WildStyle said:

But conversely, the allegations against him are that he induced these kids to perform illicit acts with him using alcohol, etc. These new allegations fit into that theory.

Just as I cannot assume the worst, you can't automatically assume the best. Once the trial starts and the evidence is submitted in context, then we can make that call.

But one thing is undisputed. MJ created the appearance of impropriety with these kids. He could have avoided all of this by discontinuing his overnight visits with kids in his bedroom, especially after he nearly caught a case 10 years earlier. He didn't. So, to paraphrase Janet, he can't blame nobody but him.

And again I pose the question. Didn't that documentary creep you out at least a little?

.....But one thing is undisputed. MJ created the appearance of impropriety with these kids. He could have avoided all of this by discontinuing his overnight visits with kids in his bedroom, especially after he nearly caught a case 10 years earlier. He didn't. So, to paraphrase Janet, he can't blame nobody but him.

And again I pose the question. Didn't that documentary creep you out at least a little?

namepeace said:

Interesting... u said u were 'paraphrasing' Janet..what DID she say on this exactly...I haven't heard.

bananacologne said:

DavidEye said:

Sorry, I wasn't specific. I was paraphrasing the song "You" from The Velvet Rope ("you can't blame nobody but you"). I sometimes think the lyrics apply to Michael but that would be speculation.

namepeace said:

Aren't most things concerning MJ?

namepeace said:

Yup.

Cloudbuster said:

Fair enough. But if Orenthal the bus driver was found cuddling with a 12-year old boy on national television and admitted to sleeping in the same bed with prepubescent boys, most people would have serious issues with that. But somehow, to some people, it's different when it's Michael Jackson.

namepeace said:

For me, it's simple. If intentions are well meaning then I see nothing wrong with showing affection towards children. So many kids are without love and care in their lives and it's more often than not that it's these youngsters that grow up to be monsters. A bit of love and affection never hurt anyone. Sure, it's not the most common thing for a grown adult to do but who is to say it's right or wrong. Showing love to people of all ages is no bad thing. In fact, I think it's commendable.

namepeace said:

For me, it's simple. If intentions are well meaning then I see nothing wrong with showing affection towards children. So many kids are without love and care in their lives and it's more often than not that it's these youngsters that grow up to be monsters. A bit of love and affection never hurt anyone. Sure, it's not the most common thing for a grown adult to do but who is to say it's right or wrong. Showing love to people of all ages is no bad thing. In fact, I think it's commendable.

That's fair and nice but doesn't really address the issue at hand.

Clearly, it's good to show love to everyone. But those who camoflauge or excuse abusive conduct as "showing love" deserve no sympathy. It is virtuous for clergy to minister to children, particularly orphans. But where those clergy have abused the trust placed in them to do so by molesting children they deserve scrutiny and punishment. Same with MJ.

You know about the allegations. You have seen Michael's own public conduct with these children. At the very least, his conduct raises questions. Let those questions be resolved. We shouldn't trust Sneddon's allegations are true. Nor should we give Michael a pass and take his word for it in light of what he has said and done.

And I pose the same question to you that I have posed here, twice, with no response from pro-MJ supporters. I hope you will answer.

Didn't that documentary creep you out at least a little?

Everything that you just stated is absolutely true. However, the way MJ has presented it in this instance can be equated to serving up a beautiful home cooked meal on a trash can lid.

namepeace said:

No it didn't. Which I've said before some time ago.

And once again, if, and granted it's a big if, intentions are well meaning then I see nothing wrong with it. Less supposed paedophilia in the hearts and minds of people, I say. As yet there is no proof of any wrong doing on Michael's part. And until there is I would rather assume innocence than guilt. Simple as that.

For as long as I have loved and admired MJ, I have to say the documentary did indeed creep me out---to the point that I had to turn the channel.

It is a wonderful and commendable thing to give and share your love freely with others and quite frankly it should be done more often when coming from an honest and pure place.

The part that upsets me about this whole thing is Michael is being a bit stubborn. I totally understand the idea of him standing his ground and not changing who he is or how he behaves or the company he keeps because of what other people think. That’s admirable. However, at what cost?

There were whispers about his behavior for years but when the first allegations erupted in 1993 that was a warning sign. No matter how false those allegations were it should have been a warning sign of how serious things could turn and---perhaps depending on what you believe---there are people intent on his demise.

Michael doesn’t care what people think because he knows or at least believes he is doing nothing wrong and while that may very well be the case, when he is accused of the same crime yet again there is something wrong---with either the company he keeps, how he handles social situations, his perception of himself and/or children in need, etc. Something is not quite right.

Forget about his career and fans. This is upsetting to his siblings, his nieces and nephews, it’s a disruption in his life and spiritual well being. Now he has his own children to care for and I wonder what the affects will be when they are older. Not to mention some don't feel he is a fit parent. And his parents! Poor Katherine. I’m sure she does not want to spend her senior years going in and out of court and worrying about her son. (One day I popped in an old VHS tape and it was Katherine w/Jermaine talking about the allegations and how they were trying to send her ‘boy down the river’. Turns out it was footage from 1993 but it was fitting for 2003.)

