On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:10:04 -0500, notbob > wrote:

>On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com > wrote:
>
>> NOT GUILTY
>
>Oh swell! More reinforcement for Michael to continue his perverted
>antics. That jury ...or perhaps the judge... should be put up on
>charges.

I wasn't a juror who was presented with all the evidence and testimony
available and neither were you, but I've thought all along that
Jackson isn't guilty as this prosecutor has presented the charges.
From what I can infer, he is likely asexual and so disconnected with
reality, so unable to exercise good judgment that he really thinks he
can be playmates with these kids. The bit where he said - and proudly
- in a national interview that he slept platonically with the boys
was more or less a "tell," as they say in gambling, for me. He
actually sees no problem with an adult male sleeping with juvenile
males b/c he's just "one of the boys" himself with no sexual agenda.
And he *has* no sexual agenda b/c he is asexual, IMHO.

I actually have used the term "Michael Jackson Syndrome" to define a
person who is so wealthy and famous that they have no one around them
with the power to give him or her a reality check, just a bunch of
flunkies on his or her payroll. Who in Michael Jackson's entourage is
gonna say, "Hey, Michael, maybe putting young boys in your bed is a
reeeally bad idea and sends out reeeally bad signals..." YMMV, but I
think the only thing MJ is likely guilty of is being an idiot and
surrounding himself with more idiots.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"