midnightmover said:

Honestly no, I skimmed over it. What I did see was alot of porn found, and some blood stains on sheets, which really could be from anything. Was there something more dreadful that I missed that you could point out? I am being lazy, but I am being honest about what I'm asking and not trying to challenge you.

whatsgoingon said:

But there is not a single, vague shred of evidence that he slept with his nanny. No-one other than floons has ever suggested such a thing, so the fact that you are even mentioning it gives it a creedence it doesn't deserve. By contrast we have plenty of tangible evidence that Mike was gay. The fact that you think that nonsense about his nanny has the same amount of evidence to support it as what we are saying about his gayness shows that you really don't understand this argument at all.

midnightmover said:

Where are all his gay lovers? Apart from the allegations, you can't link him to one gay lover? Your right there is no hard-core evidence that he slept with the nanny, but it has been said they were lovers, and at least we know that they knew each other and they spent time with each other, even with no kids in toll.

I think your gay or in the closet because you seem to have such an invested interest to prove MJ was gay. Lots of people think he was gay but only someone that is gay himself or in the closet would be so desperate to convince everyone he must be gay. Yea I said it!!

lavenderfields said:

What the hell. Seriously.

whatsgoingon said:

God, your comprehension levels are atrocious. You clearly didn't understand a word of my post. Let's get this straight. I am not saying he had any gay, adult lovers. I'm not even suggesting it because there's no evidence for it. Although there have been men like Liberace's boyfriend who claim to have had sex with Michael, I've never taken that seriously. I don't believe he had a single adult male lover. I believe he was a gay man who had crushes on LITTLE BOYS. There is evidence for that. By contrast there is NO EVIDENCE for this Nanny story which you've been clinging to for months. You are clearly clutching at this pathetic little straw in a desperate attempt to preserve your childhood fantasies about Mike. You still can’t bring yourself to accept the blindingly obvious fact that he was not attracted to women.

And the fact that you are calling me gay again shows that you are not qualified to assess evidence. If you honestly believe you have any evidence for that then there's no hope for you.
[Edited 10/11/09 13:47pm]

Superstition said:

I should've never entered this thread. lol
[Edited 10/11/09 12:21pm]

midnightmover said:

Oh please, the evidence about the little boys is circumstantial, in the same way the rumours about the nanny were. Infact there was a time, it was reported he married the nanny, although we know that was not true.

And if you read my posts properly I am not eluding that MJ is one sexuality or another, I am just keeping all options open because nothing in MJ world was ever clear cut and to pretend you know all the answers to the extent that you called Stephanie Mills "liar" just because she made statements contrary to your theories about MJ proves your the delusional one and your no better than the MJ floons that you forever go on about.

whatsgoingon said:

Let's get this straight, there is NO ONE other than floons that's ever suggested he had an affair with his nanny. By contrast there are over a dozen MJ associates, including four boys themselves who say he was a paedophile, and he was arrested twice for it. The fact that you think these two stories have an equal amount of evidence to support them shows how HOPELESSLY confused you are. You should be embarrassed but you're too deluded to even know how silly you're being.

midnightmover said:

And he was found NOT guilty of those accusations. Fact. Now you may say there was not sufficient evidence, maybe so. But if fans and non-fans believe he is not a pedophile they have ever right to do so without being called floons. Now if you want to call people floons for believing he only had 2 nose jobs than that another story.

And by the way the media were the ones that reported he "married" his nanny, the same media that you get all your "facts" from.
[Edited 10/11/09 14:07pm]

Why u guys keep arguing with this fucker...he does this shit on every MJ thread.
[Edited 10/11/09 14:08pm]

voyevoda said:

voyevoda said:

I know, I should ignore him. I think he is probably more obsesse with MJ than the hard-core fans.

whatsgoingon said:

You just dodged the point. The point is that regardless of the verdict there is a lot of real world evidence that he was attracted to boys whereas there is NO EVIDENCE he had a relationship with his nanny. None. Zilch. Rich celebrities like R. Kelly, OJ Simpson and MJ can often get away with crimes so the verdict does not mean there is no evidence. Far from it. Your attempt to say that the nanny story and the paedohile story have an equal evidential basis is DISHONEST! Well over a dozen MJ associates have indicated he was a paedophile. By contrast, how many of his associates have indicated he had an affair with his nanny? I DARE YOU to answer that question. You won't answer it because you are not honest.
[Edited 10/11/09 14:45pm]

whatsgoingon said:

Yes, thats what I'm thinking. I regret even talking to him, but luckily hes ignoring my posts now, so I got out of that one. I just don't see how someone can act like its a fact either way. I don't know for sure if he was a pedophile or not but I don't get the sense that he is and thats what I admit its based on, that and the fact theres no convincing evidence. I hate how Midnightmover can't even contemplate the fact that he could be wrong, and thats hes so intent on going on about it. I wonder where it stems from.

