Michael Jackson dies of Heart Attack

[Newmanseye]

I am posting from my iPod ATM so I can't be arsed to get a picture to illustrate by how much you missed my point. my poit was that none of us will ever know for sure what happened and we will all draw our own conclusions, for all of the people on blonde that knew mikkyt none of is would have known or believed he was capable of these acts but it seems he was, and this is a fella many of us knew personally not some strange person in the media spotlight, you just never know !!!!!

Michael Jackson is in that "draw your own conclusions" bracket as none of us know him personally and all we have it's what information is out there to draw said conclusions.


Said my piece gl with the trolling......I mean debating

[Rod Paradise]

in fairness rod, the logic in billy's post is spectacularly bad

Aye, but Billy has a fair reason to be cynical. And in the end he's just jumping to a conclusion no more daft than "He's a great talent so he wasn't guilty".

No-one but Jacko and his accusers/exploiters or victims will really know. I will say though that the parents who let their kids stay the night with him should have lost their kids - because that was specatacularly bad parenting.

[G1BTW]

I am posting from my iPod ATM so I can't be arsed to get a picture to illustrate by how much you missed my point. my poit was that none of us will ever know for sure what happened and we will all draw our own conclusions, for all of the people on blonde that knew mikkyt none of is would have known or believed he was capable of these acts but it seems he was, and this is a fella many of us knew personally not some strange person in the media spotlight, you just never know !!!!!

Michael Jackson is in that "draw your own conclusions" bracket as none of us know him personally and all we have it's what information is out there to draw said conclusions.


Said my piece gl with the trolling......I mean debating

We'll probably never know, maybe something will come out later from the kids, who knows.

Whether we know or not, the process of reasoning we apply to determine the guilt (including the guilt of those acquitted) will apply to hundreds more people in our lifetime. I'm not quite in the 'Brasseye' camp, but I do get pretty angry when I see the life of yet another innocent paediatrician ruined.

[Rod Paradise]

I've read through from beginning to end, Whilst Michael Jackson was a great music artist in the 70's and 80's his best days are long since past, the allegations of child abuse and the "pay off" pretty much killed off the potential as a recording artist in the future.

I have my views on the fella and I am in the " no smoke without fire" + " you don't pay people off if you are innocent"  + " he's so random and strange its seems all too probable" camp, I really did enjoy his music in my youth but with all the doubt and strange personal life antics and his NEED to be white and his deep emotional scars The guy was pretty much buggered from the get go.

in closing, I might just remind everyone of MikkyT, he was one of us, none of us suspected a thing, none of us thought he was a nonce but we were proven wrong there too, MikkyT as everyone knows was skint without a pot to piss in, no fancy lawyers for him, no eccentric behaviour and he is now serving time in the big house, mind you this was not a civil case but the fact remains, No money = Big house -- Plenty of money = Beverly hills

Either way, If my views are wrong and he is innocent he will reap the rewards in the after life, if he was Guilty as is my opinion, the i hope he gets a fresh pineapple shoved up his arse each day.

[ ] Weird, ergo paedophile

[ x ] Weird, ergo more likely to have kids stay over, do nothing to them sexually, but not really get why just having them over is not really ok

[ x ] Better, more expensive lawyers, give defendants a better chance of getting off when guilty

          [ ] A good measure of the guilt of those acquitted was how expensive their lawyer were

              [!?] Take a look at this poor guy I knew, he was guilty, and didn't have a rich lawyer who would probably have   
                    got him off the hook. See?

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was [ ] ergo there's a good chance MJ was a paedo too, even though there's not really direct evidence of this.

Apart from a serious overuse of ergo, I read nothing in that beyond "I disagree, my impression & conclusion is different from yours based on the same knowledge, but I'm going to try and make myself sound clever in a  bid to ridicule your interpretation of Michael Jackson's life."

negative, I demonstrate the errors in his logic. If it looks as if I'm trying to sound clever so be it, I do ridicule his interpretation of how logic can be applied to the life of MJ though.

No, you don't. You use your personal logic to reach conclusions that may or may not be right, but they are only that, your personal conclusions. You then badly attempt ridicule as if your interpretation is correct.

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  I have only my position to argue. Would you like me to apply someone else's position?

