AaronAlmighty said:

I didn't say they were. But unlike some people, I'm not claiming to know what goes on inside his head. We can all speculate, but its not fair to speculate based on a skewed image of a man you don't even know.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 20:49:56 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]

SefraNSue said:

How is it unfair to speculate on a man who is seemingly determined to crucify his public image by maintaining his "I-love-sleeping-with-little-boys" stance?

And how exactly is his public image skewed? I mean, considering the fact that the media does not tend to misrepresent his quotes. Reporting the fact that he has a ferris wheel on his front lawn, a monkey named Bubbles, and a knack for going under the knife is not exactly misrepresentation.

No doubt you will mention the Bashir doc, but Michael's camp has yes to come up with the promised "alternate" footage that displays all his goodness and non-freakiness in an unbiased manner.

The media frenzy is a result of his own actions. If he didn't do interviews and shut his fucking mouth, we'd lose interest and 60 Minutes would perhaps interview Britney Spears instead.

Because inviting hundreds of celebrities over to your mansion for a little "let's give Michael all the support he needs" dinner was NOT a publicity stunt. Not in the least.

And bitching about Liz not showing up, that wasn't a publicity stunt either.

/jaded
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 20:57:29 PST 2003 by VoicesCarry]

SefraNSue said:

Absolutely.

VoicesCarry said:

But your very suggestion of it being a "pattern" indicates that the "gradual progression" always walks the same path.

VoicesCarry said:

You're only proving my point. Michael Jackson has NEVER stated that he "loved sleeping with boys." In fact, he said that when minors (boys AND girls) visit his home and spend the night(usually these kids are his relatives), he does NOT invite them into his room and if the do insist on being there, he doen NOT sleep IN THE BED next to them. The media has PURPOSELY misconstrued his words, and it happens ALL THE TIME.


Cuz, yeah, we all know that ferris wheels and nose jobs are an obvious sign on mental instability and potential pedophilia.



The alternate footage was aired back in late February.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:03:52 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]

Cloudbuster said:

(grinding teeth in frustration) No, it doesn't either. Unless you'd like to me to explain the excrutiating minutiae of all the different possibilities for the development of a pedophile (infinite, and we'd be here all day), perhaps we can get back to my main point.

Mental illness does not follow any set pattern, rule, rhythm, biofluctuation, HOWEVER you'd like to term it. Thus we cannot declare him innocent because we only know of one or two (however dubious the cases may be) in one lifetime, and the argument that "he can't be a pedophile because he doesn't have a constant craving for little boy sex" is NOT valid, as Lammastide claimed.

SefraNSue said:

Would YOU let your kid stay overnight then? Because I sure as hell wouldn't want a 45-year-old clown in the same room as my kid while he slept. Sleeping within the same room as a bunch of young boys remains inappropriate conduct. But maybe that's just me.

And my comment about ferris wheels, plastic surgery, etc.. was NOT to prove his proposed mental illness, it was to show that the media do NOT misrepresent his lifestyle.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:08:59 PST 2003 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

That's a bunch of crap because throughout the 80's he didn't give interviews and his profile was at its peak. It was also when most of the media started rumours about him because they couldn't get information from the man himself.

SefraNSue said:

same to ya

Cloudbuster said:

Yeah, I know, reporting that little child molestation rumour a few months before it actually broke was such a travesty.

VoicesCarry said:

Yeah, it is just you. But I'm glad you brought this up, because its another important point. WHY is it inappropriate for an adult (inparticular, an adult MALE) to interact with children in a non-ambiguous, non-sexual manner? I have YET to hear an acceptable arguement.

And why do you keep referring to "young boys?" Are the girls who visit Never Land less important? Is the appropriateness of their interaction with MJ a concern to anyone? If MJ were accused of molesting a young girl, would the boys still be an issue? Would anyone CARE if a girl was molested? Those are questions you need to ponder.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:19:35 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]

SefraNSue said:

and adult male sleeping in bed with a teenage boy does not fall under the "non-ambiguous, non-sexual" category, whethere anything is actually going on or not.

SefraNSue said:

So if the 45-year-old man down the street invited your kid to a sleepover, you'd agree? Makes mucho sense.

What if this guy just lived next door to you who had a ferris wheel in his front lawn, wore heavy make-up, had his nose (for all intents and purposes) surgically removed, bleached his skin, dressed like a Macy's Day Parade float, and grabbed himself in public...and wanted your 12-year-old son to go over and spend the night with him...?

What then?

Would you be shouting your support for this anonymous person?

Would anyone be standing on street corners holding up signs declaring support for the guy?

So...all these people who are claiming that the police (and those of us who feel that Michael Jackson is probably guilty of this) are only after Michael Jackson because he's famous...only think he's innocent because he's famous.

It's ridiculous.

