IanRG said:

WhisperingDandelions said:

What wrongdoings were so public? His aquittal from the second accusations trial? Which was clearly extortion, with testimony from like 30-40 other celebs who didn't even know MJ that this family tried to con them for money years prior echoing the same sentiment.

The leaked tape of the father of the first accuser saying he's gonna destroy MJ if he doesn't give him what he wants? Carrie Fischer saying the same accusers' dad used to be her Hollywood drug dealer and would routinely talk about how he was going to exort MJ before he did when they were both blasted?

It just seems like you're being willfully dramatic and obtuse just for the sake of clutching pearls.

His tracks literally have zero pathos or foreboding darkness until years after he was accused, and even then it was more of a sad sack depressive kind of pathos. "Morphine" being a great example.... likewise, if you're actually doing what you like to always remind us of what he's accused of, you get addicted to genseng or cialis something, not a drug that's gonna zonk you out.

Propofol and morphine. Drugs that you'd pick if you literally want to sleep through the rest of life, almost like you're escaping a reality that's too painful, which was always Elizabeth Taylor's explanation of how he got addicted, he didn't want to be fully conscious of a world that almost unanimously believed him to be the devil incarnate.

And you don't stop at 1-3 victims, it's a friggin' disorder. I like Indian food and I've had more than 3 plates, come on now. You said you like pizza. You had more than 3 slices in your life? Would investigators be unable to find evidence that you've had a single slice in your lifetime?


And you act like putting on an MJ record is like putting on an R. Kelly record where he's literally singing shit like "age ain't nothing but a number" and singing to girls "it seems like you'e ready" over a rauncy sex beat, literal music videos with a pack of teenage girls dancing around him like a harem. Like MJ albums are this onslaught of uncomfortable lyrics and chilling, dark vibe that can't help but steer your mind to the accusations. Give me a break.

If his tracks had an ounce of the boogeyman qualities you believe them to have those early albums might actually enter my Top 100.

[Edited 6/4/23 15:20pm]

And that is a perfect type 1 response.

The person who abused me as a child was acquitted twice. His initial charges for these two cases were only about his abuse of 1 person. He lacked wealth, celebrity, the best lawyers, etc. However, he did have friends in politics etc as well as people who attacked the house of police investigator. His defense was to attack and discredit the accuser. However, without MJ's resources, the 3rd and 4th cases involved more than 50 children and he died in prison.

You're projecting. Your personal crap has nothing to do with Michael Jackson.

PatrickS77 said:

IanRG said:

And that is a perfect type 1 response.

The person who abused me as a child was acquitted twice. His initial charges for these two cases were only about his abuse of 1 person. He lacked wealth, celebrity, the best lawyers, etc. However, he did have friends in politics etc as well as people who attacked the house of police investigator. His defense was to attack and discredit the accuser. However, without MJ's resources, the 3rd and 4th cases involved more than 50 children and he died in prison.

You're projecting. Your personal crap has nothing to do with Michael Jackson.

No, I am comparing a fan's rose coloured defence to the actual experiences of the sexual assault of children by reference to what more than 50 children experienced to show how weak that defence was.

That MJ was able to be acquitted is not proof of innocence. It is absolutely normal in these situations for the perp to get off in court cases because it is so hard to prove.

That MJ could get friends and people in his business to vouch for him is not proof of innocence. It is an absolutely normal response in these situations for the friends, associates and employees of the perp to blame the accusing child rather than believe that this could have happened. Think of all the the times that a church, club, business or government body has had one of its people in power accused and has then sought to protect their organisation rather than its alleged victims.

That the defense was to attack the accuser or their parents is not proof of innocence. This is the bog standard tactic of virtually every case of sexual assault of children and women.

That the rich, powerful, influential, and idolised are more likely to be found innocent regardless of whether they did it or not, is simply a fact of life.

What is absolutely known for a fact is that MJ had seriously weird and suspicious relationships with many children and he used his celebrity to do this. No parent in their right mind would otherwise allow their child to sleep at a single adult man's house just because that adult had made their house like child's fantasy playground.