If you see something wrong in my logic, or something right in his, pray tell

 [ x ] (when you're sober)

Well done, just when you seem to be struggling you've managed to play the "You're drunk" card along with the "incomprehensible tickbox confusion" gambit. wp gg and not a lot of point continuing debating as, yes you have your own position, and yes, you will only see your own position, there's no point in trying to open a closed mind.

[G1BTW]

I've read through from beginning to end, Whilst Michael Jackson was a great music artist in the 70's and 80's his best days are long since past, the allegations of child abuse and the "pay off" pretty much killed off the potential as a recording artist in the future.

I have my views on the fella and I am in the " no smoke without fire" + " you don't pay people off if you are innocent"  + " he's so random and strange its seems all too probable" camp, I really did enjoy his music in my youth but with all the doubt and strange personal life antics and his NEED to be white and his deep emotional scars The guy was pretty much buggered from the get go.

in closing, I might just remind everyone of MikkyT, he was one of us, none of us suspected a thing, none of us thought he was a nonce but we were proven wrong there too, MikkyT as everyone knows was skint without a pot to piss in, no fancy lawyers for him, no eccentric behaviour and he is now serving time in the big house, mind you this was not a civil case but the fact remains, No money = Big house -- Plenty of money = Beverly hills

Either way, If my views are wrong and he is innocent he will reap the rewards in the after life, if he was Guilty as is my opinion, the i hope he gets a fresh pineapple shoved up his arse each day.

[ ] Weird, ergo paedophile

[ x ] Weird, ergo more likely to have kids stay over, do nothing to them sexually, but not really get why just having them over is not really ok

[ x ] Better, more expensive lawyers, give defendants a better chance of getting off when guilty

          [ ] A good measure of the guilt of those acquitted was how expensive their lawyer were

              [!?] Take a look at this poor guy I knew, he was guilty, and didn't have a rich lawyer who would probably have   
                    got him off the hook. See?

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was [ ] ergo there's a good chance MJ was a paedo too, even though there's not really direct evidence of this.

Apart from a serious overuse of ergo, I read nothing in that beyond "I disagree, my impression & conclusion is different from yours based on the same knowledge, but I'm going to try and make myself sound clever in a  bid to ridicule your interpretation of Michael Jackson's life."

negative, I demonstrate the errors in his logic. If it looks as if I'm trying to sound clever so be it, I do ridicule his interpretation of how logic can be applied to the life of MJ though.

No, you don't. You use your personal logic to reach conclusions that may or may not be right, but they are only that, your personal conclusions. You then badly attempt ridicule as if your interpretation is correct.

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  I have only my position to argue. Would you like me to apply someone else's position?

If you see something wrong in my logic, or something right in his, pray tell

 [ x ] (when you're sober)

Well done, just when you seem to be struggling you've managed to play the "You're drunk" card along with the "incomprehensible tickbox confusion" gambit. wp gg and not a lot of point continuing debating as, yes you have your own position, and yes, you will only see your own position, there's no point in trying to open a closed mind.

See the nested checkboxes? Those points mostly run contrary to his. Most are contrary cos I think his logic is wrong, one maybe two cos I think his premise is false. Do you think the [ ] should be [ x ] or vice versa in any of those cases? If so please state why, open my mind a bit.
You don't seem that drunk, just a bit guns blazing. If I seem to be attacking the guy and slamming him its really only I think cos I stated a contrary case to what was a pretty dodgy set of arguments.

[Rod Paradise]

I've read through from beginning to end, Whilst Michael Jackson was a great music artist in the 70's and 80's his best days are long since past, the allegations of child abuse and the "pay off" pretty much killed off the potential as a recording artist in the future.

I have my views on the fella and I am in the " no smoke without fire" + " you don't pay people off if you are innocent"  + " he's so random and strange its seems all too probable" camp, I really did enjoy his music in my youth but with all the doubt and strange personal life antics and his NEED to be white and his deep emotional scars The guy was pretty much buggered from the get go.

in closing, I might just remind everyone of MikkyT, he was one of us, none of us suspected a thing, none of us thought he was a nonce but we were proven wrong there too, MikkyT as everyone knows was skint without a pot to piss in, no fancy lawyers for him, no eccentric behaviour and he is now serving time in the big house, mind you this was not a civil case but the fact remains, No money = Big house -- Plenty of money = Beverly hills

Either way, If my views are wrong and he is innocent he will reap the rewards in the after life, if he was Guilty as is my opinion, the i hope he gets a fresh pineapple shoved up his arse each day.

