Notice I ain't even upset.

OK, I'm a "hater" and you're a "lover". We can agree to disagree. Dig?

Cool.

Timmy84 said:

and I'll be making money off of it!

bboy87 said:

You won't see a fight from me. I just had to point out the complete utter bullshit. Now carry on....

bboy87 said:

$40 million?

Timmy84 said:

More like "obsessed". But nothings wrong with expressing your love for another man.

LaCienega said:

Why would I fantasize about a pisser? About a dude who in his video had some Pippi Longstocking weavebraids? :spitcoffee:

OK, if you think so.
[Edited 6/9/08 18:42pm]

Timmy =

Timmy84 said:

Maybe thats your type of sport


A hater doesn't put as much energy and time as you do into something that they hate.

LaCienega said:

You don't visit the org alot, do you? We hate alot

bboy87 said:

GoActive said:

Timmy84 said:

Hi!

GoActive said:

How you're doing. Ain't this thread wild?

Timmy84 said:

I'm in good spirits -- and yourself?

To answer your question; yes, but how couldn't it be with it's topic of discussion!? The sideline rants (such as LaCienaga's impromptu entrance) littered throughout the thread have made it all the more enjoyable!

GoActive said:

Oh I'm good.

And yeah, it's just got more entertaining.

Timmy84 said:

You're absolutely right on point. I hope the prosecution hammers home the point that in spite of their so-called expert saying it's possible to alter or fake figures fucking he ultimately said that there was no evidence of fakery on THIS tape. So basically they went through all the headless bodies sexing to say it's possible but didn't happen on THIS tape. So what's ya'lls point again????

However, despite the defense's obvious shortcomings they don't have to prove he's innocent they just have to present a shadow of a doubt. I'm scared that with the family members saying it's not her that may be enough to acquit him. I dunno, but I'm holding my breath on this one.

LaCienega said:

Shiiiiittttt, I'd be honored to be banned from an R. Kelly fan site.

SCNDLS said:

I dare you to join one of his boards.

Timmy84 said:

THAT would be too much fun. OMG I don't even know any of his sites. Which is the most popular? I think I'ma have to harrass some of Sylvester's fans.

SCNDLS said:

Check your ORGNOTES.

Timmy84 said:

SCNDLS said:

Looks like I have one more badge to earn so I can get my Ph D in "Hate of Bitchassness"

Kelly addresses judge at child pornography trial

5 minutes ago

CHICAGO - R. Kelly told the judge in his child pornography trial Tuesday that he doesn't plan to testify in his own defense.

After Judge Vincent Gaughan told Kelly he had a right to not testify, the R&B singer leaned forward at the defense table with his hands folded and — speaking for the first time at the trial — responded: "I decided not to testify."

The jury wasn't in the room at the time.

Kelly, 41, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he videotaped himself having sex with an underage girl. Both Kelly and the alleged victim, now 23, have denied being on the tape.

Also Tuesday, the judge ruled that jurors can view the sex tape once they begin deliberating.

Kelly's lawyers had asked the judge to bar jurors from reviewing the graphic video, saying they worried jurors would overemphasize one piece of evidence. But prosecutors argued the tape is the primary subject of the trial and couldn't be kept from jurors.

Prosecutors are scheduled to call two rebuttal witnesses. Closing arguments are likely to be delivered Thursday.

Kelly's attorneys surprised courtroom observers by resting their case Monday. Over two days, Kelly's lawyers called 12 witnesses. One was a forensics expert who testified there didn't appear to be a mole on the back of a man in a sex tape.

Defense attorneys say Kelly has a mole on his back, so the man on the tape can't be him. But a prosecution witness who'll take the stand for a second time is expected to challenge that claim.

Rotten tomato hits R. Kelly trial

A mix-up over a copy of the sex tape at the center of R. Kelly's trial is a "rotten tomato in the barrel," Judge Gaughan said this afternoon as the two sides squared off again over the so-called "mole defense."

It's unclear what measures Gaughan will take about the mix-up—a mistake in the state's attorney's office.

