your comments in post 173 ["even you", "get off your perch and quit acting high and mighty with me" "I can see the string"] might lead one to think that YOU are targeting ME, eh?
I'm not complaining, mind you - it seems as if folks complain of being targeted only when they feel outgunned, so to speak, and I don't feel that. I welcome challenges to what I post - it makes me think about it, which is a good thing, IMO.
I don't want to get off topic, so will be happy to hear your charges via pm, ok? Please cite specifics, and I'll defend my words.

**flattop40** · 07-01-2009, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by cheri1122

Reading your comments in post 173 ["even you", "get off your perch and quit acting high and mighty with me" "I can see the string"] might lead one to think that YOU are targeting ME, eh?
I'm not complaining, mind you - it seems as if folks complain of being targeted only when they feel outgunned, so to speak, and I don't feel that. I welcome challenges to what I post - it makes me think about it, which is a good thing, IMO.
I don't want to get off topic, so will be happy to hear your charges via pm, ok? Please cite specifics, and I'll defend my words.

No need for PM, I have nothing to hide, do you?

Can't answer my questions from the previous post? So I guess I will ask it again but in simple terms. Why you be tinken dat I be not liken MJ mmkay?

You say you don't want to get off topic but you have. There is nothing in your last post that has anything to do with the thread.

**Turtle** · 07-01-2009, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by aristotle

I hold a contrary opinion. It is surprising to see the level of support for Michael Jackson's supposed innocence.

The phrasing here is interesting, and telling. One, there's no "supposed" anything, it's either innocent until proven guilty or it's not. Two, why is it surprising? Is it surprising to you that so many people would rather deal with facts and what is provable instead of tossing all that aside in favor of the more sensationalistic hype of accusatory hearsay and circumstantial evidence that means, in the end, nothing?

If you take the stories and accusations at face value, at the value of the sensational, and then let the imagination run rampant to conclusion, you'll see dozens, if not hundreds of accusations, enough of them to conclude that the only thing he could be is guilty. But the reality is, the accusations are very few and far between, and not one of them were proven, even a little bit, to be even remotely true. Yet you still want to dismiss all that in favor of the shocking, the abhorrent, the sensational. Amazing. I mean, when you take a look at it, it's pretty amazing how few the accusations are, and at how weak they are. But, Michael Jackson was weird, very unlike the rest of us, so it's easy to believe that he would do things the rest of us wouldn't.

You hold a contrary opinion, but it's one that is clearly emotionally based, an opinion formed not by the facts, but by the emotions of the charges. Like I said, that's a nasty business.

As someone who was once arrested and charged with something I did not do, even though the charges were later dismissed with prejudice (same as a double jeopardy not guilty finding, meaning they were without merit or foundation and cannot be brought against me again), the arrest record still follows me around after nearly 20 years. I still carry with me the judge's order dismissing the charges, as well as the second order expunging the actual arrest itself, two things I have needed to get my FAST card and needed on more than one occasion on both sides of the Canadian border to literally prove my innocence, something no one should have to do. As a result, I tend to be an "innocent until proven guilty" kinda guy.

As a side note, and perhaps a relevant one, man is it easy to get an arrest onto someone's record. Make up a charge, have them arrested, the charges are dismissed or withdrawn, the arrest stays on their record. Amazing.

**Turtle** · 07-01-2009, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

WOULD YOU HAVE ALLOWED YOUR 11 YEAR-OLD SON TO "SLEEP OVER" WITH MICHAEL JACKSON UNCHAPERONED??

Actually, that's a classic loaded question worthy of Mr Bat Guano (may he rest in peace). Leave off the last word and it becomes a valid question in relation to the issue, but at is stands, it changes the conditions of circumstances, assumes things not in question, and becomes an exercise in the hypothetical, not to mention a pretty blatant deflection towards whoever answers the question, since a "no" would supposedly prove your point, making you out to be superior, and a "yes" would allow you to deride the answerer, again, making you out to be superior.

In any case, the question, and the answer, is a rather weak attempt to draw a corollary between the answer and your already concluded conclusion, and is a classic illusory corollary, since to reach the conclusion you have come to, one must conclude that any 45 year old man who would have a child on a sleepover must be a pedophile under any and all circumstances, period.

You view Michael Jackson in terms of black and white (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) in that he was a 45 year old man, period. And he had little boys over for sleepovers, period. Ergo, period.

There was nothing about the guy that was normal, yet you want to make him out to be a very normal pedophile. Really?