[ ] Weird, ergo paedophile

[ x ] Weird, ergo more likely to have kids stay over, do nothing to them sexually, but not really get why just having them over is not really ok

[ x ] Better, more expensive lawyers, give defendants a better chance of getting off when guilty

          [ ] A good measure of the guilt of those acquitted was how expensive their lawyer were

              [!?] Take a look at this poor guy I knew, he was guilty, and didn't have a rich lawyer who would probably have   
                    got him off the hook. See?

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was [ ] ergo there's a good chance MJ was a paedo too, even though there's not really direct evidence of this.

Apart from a serious overuse of ergo, I read nothing in that beyond "I disagree, my impression & conclusion is different from yours based on the same knowledge, but I'm going to try and make myself sound clever in a  bid to ridicule your interpretation of Michael Jackson's life."

negative, I demonstrate the errors in his logic. If it looks as if I'm trying to sound clever so be it, I do ridicule his interpretation of how logic can be applied to the life of MJ though.

No, you don't. You use your personal logic to reach conclusions that may or may not be right, but they are only that, your personal conclusions. You then badly attempt ridicule as if your interpretation is correct.

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  I have only my position to argue. Would you like me to apply someone else's position?

If you see something wrong in my logic, or something right in his, pray tell

 [ x ] (when you're sober)

Well done, just when you seem to be struggling you've managed to play the "You're drunk" card along with the "incomprehensible tickbox confusion" gambit. wp gg and not a lot of point continuing debating as, yes you have your own position, and yes, you will only see your own position, there's no point in trying to open a closed mind.

See the nested checkboxes? Those points mostly run contrary to his. Most are contrary cos I think his logic is wrong, one maybe two cos I think his premise is false. Do you think the [ ] should be [ x ] or vice versa in any of those cases? If so please state why, open my mind a bit.
You don't seem that drunk, just a bit guns blazing. If I seem to be attacking the guy and slamming him its really only I think cos I stated a contrary case to what was a pretty dodgy set of arguments.

I haven't a clue what the tickboxes are about... this bit is just ridic....  [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]

BUT in the end you have leapt to your own conclusion as has someone else - that's all & that's as meaningful as it all is. It was the smart-arse impression I read into your rebuttal (which had no more logic that the one you slated) that rankled, an impression that has been confirmed by your further posts. Believe that Jackson was innocent, or not and either belief will not matter a damn.

[G1BTW]

I've read through from beginning to end, Whilst Michael Jackson was a great music artist in the 70's and 80's his best days are long since past, the allegations of child abuse and the "pay off" pretty much killed off the potential as a recording artist in the future.

I have my views on the fella and I am in the " no smoke without fire" + " you don't pay people off if you are innocent"  + " he's so random and strange its seems all too probable" camp, I really did enjoy his music in my youth but with all the doubt and strange personal life antics and his NEED to be white and his deep emotional scars The guy was pretty much buggered from the get go.

in closing, I might just remind everyone of MikkyT, he was one of us, none of us suspected a thing, none of us thought he was a nonce but we were proven wrong there too, MikkyT as everyone knows was skint without a pot to piss in, no fancy lawyers for him, no eccentric behaviour and he is now serving time in the big house, mind you this was not a civil case but the fact remains, No money = Big house -- Plenty of money = Beverly hills

Either way, If my views are wrong and he is innocent he will reap the rewards in the after life, if he was Guilty as is my opinion, the i hope he gets a fresh pineapple shoved up his arse each day.

[ ] Weird, ergo paedophile

[ x ] Weird, ergo more likely to have kids stay over, do nothing to them sexually, but not really get why just having them over is not really ok

[ x ] Better, more expensive lawyers, give defendants a better chance of getting off when guilty

          [ ] A good measure of the guilt of those acquitted was how expensive their lawyer were

              [!?] Take a look at this poor guy I knew, he was guilty, and didn't have a rich lawyer who would probably have   
                    got him off the hook. See?

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was [ ] ergo there's a good chance MJ was a paedo too, even though there's not really direct evidence of this.