It is possible that MJ is innocent but his actions, his defense and the reality that only around 5% of accusations of sexual assault are false accusations means that his "supposed wrongdoings" cannot be dismissed just because he is idolised by his fans.

That is a weird avatar you have for a person on Prince fan site - But it helps explain your response.

[Edited 6/5/23 12:48pm]

IanRG said:

PatrickS77 said:

You're projecting. Your personal crap has nothing to do with Michael Jackson.

No, I am comparing a fan's rose coloured defence to the actual experiences of the sexual assault of children by reference to what more than 50 children experienced to show how weak that defence was.

That MJ was able to be acquitted is not proof of innocence. It is absolutely normal in these situations for the perp to get off in court cases because it is so hard to prove.

That MJ could get friends and people in his business to vouch for him is not proof of innocence. It is an absolutely normal response in these situations for the friends, associates and employees of the perp to blame the accusing child rather than believe that this could have happened. Think of all the the times that a church, club, business or government body has had one of its people in power accused and has then sought to protect their organisation rather than its alleged victims.

That the defense was to attack the accuser or their parents is not proof of innocence. This is the bog standard tactic of virtually every case of sexual assault of children and women.

That the rich, powerful, influential, and idolised are more likely to be found innocent regardless of whether they did it or not, is simply a fact of life.

What is absolutely known for a fact is that MJ had seriously weird and suspicious relationships with many children and he used his celebrity to do this. No parent in their right mind would otherwise allow their child to sleep at a single adult man's house just because that adult had made their house like child's fantasy playground.

It is possible that MJ is innocent but his actions, his defense and the reality that only around 5% of accusations of sexual assault are false accusations means that his "supposed wrongdoings" cannot be dismissed just because he is idolised by his fans.

That is a weird avatar you have for a person on Prince fan site - But it helps explain your response.

[Edited 6/5/23 12:48pm]

The defense is not rose coloured. It's facts, believabilty, plausability, action and testimonies coloured. And none of the broad strokes you mention has anything to do with Michael Jackson. Each case is it's own case. And what is weird lies in the eyes of the beholder and is absolutely subjective. But whatever. I already said you're projecting.

And, absolutely non topic, but what is weird of someone being a fan of both Prince and Michael?! And how boring would it be to use a Prince avatar on a Prince board? Also I know that many of you people are still threatened by Michael and pissed off that someone would use this avatar, hence why I decided to use it 16 years ago... and it still manages to piss you off.

PatrickS77 said:

IanRG said:

No, I am comparing a fan's rose coloured defence to the actual experiences of the sexual assault of children by reference to what more than 50 children experienced to show how weak that defence was.

That MJ was able to be acquitted is not proof of innocence. It is absolutely normal in these situations for the perp to get off in court cases because it is so hard to prove.

That MJ could get friends and people in his business to vouch for him is not proof of innocence. It is an absolutely normal response in these situations for the friends, associates and employees of the perp to blame the accusing child rather than believe that this could have happened. Think of all the the times that a church, club, business or government body has had one of its people in power accused and has then sought to protect their organisation rather than its alleged victims.

That the defense was to attack the accuser or their parents is not proof of innocence. This is the bog standard tactic of virtually every case of sexual assault of children and women.

That the rich, powerful, influential, and idolised are more likely to be found innocent regardless of whether they did it or not, is simply a fact of life.

What is absolutely known for a fact is that MJ had seriously weird and suspicious relationships with many children and he used his celebrity to do this. No parent in their right mind would otherwise allow their child to sleep at a single adult man's house just because that adult had made their house like child's fantasy playground.

It is possible that MJ is innocent but his actions, his defense and the reality that only around 5% of accusations of sexual assault are false accusations means that his "supposed wrongdoings" cannot be dismissed just because he is idolised by his fans.

That is a weird avatar you have for a person on Prince fan site - But it helps explain your response.

