maxg Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Sad sad sad sad sad situation - for everyone - children, parents and even Wacko Jacko himself. Why sad for MJ (for should that be WJ?)? Simply because anyone so cursed as to find children sexually stimulating is deserving of pity as much as punishment. To be a Paedophile is not something I would wish on my worst enemy and lets all understand something here - IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CHOICE!!! (simple illustration - could you choose to be a paedophile? I doubt it - unless your sexuality is oriented that way, in which case could you choose not to be?) No-one chooses to be sexual aroused by whatever it is that does stimulate them. It is something that is "programmed in". Lucky are those that happen to be programmed with a normal heterosexual leaning, or even those that have a homosexual leaning in a tolerant society. Of course any society has to take steps to protect children from sexual exploitation. Prison is the obvious choice for offenders but psychotherapy, drug therapy and even surgery are also options that should be considered. All in all my summary stands, and not because of MJ's musical talents - simply because he is a cursed human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Oh gosh, those pictures are funny! I'm dying over here. LOL So, no one besides me believes MJ is a castrato? How come all of "his" kids are white? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazman Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I am also a parent. I am not attempting to defend MJ, nor will I, but most of you sound like a lynch mob to me. I don't know the fact's, and supposedly the DA has not released them, but there is a trial due, so how about waiting to find out what the evidence is first. Where was this type of posting, and the lynch mob, when all the Catholic priest were in the news? AMERIKA! What a country! Klipsch out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 That's easy Edmond, it's because Americans have banned religious discussion -- and it's a complete no-no on this forum. MJ has "issues", but I'm not yet convinced he's a pervert. I think something terrible happened to him, related to the abuse dished out by his father -- in fact he still fights extreme nausea and regurgitates when he's in his presence. Hey, Pete Townsend's a pervert too -- right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 I'm speechless... fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 About? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Although the actions and decisions I DO know for sure about Michael Jackson have not been high on my list, I will withold judgment until more evidence is available. Circumstantial evidence is not high on my list. While I wouldnt call it the lynch mob due to the connotations involved, I will say I was taken aback by a few of the posts. Jackson obviously has some serious problems which are now reaching further than the obvious cosmetic surgery, troubling in its own right. I think he is bascailly a good person reeling from the effects of his past. To say he is talented is an understatement. He also has left the plane of the logical long ago. I hope for the sake of all he really IS innocent but the appearances dont look too promising. kh Dean, guess who that is in the green shirt... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neo33 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Kelly, don't you ever sleep? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 Circumstantial evidence is by far the best evidence, as long as it is interpreted correctly. Eyewitness evidence is often unreliable: "Yes, I know this was the guy, and I don't care that it was dark, rainy, and I didn't have my glasses on." If you're thinking Michael is going to molest kids with a host of eyewitnesses, you belong in Neverland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 ---------------- On 11/20/2003 5:30:38 AM jazman wrote: ... but there is a trial due, so how about waiting to find out what the evidence is first...AMERIKA! What a country! ---------------- Edmond, As you probably are aware, our Prez is hard at work trying to eliminate pesky roadblocks to justice, such as "evidence" and "trials." If Mr. Bush can find MJ a threat to our country's security (hey, why not?), we can lock-up Jacko and not tell him why, or let him talk to an attorney. Talk about streamlined! Happy Patriot Act! fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Very true, fini. And this kind of zeal and action is applauded by far too many Americans, just as evidenced by some of the responses here in this thread. The irony lies in the understanding of why America came to be in the first place and the amazing inability of those within to see the base hypocrisy and abuse of these ideals that are currently taking place. btw, nice beard. kh ps- Circumstantial evidence is by far the best evidence???? Thankfully, you are not a lawyer. A case revolving around circumstantial evidence is not a solid case by any means. To call this the BEST form of evidence seems foolhardy at best, irresponsible at worst. circumstantial evidence n. - evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute - Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 ---------------- On 11/20/2003 9:48:10 AM mobile homeless wrote: btw, nice beard. kh ---------------- Mine, or my uncle's? fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Well, I have to give the first nod to your uncle as his beard wins the character award. Yours, on the other hand, is not second fiddle to use an appropriate cliche. Both are appealing and render me jealous. Since I am 6'3 and over 200lbs with wild eyes, my use of a beard years back was met with hands on the firearm behind zip mart counters and slow shuffling away in small town shops. Yours is quite dignified. The glasses add to the mix. And frankly, I was thinking of asking you out on a date. kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Well there was a time.... but my wife made me shave it off - thought it made me look too Jewish. Of course I complied at once (but not in time to get my new passport - source of this pic.) - which is more than she did when I suggested....oh never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 What a lot of people don't understand is that "presumption of innocence" is a court matter. It applies to the jurors only. They are supposed to presume the defendant is innocent until they hear the case. It does not apply to anyone else in the world, including police, attorneys, judges, TV commentators, or people on an internet forum. Anyone other than a sworn-in juror is allowed to make any presumption he cares to make. I think Michael is guilty. So do hundreds of millions of other people. Some people aren't going to say since they weren't there and didn't see criminal activity with their own eyes. Whether Michael is found guilty depends on what the jury decides, if it goes to trial at all, and not what anyone else thinks. P.S. Hey, Max, you're supposed to be out buying vinyl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Did you see Micheal's newest album? It includes: "Folsom Prison Blues"; "Me and My Shadow"; " I'm Am An Innocent Man"; "Freedom"; "Chain Gang"; " I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry"; "On The Road Again"; "Ballin The Jack" and more I can't remember. Jazman, if we can't talk about a freak who want's to be Elizabeth Taylor(another freak) who can we talk about? Ourselves? "Well it all started at a small 5000 watt station in........." Rick Edit: Here,here Paul. But I think Micheal is going to spend the rest of his life looking for the real diddler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 "P.S. Hey, Max, you're supposed to be out buying vinyl" Dont i know it. Work and the wife got in the way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Kelly, May Max join us? I can bring a fruity Beaujolais... fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxg Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Aw shucks Fini.... I'd love too. Greek wine OK? I can bring a bottle of Tsipouro too - that way we won't remember if we had a good time or not, but we will be sure we did!! This reminds me of the old AudioReview on-line Pub/bar entitled (appropriately enough but for other reasons) the P&B. So shall we open a Klipsch pub of our very own? Might I suggest "The Horns" as a suitable name.... Could be a good place for some of our members to cool off with a beer.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 ---------------- On 11/20/2003 9:48:10 AM mobile homeless wrote: ps- Circumstantial evidence is by far the best evidence???? Thankfully, you are not a lawyer. A case revolving around circumstantial evidence is not a solid case by any means. To call this the BEST form of evidence seems foolhardy at best, irresponsible at worst. circumstantial evidence n. - evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute - Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute. ---------------- You have been duped from TV shows mantra'ing about "*only* circumstantial evidence." Circumstantial evidence is anything that is not eyewitness evidence. Try to answer this: How many husbands kill their wives in front of witnesses? That leaves it to circumstantial evidence to convict a wife-killing husband, because no one saw him do it and because rarely does a killer confess, although you probably think that happens all the time too, just like on TV. Here is another: You wake up in the morning and there is snow on the ground. You didn't see the snow falling. So you don't know where that snow came from. Perhaps a movie company has brought in a snow-making machine to lend authenticity to a winter scene. Maybe so. If that's the case, there will be evidence presented at the trial that the snow came from a snow-making machine. If there is no such evidence presented, a jury cannot make a totally asinine leap that maybe the snow didn't fall from the sky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.