Michael jackson supporters do not have the facts or rationale to back up their support. They come across as over-zealous and just as crazy as Jacko himself.

On the other hand, people who have a shred of sanity can see him for what he truly is: an insane pervert.

I'd like to see someone come to the defense of Michael after those papers documenting his stalking and harrassing of the boy and his family bubbled to the surface.

Jacko is a pig and his public behavior makes him seem like a cold and careless man.

I could not agree more! Thanks Dissention..

~Alex

You're quite welcome, Alex. :D :wavey:

I certainly do not want to deny MJ could use some psychological treatment. He is not a child molester, but I'll be the first to admit he may need counseling. Let's remember, pedophilia is neither the ONLY explanation for MJ's eccentricities, nor the MOST LIKELY and SATISFACTORY (MJ shows many more non-pedophilic than pedophilic traits; of the latter, he shows few if any). Isn't the first part of that statement enough for at least reasonble doubt? I am constantly amazed that so many people can be so set in their opinion without having looked at all the available facts and theories.

For those of you (Tango, Drummer, Shangri) who state you want to wait until more evidence comes out, it is very refreshing to hear such a reasonable reaction to the allegations.

I don't follow you. I think I have shown more support for my claims than anti-MJ folk have for theirs, and also, I have done a more complete job of fitting all of the circumstances into one theory. The only "rationale" and "facts" I have heard from the anti-MJ posters here are statements such as "Jacko is a pig," "Many people have difficult childhoods," "MJ is just plain chalk [sic] full of NUTS!!!!". These statements are just the same unfounded, biased blather the media spouts out every day. None of them would stand up in court.

And speaking of over-zealous:
I smell a witch-hunt afoot.

----

Here's a question: how do you anti-MJ people think MJ's facial metamorphosis fits into your child molestor theory? Can anybody posit a solid explanation that is more satisfactory than the eternal child (Peter Pan)/experience childhood theory?

Well, yes, I think I can. It would appear that he has such self-loathing regarding his own appearance that he literally is attempting to turn himself into someone else--ideally, a white woman--which is what he looks like these days. And a damn scary one at that.

I'm sorry, but no explanation that you could possibly offer me could ever defend the actions of a child molestor. And given that I've got a few more years of living over you and have actually worked in law enforcement, I can tell you right now that at the very least he ought to be serving a term for child endangerment--that whole dangling the kid off the balcony thing was enough for me.

Tell me, when the evidence comes out, as it's beginning to, and it's not pretty, what will your defense be then for him? That he was framed?

Why on earth would anyone want to frame him? Do you think Tommy Mottola wants MJ's records not to sell? I think he thinks that if he throws enough lies out there that the air will be so cloudy that people will come away confused. And clearly, you are quite confused youself to go to such great lengths to defend this creep.

I wish you well in your future career. May you never have to work with a child molestation victim.

I will agree with you that he wants to change his appearance. But not into a white woman. He looks like no white woman I have ever seen, or want to. He DOES look like Peter Pan. I hope some of you have taken the time to look the photographic comparisons here:
http://www.geocities.com/plabcures/peterpan.html

It seems far more likely he wants to look like Peter Pan. Why, he lives on a ranch called Neverland! What more evidence do we need? And why would he want to turn into a white woman? I am unable to locate any other evidence to support that. Please show me evidence that supports the white woman hypothesis.

But that is assuming from the start he is a child molester. Rather than looking at ALL of the evidence & arguments and THEN forming a conclusion, many are entering the debate with the PRESUPPOSITION he is a molester, thereby causing them to ignore or reject evidence that runs contrary to their belief.

Wait, does this mean you KNOW what the evidence is?

Well I was wondering when the ad hominem attack would rear its vicious little snout. It's always easier to attack your opponent personally when you have no good points with which to attack his arguments.

To be frank, none of us know more than what has been leaked.

It seems to me that you act as if you know the evidence and you know that Michael Jackson is innocent. You're quite zealous in demonstrating this. I, and others, are just as zealous when we say that he is guilty, yet you frown upon that behavior. Let me ask you, what makes your beliefs so superior? Because you think Jacko is innocent, you believe that it's okay for you to defend him as vidorously as we tear him down, when in all actuality, your beliefs are no better than ours.