[Edited 6/5/23 12:48pm]

The defense is not rose coloured. It's facts, believabilty, plausability, action and testimonies coloured. And none of the broad strokes you mention has anything to do with Michael Jackson. Each case is it's own case. And what is weird lies in the eyes of the beholder and is absolutely subjective. But whatever. I already said you're projecting.

And, absolutely non topic, but what is weird of someone being a fan of both Prince and Michael?! And how boring would it be to use a Prince avatar on a Prince board? Also I know that many of you people are still threatened by Michael and pissed off that someone would use this avatar, hence why I decided to use it 16 years ago... and it still manages to piss you off.

Please stop projecting you obsession.

The defence is rose coloured for the reasons I said. This is clearly indicated by you not addressing them. It is clear from you seeking to dismiss them as if they as "broad strokes". There is nothing broad stroke about thinking an adult building a children's fantasy land to get children to sleep with him is extremely suspect. There is nothing subjective about this being highly inappropriate and indicative that this adult is a person that parents should be absolutely careful to have their children avoid for their own protection.

You avatar does not piss me off, but is telling that you just confirmed that pissing off Prince fans is your desired intent here. All I said was that you never-ending defence of MJ against the facts, even if they are circumstantial, aligns perfectly with your rose coloured glasses for MJ and your avatar of him. It is how you choose to present yourself and you just explained why.

IanRG said:

PatrickS77 said:

The defense is not rose coloured. It's facts, believabilty, plausability, action and testimonies coloured. And none of the broad strokes you mention has anything to do with Michael Jackson. Each case is it's own case. And what is weird lies in the eyes of the beholder and is absolutely subjective. But whatever. I already said you're projecting.

And, absolutely non topic, but what is weird of someone being a fan of both Prince and Michael?! And how boring would it be to use a Prince avatar on a Prince board? Also I know that many of you people are still threatened by Michael and pissed off that someone would use this avatar, hence why I decided to use it 16 years ago... and it still manages to piss you off.

Please stop projecting you obsession.

The defence is rose coloured for the reasons I said. This is clearly indicated by you not addressing them. It is clear from you seeking to dismiss them as if they as "broad strokes". There is nothing broad stroke about thinking an adult building a children's fantasy land to get children to sleep with him is extremely suspect. There is nothing subjective about this being highly inappropriate and indicative that this adult is a person that parents should be absolutely careful to have their children avoid for their own protection.

You avatar does not piss me off, but is telling that you just confirmed that pissing off Prince fans is your desired intent here. All I said was that you never-ending defence of MJ against the facts, even if they are circumstantial, aligns perfectly with your rose coloured glasses for MJ and your avatar of him. It is how you choose to present yourself and you just explained why.

What obsession?? Once again, you're projecting. There is no obsession. Just a believe, based on facts, that he didn't do these things. But obviously a clown like you can't see that and will call it "rose coloured glasses for MJ". There is no arguing with people like you. So I will save my breath, not go into details and just say that I fundamentally disagree with your assessment or should I call it your obsession to turn MJ into a criminal?! And what fantasy land? Have you ever visited Neverland?? I have. It's way less fantasy, than you make it out to be.

My intent is to piss off narrow minded Prince fans like you. Well adjusted Prince fans obviously have no problem with it. Why would they? They might even also be fans of both. And what picture I choose as an "avatar" (I'm not even pretending to be MJ, so I'm not sure why we call it avatar) has no bearing on what I post, really. It says more about you that you constantly harp on about it, as if there is a rule here, that only Prince pics are allowed.

PatrickS77 said:

IanRG said:

Please stop projecting you obsession.

The defence is rose coloured for the reasons I said. This is clearly indicated by you not addressing them. It is clear from you seeking to dismiss them as if they as "broad strokes". There is nothing broad stroke about thinking an adult building a children's fantasy land to get children to sleep with him is extremely suspect. There is nothing subjective about this being highly inappropriate and indicative that this adult is a person that parents should be absolutely careful to have their children avoid for their own protection.