Sidenote: The excuse of Michael being like a child or childlike has warn thin because all children (who are not mentally challenged) grow up at some point. So even if he was childlike in to his 20s and 30s wouldn’t he at least be a young adult by now? Just askin'.

Anyway, many people seem to be less sympathetic toward him this time because they feel he’s put himself in this situation. And can you be sympathetic toward someone who refuses to change or at least make an adjustment?
[Edited 12/15/04 9:44am]

For as long as I have loved and admired MJ, I have to say the documentary did indeed creep me out---to the point that I had to turn the channel.

It is a wonderful and commendable thing to give and share your love freely with others and quite frankly it should be done more often when coming from an honest and pure place.

The part that upsets me about this whole thing is Michael is being a bit stubborn. I totally understand the idea of him standing his ground and not changing who he is or how he behaves or the company he keeps because of what other people think. That’s admirable. However, at what cost?

There were whispers about his behavior for years but when the first allegations erupted in 1993 that was a warning sign. No matter how false those allegations were it should have been a warning sign of how serious things could turn and---perhaps depending on what you believe---there are people intent on his demise.

Michael doesn’t care what people think because he knows or at least believes he is doing nothing wrong and while that may very well be the case, when he is accused of the same crime yet again there is something wrong---with either the company he keeps, how he handles social situations, his perception of himself and/or children in need, etc. Something is not quite right.

Forget about his career and fans. This is upsetting to his siblings, his nieces and nephews, it’s a disruption in his life and spiritual well being. Now he has his own children to care for and I wonder what the affects will be when they are older. Not to mention some don't feel he is a fit parent. And his parents! Poor Katherine. I’m sure she does not want to spend her senior years going in and out of court and worrying about her son. (One day I popped in an old VHS tape and it was Katherine w/Jermaine talking about the allegations and how they were trying to send her ‘boy down the river’. Turns out it was footage from 1993 but it was fitting for 2003.)

Sidenote: The excuse of Michael being like a child or childlike has warn thin because all children (who are not mentally challenged) grow up at some point. So even if he was childlike in to his 20s and 30s wouldn’t he at least be a young adult by now? Just askin'.

Anyway, many people seem to be less sympathetic toward him this time because they feel he’s put himself in this situation. And can you be sympathetic toward someone who refuses to change or at least make an adjustment?
[Edited 12/15/04 9:44am]

There been alleged (the same way this news is) rumors of porn mag found in Neverland, but NOT in MJ's room. It has since been rumoured it belonged to one of MJ's security staff. Now let me ask you this? Even if there was an adult magazine found in his room what would that prove? Oh woopie, MJ a 45 yr old man with a porn mag.....and.....every red blooded heterosexual prob has one too; don't prove he's done what these cats are accusing him of. If this kid got hold of it, i aint surprised he mighta taken a good look. I admit when something like this is reported and then brandished and highlighted every where, peops will look at it make up there mind, and yes, it is another nail in the coffin. However, look deeper people, look at all facts first and wait to hear both sides of a story, and thats all i gotta say about this.
[Edited 12/12/04 16:04pm]

THIS WHOLE THING EMERGED FROM THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER FOR GOD SAKE?

I've wondered back and forth as to whether I thought he was innocent or guilty and until now I could not decide. On one hand, he's in a position to do as he pleases and buy anyone off to keep their mouth shut. On the other hand, there are always going to be people that are going to try to hustle him for money because he's so damned much like a child.

I finally had come to the conclusion that maybe he is so childlike that maybe he is asexual (someone that does not have any sexual desire for either a male or a female). The fact that he had porno magazines in the first place proves that theory wrong. If he had no sexual desires, he would have no use for porno. Now that I know he has sexual desires, who is he having sex with? You can only look at porn for so long before you want some real relief. You never see him with a man or a woman but you always see him with children. This makes me wonder if he is guilty.

threat said:

The Enquirer has broken some legit stories before. They first broke the story that Jessie Jackson had a child out of wedlock. They broke the Rush Limbaugh addiction story. They also first reported that Hillary Clinton's brother was paid for securing a presidential pardon for a crook. All went on to get tons of play in the mainstream press, for better or worse.

In any case, Mike needs serious help. You have to agree.

Stax said:

Actually i dont in the slightest.

Novabreaker said:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion. As you know, I respect yours. But good intentions are no excuse for abusive conduct. Pedophilia is a sickness and many people who suffer from it think their affections for children are healthy and loving. That doesn't mean that it is. Intentions don't count for a hill of beans to me if it results in children being abused.

namepeace said:

Sure. But we don't know of any that actually have. The first case against Jackson was a simple "take the money and run" scenario. As was the second that was kept out of the press in the mid 90's. This time around he's being accused by some fruitcake with mental health issues. Oh! Wait! That sounds like Jackson's accusing himself!!!

Bottom line is that we don't know. And until we do, as I said above, I would rather assume innocence than guilt.

Michael is a lesbian.