Apart from a serious overuse of ergo, I read nothing in that beyond "I disagree, my impression & conclusion is different from yours based on the same knowledge, but I'm going to try and make myself sound clever in a  bid to ridicule your interpretation of Michael Jackson's life."

negative, I demonstrate the errors in his logic. If it looks as if I'm trying to sound clever so be it, I do ridicule his interpretation of how logic can be applied to the life of MJ though.

No, you don't. You use your personal logic to reach conclusions that may or may not be right, but they are only that, your personal conclusions. You then badly attempt ridicule as if your interpretation is correct.

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  I have only my position to argue. Would you like me to apply someone else's position?

If you see something wrong in my logic, or something right in his, pray tell

 [ x ] (when you're sober)

Well done, just when you seem to be struggling you've managed to play the "You're drunk" card along with the "incomprehensible tickbox confusion" gambit. wp gg and not a lot of point continuing debating as, yes you have your own position, and yes, you will only see your own position, there's no point in trying to open a closed mind.

See the nested checkboxes? Those points mostly run contrary to his. Most are contrary cos I think his logic is wrong, one maybe two cos I think his premise is false. Do you think the [ ] should be [ x ] or vice versa in any of those cases? If so please state why, open my mind a bit.
You don't seem that drunk, just a bit guns blazing. If I seem to be attacking the guy and slamming him its really only I think cos I stated a contrary case to what was a pretty dodgy set of arguments.

I haven't a clue what the tickboxes are about... this bit is just ridic.... 

BUT in the end you have leapt to your own conclusion as has someone else - that's all & that's as meaningful as it all is. It was the smart-arse impression I read into your rebuttal (which had no more logic that the one you slated) that rankled, an impression that has been confirmed by your further posts. Believe that Jackson was innocent, or not and either belief will not matter a damn.

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  "IS" (I think?)

Yeah I'm a smartarse, I love the sound of my own voice, and I love the refreshing feeling you get in a good debate.

I don't really give a toss about MJ, he's over there, and he's dead now. What really really matters to me is the general culture that is developing in our country surrounding our *approach* to the notion of paedophilia. Ok paedophilia is bad, the damage it does to kids cannot really be overstated, and in many cases the process of monitoring/notification has been inadequate.
However in parallel to this there has been growing a culture where the hysteria surrounding it has been fashioned into a weapon by some, who go on to accuse many probably innocent people of 'paedophile child abuse against their kids', knowing that the accusation itself is as good as a conviction and life sentence, because AND I QUOTE 'there is no smoke without fire' 'that person was a bit weird eh, always had my doubts about him, must be a paedo' He got off the charge? 'Yeah but he hired that Beltrami guy at a grand an hour, so he must have been guilty eh? (You'll note that I just reiterated Newmanseye's arguments, do you still agree with them?) And it could happen to any bloke on this forum. You date a mother with kids, you dump her because its not working out, she has fury>hell's cos she's scorned..........'He slept in the same room as one of my kids, and he touched one of them, didn't he Johnny, didn't he?'

Ergo (apologies), until I hear that someone has been found guilty of such terrible acts in a court of law, I'll withold judgement, tyvm.

[Rod Paradise]

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  "IS" (I think?)

Yeah I'm a smartarse, I love the sound of my own voice, and I love the refreshing feeling you get in a good debate.

I don't really give a toss about MJ, he's over there, and he's dead now. What really really matters to me is the general culture that is developing in our country surrounding our *approach* to the notion of paedophilia. Ok paedophilia is bad, the damage it does to kids cannot really be overstated, and in many cases the process of monitoring/notification has been inadequate.
However in parallel to this there has been growing a culture where the hysteria surrounding it has been fashioned into a weapon by some, who go on to accuse many probably innocent people of 'paedophile child abuse against their kids', knowing that the accusation itself is as good as a conviction and life sentence, because AND I QUOTE 'there is no smoke without fire' 'that person was a bit weird eh, always had my doubts about him, must be a paedo' He got off the charge? 'Yeah but he hired that Beltrami guy at a grand an hour, so he must have been guilty eh? (You'll note that I just reiterated Newmanseye's arguments, do you still agree with them?) And it could happen to any bloke on this forum. You date a mother with kids, you dump her because its not working out, she has fury>hell's cos she's scorned..........'He slept in the same room as one of my kids, and he touched one of them, didn't he Johnny, didn't he?'