You avatar does not piss me off, but is telling that you just confirmed that pissing off Prince fans is your desired intent here. All I said was that you never-ending defence of MJ against the facts, even if they are circumstantial, aligns perfectly with your rose coloured glasses for MJ and your avatar of him. It is how you choose to present yourself and you just explained why.

What obsession?? Once again, you're projecting. There is no obsession. Just a believe, based on facts, that he didn't do these things. But obviously a clown like you can't see that and will call it "rose coloured glasses for MJ". There is no arguing with people like you. So I will save my breath, not go into details and just say that I fundamentally disagree with your assessment or should I call it your obsession to turn MJ into a criminal?! And what fantasy land? Have you ever visited Neverland?? I have. It's way less fantasy, than you make it out to be.

My intent is to piss off narrow minded Prince fans like you. Well adjusted Prince fans obviously have no problem with it. Why would they? They might even also be fans of both. And what picture I choose as an "avatar" (I'm not even pretending to be MJ, so I'm not sure why we call it avatar) has no bearing on what I post, really. It says more about you that you constantly harp on about it, as if there is a rule here, that only Prince pics are allowed.

And yet you keep on posting to defend the indefensible because of your devotion to an artist.

Your obssession is in your belief that he did not have children sleeping with him as an adult in a child's fantasy playground built just for that purpose. Your assumption through rose coloured glasses are that this just must have been completely innocent despite the facts and accusations.

Yes, for you, there is no arguing with people that see the clear warnings and allow for suspicions at the very least. This is because you want to believe that there must be no problem here because if there was then this problem is universally seen as one of the most hated crimes in most societies. But this inability to argue with people seeking to defend children is more your problem than mine.

Like I said about your avatar - It does not piss me off, it just flags you by your own choice. Before you throw around terms like "narrow minded" please read my posts in this thread:

Post #2 I said "I say this as someone who watched the Jacksons on TV and really liked "Off the Wall" before "Bad" and "Rhythm Nation 1814" after it."

Post #16 I said "Ahh, the great moral dilemma: Can you look past an artist's wrongs to just admire their art? As a former Jackson ... fan, in this case, I cannot."

I say this as a MJ fan turned off by how he actually and provably acted and where and how far that possibly may have gone: If it is narrow minded to find MJ's actions with children to be, at the very least, highly suspicious and not able to be dismissed so easily, then this is on MJ and those who seek to find no fault in the one they idolise.

As to who constantly harps on about this: How many posts have you made here to defend MJ since we both joined in 2007 and how many have I made? I will make it easy for you: All mine are in this thread, but yours have been across many threads over the years.

[Edited 6/5/23 23:27pm]

IanRG said:

SoftSkarlettLovisa said:

IanRG said:

And yet you keep on posting to defend the indefensible because of your devotion to an artist.

Your obssession is in your belief that he did not have children sleeping with him as an adult in a child's fantasy playground built just for that purpose. Your assumption through rose coloured glasses are that this just must have been completely innocent despite the facts and accusations.

Yes, for you, there is no arguing with people that see the clear warnings and allow for suspicions at the very least. This is because you want to believe that there must be no problem here because if there was then this problem is universally seen as one of the most hated crimes in most societies. But this inability to argue with people seeking to defend children is more your problem than mine.

Like I said about your avatar - It does not piss me off, it just flags you by your own choice. Before you throw around terms like "narrow minded" please read my posts in this thread:

Post #2 I said "I say this as someone who watched the Jacksons on TV and really liked "Off the Wall" before "Bad" and "Rhythm Nation 1814" after it."

Post #16 I said "Ahh, the great moral dilemma: Can you look past an artist's wrongs to just admire their art? As a former Jackson ... fan, in this case, I cannot."

I say this as a MJ fan turned off by how he actually and provably acted and where and how far that possibly may have gone: If it is narrow minded to find MJ's actions with children to be, at the very least, highly suspicious and not able to be dismissed so easily, then this is on MJ and those who seek to find no fault in the one they idolise.