SefraNSue said:

Of course we'd CARE if a girl was molested, genius. But it's obvious he's not interested in girls at the moment!

AaronAlmighty said:

Co-sign.

SefraNSue said:[quote]

the only reason why "young girls" aren't brought up is because no "young girls" have alledged anything about their time with him.
In both cases it's been young boys, in the interview he was holding a young boy's hand.

Trust me, if it had been a little girl he might not have gotten out of the jailhouse alive.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:25:50 PST 2003 by lovebizzare]

AaronAlmighty said:

No,it may NOT be sexual, but yes, it may be ambiguous. However, since MJ has never admitted to such a thing, that arguement should be moot.

Look, I started this thread in order to debate Jacko vs. Jackson, but I know that some of you will simply REFUSE to grasp the idea that MJ is innocent and/or that his public image is being purposely distorted and destroyed. If you feel that way, so be it, but don't sit here and make s#it up in order to back your opinions.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:25:34 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]

SefraNSue said:

Look, another person on crack. "Refuse to grasp the idea that MJ is innocent?"

That's obviously the entire point of the legal system. Again, you want us to just suddenly act like sheep and blindly believe in his innocence simply BECAUSE he's MJ. If MJ were some poor schmuck who couldn't afford ritzy defence lawyers and couldn't afford to pay boys off for his proclivities, I'm sure you'd be rooting for his imprisonment.

MJ is neither innocent nor guilty. He is unproven. I do, however, believe that there is enough evidence to doubt his innocence, and I'm not willing to forget that simply because he's Michael Jackson.

VoicesCarry said:

The media speculated on his supposedly "unnatural" relationships with children at least a decade before the Chandler case.

And by the way, when you start a thread, expect dissent. We're not all going to come in here and happily agree that Michael Jackson is 'like, the best ever.'

SefraNSue said:

why can't you sit and respect other's opinions? Why must you jump on anyone who thinks he's guilty?
There are plenty of reasons for people to suspect your beloved's innocence and you know it.
Stop dismissing people's opinions who don't agree with yours, because theirs is no more relevant than yours.

Cloudbuster said:

Might not have been any merit to those reports. Might have been. Who knows now? If they feel the need to investigate his past, they'll do it.

lovebizzare said:

Gotta disagree. If that was the case, then why have R Kelly, Woody Allen, Rob Lowe, etc. been forgiven in the public eye?
Girls are sexually assaulted/molested much more often than males. But there's a misconception about pedophiles, that they're gay or that pedophilia is strictly a gay act. Therefore, when a boy is molested, there's a greater sense of outrage/fear/taboo because people are acting on homophobic impulses as well as the idea that all men have the potential to be sexual predators.

SefraNSue said:

Sadly that's very true.

lovebizzare said:

Once again, I am not attacking your opinions, just the fact that you're basing them on things that ARE NOT TRUE. If you can OBJECTIVELY look at this situation, and still come away with the opinion that MJ is guilty, FINE! I don't care, and honestly it doean't matter. That's what trials are for. But If you can't support your conclusions with facts, prepare to be challenged. Simple as that.

SefraNSue said:

R. Kelly has hardly been forgiven in the public eye, considering that the media basically believes he did it. So do I (I've seen the video), and I think he should go to jail, rightly. His record sales have not dropped off, but then, neither did sales of Dangerous after the first suit (nor did they improve).

Woody Allen screwed his 17-year-old stepdaughter and later married her. Sick, but not illegal and therefore not worth mentioning here. But his public reputation has indeed been damaged, and he's become nothing more than an old joke.

Rob Lowe screwed a 17-year-old on tape. Again, not illgal in whatever state they were in, but it ruined his public reputation AND career. Only with The West Wing has he emerged as a star again. This is because every new generation forgets about movie star dalliances older than they are.

So your point is...?

SefraNSue said:

This coming from the person who DEMANDED we "grasp the idea that MJ is innocent?"

As I said before, he is neither innocent nor guilty. He is unproven. But I am unwilling to ignore the evidence that might suggest his guilt simply because he's MJ.

SefraNSue said:

I wouldn't say they've been completely forgiven, but, and I hate to say it, they don't have the type of "freekdom" MJ has.
R Kelly and Rob Lowe have also aknowledged what they did and have apologized.


true, if a male sexually asaults another male homophobes will admediately be disgusted, true.
But had MJ done this to a girl it would still be a big deal.
And had he said he sleeps with sleeps in the same bed with little girls you can bet your ass that would've been all over the tabloids and the news stations.

R. Kelly has not apologized as of yet. He still maintains it's not him on the tape. Wonder when he'll change his tune.

VoicesCarry said:

What evidense? I'm still waiting for it. If its concrete, I wanna see it.
[This message was edited Sat Dec 27 21:42:08 PST 2003 by SefraNSue]