Prosecutors gave Kelly's defense team a copy of the sex tape on DVD two weeks ago, telling them it was an exact copy of the original. But the DVD copy is actually of a lower quality than the original, prosecutor Robert Heilingoetter acknowledged today.

Also, the copy was not made by prosecution video expert Grant Fredericks, as the state had previously claimed, but by a junior member of the state's attorney's staff, Heilingoetter said.

The defense has had access to the original sex tape, but the mistake could prove significant because Kelly's attorneys used the DVD during their questioning of defense video expert, Charles Palm.

Shown frames from the DVD, Palm said he could not see a mole on the man in the tape's back.

Fredericks used a high quality copy of the original tape when he testified, pointing out a spot on the man in the tape's back that corresponds with a mole on Kelly's back.

Both sides signed a stipulation last week, agreeing that the DVD was an accurate copy of the sex tape. That stipulation was read to the jury and will probably now have to be corrected in some form, at a minimum.

Testifying again today—this time as a prosecution rebuttal witness—Fredericks said that Palm "should have known" that the DVD was a lower quality copy, saying it was "obvious."

Fredericks again said that the tape could not have been faked, describing why he believed the spot on the man's back was not video "noise."

But defense attorney Ed Genson said the jury would now think that Kelly's team had acted in "bad faith" by using the low quality DVD during Palm's testimony.

Palm testified last week that he had analyzed high quality copies of the tape before the trial, saying he based his opinions on those high quality copies.

Also Tuesday morning, Robert Wolf, an assistant District Attorney from Georgia, testified that Yul Brown—the fiance of star prosecution witness Lisa Van Allen—was not offered a lenient sentence on an unrelated weapons charge in return for Van Allen's assistance in Kelly's trial.

Kelly's lawyers have repeatedly suggested that Brown and Van Allen "cooked up a scheme" to help Kelly's prosecutors in return for a light sentence for Brown.

Brown faced up to 22 years on drugs and weapons charges after a loaded AK47 was found at his home in Atlanta. He was instead sentenced to probation.

Wolf, who handled Brown's prosecution, said he had never discussed Brown with anybody involved in Kelly's case.
[Edited 6/10/08 13:57pm]

bboy87 said:

Well my brotha, you gots to getcha own. I've officially received my Ph D cuz I got banned from Kelly's cult site by the head supporter of PeePee man (LaCienaga is that you ) BEFORE even posting.

I created an account and went to sign in and got the following message:


Ain't THIS a hot mess???? I'm over here, literally rolling around laughing at this shit. And how they gon' call the Org raggedy???
[Edited 6/10/08 15:02pm]

SCNDLS said:[quote]

bboy87 said:

Now this is literally a LOL moment!

GoActive said:

I know RIGHT??? At least the Org gives you a chance to show ya ass BEFORE they ban you. But that's aiight I guess they don't want anyone calling "Mr. Let Me Piss On You" out.

SCNDLS said:

Eggzackly!

It's ridiculous that disagreements are transcending internet boundaries to the point someone awaits on standby the arrival of another for the purpose of stopping them at the gate so to speak.

I dunno what's worse; the premeditated banning, raggedy comment, or someone being a member of this raggedy website to get the notion to even premeditate a banning elsewhere!

GoActive said:

All I can say is, "Wow." So basically, this person banned someone on the Kelly site who was vocal in their criticism of Rruh, followed them to Org, posts harrasing posts, trolls around waiting for the possibility that someone from the Org will go there, then pre-emptively bans 'em. Ain't THAT some shit???

To be honest I was more curious about what his fans were saying. I wanted to see if they're pretty unanimous in their support or if they were keeping it real and recognizing that dude is a child molester. You can't even view threads without signing in like you can on the Org. At least on the Org, sure we all love Prince but many of us don't have a problem clowning him when he does some silly shit. At least Prince keeps his shit street legal.

SCNDLS said:

Kind of scary when you think about it.


As someone who's had access to these online shrines dedicated to Rruh and friends with an overly-obsessive stan; the majority are definitely in his defensive corner. The blame should solely be placed upon The Man for trying to keep yet another black man down, and it's definitely NOT him on the tape.