As to who constantly harps on about this: How many posts have you made here to defend MJ since we both joined in 2007 and how many have I made? I will make it easy for you: All mine are in this thread, but yours have been across many threads over the years.

[Edited 6/5/23 23:27pm]

Here is my two cents on the Jackson Is Innocent/ Guilty case. There are a lot of kids out there who don't get enough love, attention and affection due to not having extended family, abusive parents, broken homes, etc. I ought to know, I was a child that grew up unloved and unwanted and snubbed by relatives. Heck, I haven't seen my own sister for 24 years, she totally abandon me. And I'm in my 30s, not senior years. Michael was "healing" these poor kids by showing them the emotional and moral support they lacked in their lives. There is certainly no sexual component in this.

So where does an adult male showering with children, having them sleep in his bed unsupervised and allowing them to have "Jesus juice" fit in with this?

You don't and cannot know that there was "certainly no sexual component in this". Your assumption is extremely dangerous and it does NOT even solve the problem. Imagine you got to sleep with MJ one weekend in the last 24 years - you would still be unhealed and abandoned by your sister.

Paedophiles are very commonly known for preying on children who feel that they don't get enough love, attention and affection. The very worst thing we can do is think this or that adult is different because, for example, they built a fantasy sleep-over playground and used their celebrity to attract children to it. With MJ's wealth he could have done so much more and so much better, so much more safely and without any suspicions if he did not do what we know he did from his own statements, the ones from his siblings and employees, let alone what he was suspected of.

I truly hope that you are right, but there was too much risk that this is wishful thinking. Imagine if you replaced MJ with the name of a religious leader, coach, teacher, youth group leader etc. Most of them would have genuine interest in the welfare of the children but because too many do not, they cannot be given a pass and must follow safe procedures when dealing with chilfren.

[Edited 6/12/23 13:10pm]

Interview with Brad Buxer, one of Michael's most important collaborators of the 90s

https://www.youtube.com/w...06T6whrqQs

[Edited 6/12/23 15:59pm]

LILpoundCAKE said:

"morphine"

that's all I'm sayin' today

Yeah, that's a tough one for me. Loved the tune and thought it was really, really good when it came out. Aged well, I still enjoy listening to it to this day, but it's always a little weird/guilt-ridden since he died. Put another way, tough to listen to but a great song nevertheless.

PatrickS77 said:

SoftSkarlettLovisa said:

Yes, I am referring to MJ's albums Dangerous and HIStory. You have to admit, the 1990s in general had some interesting music (maybe not as amazing as 1980s music but still distinct and iconic). I guess it does depend on one's musical preferences. I believe Michael really poured his soul into HISTORY, particularly in Childhood and Stranger In Moscow. People say Michael's music was not good from Dangerous onwards, but I disagree. [Edited 5/29/23 7:54am]

Nah, but you're an idiot pretending to be the only one thinking he made great music in the 90s. He made great music in all his career.

You're calling me an idiot? There are critics saying his best work was in the 70s and 80s and say his music after Bad was not great. With so many people saying this, I thought I give Michael's 90s work a voice (especially since the public were more interested in MJ scandals in the 90s).

SoftSkarlettLovisa said:

PatrickS77 said:

Nah, but you're an idiot pretending to be the only one thinking he made great music in the 90s. He made great music in all his career.

You're calling me an idiot? There are critics saying his best work was in the 70s and 80s and say his music after Bad was not great. With so many people saying this, I thought I give Michael's 90s work a voice (especially since the public were more interested in MJ scandals in the 90s).

He made good music.........not great.

SoftSkarlettLovisa said:

PatrickS77 said:

Nah, but you're an idiot pretending to be the only one thinking he made great music in the 90s. He made great music in all his career.

You're calling me an idiot? There are critics saying his best work was in the 70s and 80s and say his music after Bad was not great. With so many people saying this, I thought I give Michael's 90s work a voice (especially since the public were more interested in MJ scandals in the 90s).