So before you start screaming once again about us not knowing the evidence, quit with the moral superiority bull****; you're in the same boat as the rest of us.

Be truthful: how was the little shindig at Neverland last week? Did you get to touch his lips?

Saline or wax? 'Fess up.

I'm not screaming about not knowing the evidence, I'm writing that you all should look at the available evidence and facts before just lashing out. Do you feel think statements like "Jacko is a pig" and "MJ is just plain chalk [sic] full of NUTS!!!!" are well-thought out?
I don't understand this question. Touch his lips how? Plus, I did not even attend the get-together at Neverland. I'm in Boston not the West Coast, and I did not receive an invitation.

Would you attend if you got one? Probably. :rolleyes:

I've looked at the facts and they all support the boy, not Jacko. Do you honestly think that they would go to all this trouble over a he-said he-said kind of thing? That's rather ludicrous and delusional.

Unfortunately, I think your ardent support of this cold man clouds your objectivity. I, on the other hand, have looked at it objectively and believe the boy. I really had no opinion of the first case and was never a fan of Jackson's one way or the other, but when it came out that the descriptions the boy gave of Jacko's genitals matched up with him physically, I started to really question things. Then we find out about bedroom alarms (say it was to be safe from intruders all you want, it was like trying to get into Fort Knox), a secret room of unmarked videotapes, saying he sleeps with young boys, corroboration by lawyers of the child, death threats to the man who introduced the boy to Jacko, leaked documents that prove harrassment and stalking on the part of Jacko's camp towards the boy and his family (which Geragos knew about, yet never mentioned it), and Jacko's behavior over all of this; it really makes a person wonder about guilt.

With all that info and the endless amount of other info out there, how can you say that he is absolutely innocent? His freakish look and sleep tanks and monkeys and Elephant Man bones have nothing to do with this; it's his behavior towards children and his attitude about all of this. He's guilty as sin.

Misterbug--

Watch Primetime tonight on ABC. Some new details about Jacko's harrassment and documents are leaked.

You keep referring to this "psychological knowledge" of yours. The question arises: Did you acquire this knowledge as a psychologist or as a patient?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Now, now, Carne. :laugh:

Unmarked videotapes? If they exist, since they are unmarked, how can you tell what they are? Do they exist, or was that just a rumor?

Sleeping with young boys...he cedes the bed to the children and sleeps on the floor. He has admitted for him "sleeping with" doesn't have the sexual connotation.

Corroboration by lawyers of the child? So if a lawyer says his client is correct, we are automatically to accept that the client is correct?

Death threats to the man who introduced the boy to Jacko. This has nothing to do with MJ. The threats were probably sent by some anti-MJ zealot.

Stalking by "Jacko's camp". Ditto--if it's not MJ personally, it doesn't mean anything. And we don't know the motives of the alleged stalking.

I've got my VCR set. This show should be interesting if nothing else...

Very amusing. But in all seriousness, in order to become a certified psychoanalyst, you MUST undergo treatment yourself. Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, understood the importance not only of reading case studies, but also of being analyzed yourself by another analyst. Being analyzed yourself is a key aspect of becoming a well-trained analyst.

Yes, they exist, they were one of the main things that were being searched for when they raided Neverland. A Jackos staffer snuck in and filmed the hidden rooms throughout the house and proceeded to open and film a secret room that was hidden behind a closet and faux concrete blocks that swiveled to expose the room. From top to bottom, it was stocked with videotapes. Just where everyone hides family movies, in a secret room behind a closet in the playroom, covered with cement blocks. ;)

As for what the lawyers said, I would hope that you'd believe the lawyers who represented the child. They are two of the most respected in CA and could stand to be dis-barred for lying. They've already said that they believe him and that he should win an Oscar if he's faking it.

No, MJ fans did not threaten him; the calls came from Neverland. This was confirmed last week on MSNBC and the police are investigating it.

So, if Jacko orders someone to follow the family wherever they go and to call them constantly and bang on their door constantly and take pictures of them, it has nothing to do with him? And when a woman ordered a hit on her daughters cheerleading nemesis, she wasn't guilty of anything because it wasn't her that would follow through with the murder?

You're losing your argument and you have rather cheesy rationale, bud.