Ergo (apologies), until I hear that someone has been found guilty of such terrible acts in a court of law, I'll withold judgement, tyvm.

That's all pretty fair, but you referred to a guy that WAS found guilty as a poor guy earlier, and Newmanseye & a few of us knew him as an acquaintance at least if not a friend, things are a little bit more strained and yes, judgemental, after that. The guy is still demanding contact with his kids when he gets out as well.

But fair enough you were not to know that, and I may have snapped at you a bit much.

[thetank]

in closing, I might just remind everyone of MikkyT, he was one of us, none of us suspected a thing, none of us thought he was a nonce but we were proven wrong there too, MikkyT as everyone knows was skint without a pot to piss in, no fancy lawyers for him, no eccentric behaviour and he is now serving time in the big house

I think that was just me and you mate.

Pretty much everyone else was onto Mikky being a nonce.

[thetank]

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was
 

News to me.

I knew he is serving a prison term for the physical abuse of two children, I know he is on a register whereby he won't be able to work with children in the future. I didn't know he was a paedophile though.

I learn something new every day.

[Indestructable]

 

[G1BTW]

 [ ] [ x ] [ ] [ x ]  "IS" (I think?)

Yeah I'm a smartarse, I love the sound of my own voice, and I love the refreshing feeling you get in a good debate.

I don't really give a toss about MJ, he's over there, and he's dead now. What really really matters to me is the general culture that is developing in our country surrounding our *approach* to the notion of paedophilia. Ok paedophilia is bad, the damage it does to kids cannot really be overstated, and in many cases the process of monitoring/notification has been inadequate.
However in parallel to this there has been growing a culture where the hysteria surrounding it has been fashioned into a weapon by some, who go on to accuse many probably innocent people of 'paedophile child abuse against their kids', knowing that the accusation itself is as good as a conviction and life sentence, because AND I QUOTE 'there is no smoke without fire' 'that person was a bit weird eh, always had my doubts about him, must be a paedo' He got off the charge? 'Yeah but he hired that Beltrami guy at a grand an hour, so he must have been guilty eh? (You'll note that I just reiterated Newmanseye's arguments, do you still agree with them?) And it could happen to any bloke on this forum. You date a mother with kids, you dump her because its not working out, she has fury>hell's cos she's scorned..........'He slept in the same room as one of my kids, and he touched one of them, didn't he Johnny, didn't he?'

Ergo (apologies), until I hear that someone has been found guilty of such terrible acts in a court of law, I'll withold judgement, tyvm.

That's all pretty fair, but you referred to a guy that WAS found guilty as a poor guy earlier, and Newmanseye & a few of us knew him as an acquaintance at least if not a friend, things are a little bit more strained and yes, judgemental, after that. The guy is still demanding contact with his kids when he gets out as well.

But fair enough you were not to know that, and I may have snapped at you a bit much.

yeah no worries, I only hear of this guy peripherally, but I can understand the sentiment.

[G1BTW]

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was
 

News to me.

I knew he is serving a prison term for the physical abuse of two children, I know he is on a register whereby he won't be able to work with children in the future. I didn't know he was a paedophile though.

I learn something new every day.

I know very little of Mikky T outside this website apart from a couple of links people put up. I was not stating "None of us knew Mikky T was a paedo but he was" as the above quote seems to suggest, but rather purely quoting a previous statement from Newmanseye to argue the toss about inferences.

Must be very very shitty to have known this guy and then that to happen, sorry.

Let's move on from all that shit maybe.

[madasahatstand]

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was
 

News to me.

I knew he is serving a prison term for the physical abuse of two children, I know he is on a register whereby he won't be able to work with children in the future. I didn't know he was a paedophile though.

I learn something new every day.

The title of the 'register' should give you a clue - the sex offenders register.......

[gatso]

in closing none of us knew MikkyT was a paedo, but he was
 

News to me.

I knew he is serving a prison term for the physical abuse of two children, I know he is on a register whereby he won't be able to work with children in the future. I didn't know he was a paedophile though.

I learn something new every day.

The title of the 'register' should give you a clue - the sex offenders register.......

the child porn was a fair clue too