Yeah. I do. His music is great and is loved and bought by millions. It doesn't need you to give a voice, like this is some kind of revelation that his music was great in all eras.

Gooddoctor23 said:

SoftSkarlettLovisa said:

You're calling me an idiot? There are critics saying his best work was in the 70s and 80s and say his music after Bad was not great. With so many people saying this, I thought I give Michael's 90s work a voice (especially since the public were more interested in MJ scandals in the 90s).

He made good music.........not great.

Great music.

There is a reason that Dangerous is one of the best-sellers of all-time and HIStory on the same list. His star power would have guaranteed high sales whatever he put out (as long as it was commercial) but those albums produced hit after hit, and many of them have aged very well.

leecaldon said:

leecaldon said:

There is a reason that Dangerous is one of the best-sellers of all-time and HIStory on the same list. His star power would have guaranteed high sales whatever he put out (as long as it was commercial) but those albums produced hit after hit, and many of them have aged very well.

I fucking love Dangerous. HIStory is sorta hit n' miss for me. But I am listening to it a bit more lately.

The whole second half of Dangerous is an album unto itself. And I have taken out "Heal The World" from my playlist, and I've cut the dialog from the beginning of "Black or White." So it just goes from "Can't Let Her Get Away" straight into "Black or White."

"Why You Wanna Trip On Me" and "Keep The Faith" are my two faves on the whole album.

PatrickS77 said:

Gooddoctor23 said:

He made good music.........not great.

Great music.

Interesting. If made up my personal list of say my top 200 "Great" songs off all time, I doubt Mj would have a single song on the list and I really dig Mj, but musically his song never hit me a great with the xception of Ben & Maria.

Chris Liepe did a video today on the stems for "They Don't Care About Us."

Gooddoctor23 said:

PatrickS77 said:

Great music.

Interesting. If made up my personal list of say my top 200 "Great" songs off all time, I doubt Mj would have a single song on the list and I really dig Mj, but musically his song never hit me a great with the xception of Ben & Maria.

The question is justified. I just checked 6 on line lists of the greatest songs of the 90s. Most did not include MJ at all. If he was there at all, it was only "Black or White". Janet did better.

PatrickS77 said:

IanRG said:

Please stop projecting you obsession.

The defence is rose coloured for the reasons I said. This is clearly indicated by you not addressing them. It is clear from you seeking to dismiss them as if they as "broad strokes". There is nothing broad stroke about thinking an adult building a children's fantasy land to get children to sleep with him is extremely suspect. There is nothing subjective about this being highly inappropriate and indicative that this adult is a person that parents should be absolutely careful to have their children avoid for their own protection.

You avatar does not piss me off, but is telling that you just confirmed that pissing off Prince fans is your desired intent here. All I said was that you never-ending defence of MJ against the facts, even if they are circumstantial, aligns perfectly with your rose coloured glasses for MJ and your avatar of him. It is how you choose to present yourself and you just explained why.

What obsession?? Once again, you're projecting. There is no obsession. Just a believe, based on facts, that he didn't do these things. But obviously a clown like you can't see that and will call it "rose coloured glasses for MJ". There is no arguing with people like you. So I will save my breath, not go into details and just say that I fundamentally disagree with your assessment or should I call it your obsession to turn MJ into a criminal?! And what fantasy land? Have you ever visited Neverland?? I have. It's way less fantasy, than you make it out to be.

My intent is to piss off narrow minded Prince fans like you. Well adjusted Prince fans obviously have no problem with it. Why would they? They might even also be fans of both. And what picture I choose as an "avatar" (I'm not even pretending to be MJ, so I'm not sure why we call it avatar) has no bearing on what I post, really. It says more about you that you constantly harp on about it, as if there is a rule here, that only Prince pics are allowed.

The problem we have with discussing this aspect of MJ, is that if you were to list a set of actions a paedophile in his position would do, he ticks basically all the boxes. It's not proof - but to deny it shows a wilful lack of comprehension of the obvious. A best-case scenario is still deeply problematic.