Arnotts said:

I'm just being objective. Any objective person can see that the evidence for him having an affair with his nanny is ZERO! To suggest that that story has the same credibility as the claims of him being a paedophile is simply dishonest. If you were objective you would see that. The very fact that MJ defenders have to be so dishonest shows how flawed their arguments are. This one has even resorted to calling me gay. That's just desperate.

midnightmover said:

And there were alot of MJ associates who said that he wouldn't hurt a fly, ie Karen Faye and Frank Dileo, who had been closer than most to MJ. And one of the main reason why the conservative jury found him not guilty is because the so-called associates who accused him of abuse to corroborate Gavin allegations had no intergrity. You don't see kids getting abused again and again and continue to work for the so-called abuser, without calling in the social services or police. The only reason why those associates left MJ employment was because he sacked them for one reason or another and then they decided to sell their stories to the media, every single one of them!!

midnightmover said:

And I agree that there is no credibility for the nanny story. I don't even want to get into that. I consider myself an objective fan, I dont believe everything Michael said, like his children being biologically his for instance, or how many nose jobs he had. I know there are MJ fans that are completely over the top defensive on every topic, but that doesnt mean some of us who defend these allegations are like that too or believe he was perfect. I just dont get why you cant see theres a possibility that he could be an innocent man, and not everyone who believes he is is a 'floon'. You can be objective and still think hes innocent. It's not clearcut.

whatsgoingon said:

Once again you dodged the point. The point is that, contrary to your disingenuous claims, the paedophilia story has TONS MORE to back it up than that ridiculous nanny story which you've been talking so much about these past few months. The fact that you can't admit this simple fact is a perfect illusration of the dishonesty of MJ defenders.

Arnotts said:

I take it on a point by point basis. Whenever you get into debates with his defenders they always dodge points, feign ignorance or just flat out lie. If there was a single one who could display honesty or objectivity in the argument then I would acknowledge it, but there just isn't. Just look at Whatsgoingon suggesting that ridiculous nanny story has just as much evidence behind it as the paedophilia allegations. Surely you can see that is a dishonest argument.

Look at the way none of the MJ fans even knew there was gay pornography in his house yet they claim to have studied the case in depth. Look at the way they pretend not to notice that the presence of alcohol and pornography in his bathroom and bedroom completely demolishes the false Peter Pan image he portrayed. Look how they ignore the alarm system he had to let him know if anyone was approaching the chamber next to his bedroom when he was alone with his young friends. Look how they refuse to even acknowledge the existence of Terry George. Look how they try to dodge the inconvenient fact that none of the scores of Neverland boys we've seen have been black. Why did so many of them have such a similar look? As soon as you get into these kind of specific points floons always evade, dodge or lie. You can't ask an intelligent person to respect such intellectual cowardice.

So is Madonna still on tour or what? It would be funny to see her doing her Michael tribute ("Long live the king!") when everyone in the audience knows he couldn't stand her.

midnightmover said:

I never said the paedophilia stories had no basis, there was circumstantial evidence but that doesn't make the whole story true. I ain't one of those people that don't understand the reason why people thought MJ could be a paedophile, so don't say I am living in denial. I can even understand why people may think he was gay, I ain't closed minded like you and so dogmatic in my opinions not to understand other people's points of views and the reasons why they think as they do.

And you keep on saying because something doesn't have any outward evidence it means its not true. There was NO evidence that MJ even knew Lisa Marie Presley and yet they ended up getting married to everyone surprised, you probably collasped with shock, because you didn't see that coming because of lack of evidence I have no problem you believing what you want, but stop pretending you know more than everyone else and want you believe is 100% factual, because it ain't.
[Edited 10/12/09 0:12am]

midnightmover said:

There's no reason she can't still tribute a fellow artist, all personal stories aside.

blessedk said:

My point is this--I have no idea if MJ committed the crimes he was accused of against young boys. Nobody knows one way or another for sure except the people in the room at the time--i.e. MJ and whatever boy was involved.
I just feel based on the evidence I have read over the years that it was likely that he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. Do I know for sure? Of course not! I am just deducing something from the facts that it is possible or probable that he did commit those crimes. Just my opinion.

lavenderfields said:

Yeah, that's fine and dandy. You thought he was guilty of the crimes he was accused of. No issue.

But then you say you also believe he molested kids who never accused him of anything, as well as one who testified in a criminal trial that nothing untoward ever happened. That is why I did a double-take.

whatsgoingon said:

Wow! You're now criticizing me for asking for evidence! You think I'm actually wrong for expecting stories to be backed up with evidence? Wow, I've always known you had a contempt for evidence and reason, but I never would have expected you to make it so blatant. The fact that you can be so dismissive of the need for evidence makes it even more obvious that you are not interested in truth at all. You pick stories you like the sound of without taking a second to objectively assess them. That's the difference between you and me.

There are, for instance, many stories of Michael having gay lovers, but since they are obviously tabloid bullshit, I don't even bother to mention them. I have HIGHER STANDARDS than that. You on the other hand will cling to even the most transparent tabloid horseshit and actually use it to bolster your empty hand. I use FACTS to bolster my arguments. You use unsubstantiated tabloid nonsense and don't even care that it has no credibilty. Any objective person can see that my approach is far more intelligent and reasonable than yours. Do you have anything to say about FACTS like the gay porn in MJ's house? The chamber next to his bedroom that was hooked up to an alarm to alert him if anyone came down the corridor? The disproportionately high number of Latinos invited into his bedroom? Or the dozen other FACTS I mentioned earlier? Of course not, you'd rather talk about tabloid fiction that you like the sound of instead.

You've also (once again) completely dodged the whole the point of my post. Hardly surprising. Evasiveness is the hallmark of all MJ defenders.
[Edited 10/13/09 10:29am]

purplesweat said:

Wow, talk about missing the point!

Mods please

Thanks for ruining the thread, Midnightmover.

midnightmover said: