NOT GUILTY

"BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> NOT GUILTY
>
He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly guilty
of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total mystery
how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost the
definition of bad.


--
Peter Aitken

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.

nb

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.
>

That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.

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.
>
> nb

It's been said before, but only in America where a black man can grow
up to become a white woman.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>
> nb


You are a USA Citizen...Notbob...Aren't you ?....If so...Don't you believe
in your own Justice System ?....He has been tried by a court ..Judge, 12
person Jury...What's wrong then with the American system ??....I don't like
him myself...I am not a fan of his..but if you can't believe in your own
'Justice System'....there's not much hope then...is there ?

He is just a very foolish person and very 'Naive' at that !!

--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz

"Bigbazza" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> He is just a very foolish person and very 'Naive' at that !!
>

I think "naive" pretty much nails it. He's not living in reality at all. Not
talented? His stuff isn't my cup of tea but he's very charismatic and has
been performing all his life. He has tremendous ability but it's too bad he
lives in fantasyland.

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
...
> "BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>> NOT GUILTY
>>
> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly guilty
> of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total mystery
> how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost the
> definition of bad.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world who
find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious therapy,
but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be your cup of
tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.

As to the not guilty, there's plenty of evidence that the general public did
not see that the jury did, so I have to believe there is a reason he was
acquitted based on that.

It's easy to say that people with money get acquitted, and it is true, but
not for the reasons most people would think. It happens because people with
money can afford a good defense. They can afford to have good attorneys,
invesitgators, rebuttal witnesses, etc. The problem lies not with them but
with the way trials are filled with witnesses and experts that are there
solely because they are being paid to be.

kimberly
>
>

"rmg" > wrote in message
om...
>
> "Bigbazza" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> He is just a very foolish person and very 'Naive' at that !!
>>
>
> I think "naive" pretty much nails it. He's not living in reality at all.
> Not
> talented? His stuff isn't my cup of tea but he's very charismatic and has
> been performing all his life. He has tremendous ability but it's too bad
> he
> lives in fantasyland.
>
>


That is and always has been his problem..He lives in his own fantasy
land...Why...look at what he has created in 'Neverland'..as far away from
reality as one could get....I have never understood just 'why' he has
surgically destroyed himself !....He was always a good looking kid...there
was nothing wrong with his looks...To be white...or Negroid...so what
!!...He now looks just so 'stupid'...I really do feel sorry for him...He has
been found 'not Guilty' by a unanimous decision of the jury...Let him alone
now I say...I know that the public though 'will not' leave him alone...As I
have already said...I am far from a fan of his...But that is just because
his type of singing and (except for his dancing) and entertainment is not my
cup of tea !!

--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz

"Nexis" > wrote in message
news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> NOT GUILTY
>>>
>> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly
>> guilty of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total
>> mystery how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost
>> the definition of bad.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>
> I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world
> who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious
> therapy, but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be
> your cup of tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
>
> As to the not guilty, there's plenty of evidence that the general public
> did not see that the jury did, so I have to believe there is a reason he
> was acquitted based on that.
>
> It's easy to say that people with money get acquitted, and it is true, but
> not for the reasons most people would think. It happens because people
> with money can afford a good defense. They can afford to have good
> attorneys, invesitgators, rebuttal witnesses, etc. The problem lies not
> with them but with the way trials are filled with witnesses and experts
> that are there solely because they are being paid to be.
>
> kimberly
>>
>>
>
>


I agree with your statements 100%....Kimberly

--
Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz

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"

On 2005-06-14, Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:

> think the only thing MJ is likely guilty of is being an idiot and
> surrounding himself with more idiots.

I think this isn't the last time we're going to see Michael in the
courtroom for this kind of thing. ...nuff said...

nb

notbob wrote:

> On 2005-06-14, Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
> > think the only thing MJ is likely guilty of is being an idiot and
> > surrounding himself with more idiots.
>
> I think this isn't the last time we're going to see Michael in the
> courtroom for this kind of thing. ...nuff said...

Hopefully, if he wants to have another slumber party it will be with
people above the age of consent.

On 13 Jun 2005 14:22:15 -0700, BeautyBuyNature.com wrote:

> NOT GUILTY

Good! The prosecution's witnesses were too weak.

I am not a MJ lover, but I know a feeding frenzy when I see one.
Unfortunately, he never grew up (he matured in age only) and that's
what took him to court.

I think he is so rich (and surrounded by sycophants) that no one has
ever dared tell him what is socially appropriate - considering the age
differences between him and his guests.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:39:53 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
> That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
> have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
> place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.
>

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:39:53 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
> have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
> place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.
>
"If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!" That was smoke/mirrors and
a lot of bad acting that the jury swallowed hook line and sinker.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:41:46 GMT, rmg wrote:

> He has tremendous ability but it's too bad he
> lives in fantasyland.

He lives in Neverland... Peter Pan - get the picture?
He knows he hasn't grown up.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2005-06-14, Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote:
>
>> think the only thing MJ is likely guilty of is being an idiot and
>> surrounding himself with more idiots.
>
> I think this isn't the last time we're going to see Michael in the
> courtroom for this kind of thing. ...nuff said...
>
> nb

Perhaps not. But it won't prove he is any more or less guilty of any actual
sexual behavior. He's an easy target. He acts in a manner that most people
find, at best, to be odd. He surrounds himself with children, (and I agree
with Terry here that he does so because he can't relate to adults, and is
essentially a kid himself), which--particularly in these times--is suspect
in and of itself.

The bottom line is, it is easy to armchair quarterback, but you don't know
any better than the rest of us in the general public if he is guilty of
anything more than a disconnection from reality.

kimberly

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> 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.
>>
>
> That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
> have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
> place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.
>
>

I don't know about Michael or OJ....but apparently it is perfectly okay to
run someone over with your car in our lovely sunshine-filled state.

My husband was hit by a car almost 2 weeks ago. It was deliberate. My
daughter and his brother witnessed it. The police came, handcuffed the guy,
stayed until an ambulance took my husband to the hospital, then uncuffed and
released the guy. When my BIL asked why, the cop replied "It wasn't like he
did it on purpose".
Oddly enough, I was at the Farmer's Market in Hillcrest ( I bought some
luscious raspberries, does that count as OBFood??), and overheard another
couple recounting a similar experience...although the person hit in that
case was on a bike, not on foot.

kimberly

On 2005-06-14, sf > wrote:

> "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!" That was smoke/mirrors and
> a lot of bad acting that the jury swallowed hook line and sinker.

Tell 'em, sf. That was the most blatant pile of steaming dung
presented in the whole trial. What the Hell were the oversized ill
fitting pvc gloves on OJ's hands he was trying to slip the evidence
gloves over? What was the pretext for their use? Gee, can I arch my
hands to make it look like gloves don't fit, specially over another
pair of oversized high-friction gloves! "Smoke/mirror" is an
understatemnt. It was pure bullshit and the jury and judge should
have seen through it.

nb

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:16:55 -0500, notbob wrote:

> On 2005-06-14, sf > wrote:
>
> > "If the glove don't fit, you must aquit!" That was smoke/mirrors and
> > a lot of bad acting that the jury swallowed hook line and sinker.
>
> Tell 'em, sf. That was the most blatant pile of steaming dung
> presented in the whole trial. What the Hell were the oversized ill
> fitting pvc gloves on OJ's hands he was trying to slip the evidence
> gloves over? What was the pretext for their use? Gee, can I arch my
> hands to make it look like gloves don't fit, specially over another
> pair of oversized high-friction gloves! "Smoke/mirror" is an
> understatemnt. It was pure bullshit and the jury and judge should
> have seen through it.
>
You don't remember why he wore that extra pair of gloves? It was to
protect him from the cooties of the "real murderer" (it was something
contagious, like HIV, which the jury understood as well as they
understood the DNA evidence).

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Dave Smith wrote:

> 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.
> >
>
> That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
> have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
> place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.
>
>
>

I think Robert Blake said it best: "You're guilty until proven broke."

These high profile cases make a lot of people rich and boost a lot of
careers. I guess those involved hate to gain so much and actually convict
the bad guy, too. Maybe they think that losing a couple of mil is adequate
punishment. Ahhhh, capitalism... where everything is for sale.

Elaine, too

On 2005-06-14, sf > wrote:

> You don't remember why he wore that extra pair of gloves? It was to
> protect him from the cooties of the "real murderer" (it was something
> contagious, like HIV, which the jury understood as well as they
> understood the DNA evidence).

No. I was so disgusted by the whole bullshit defense, I could barely
stand to watch. Sure, we all know ...*NOW*... that no one can get
HIV from gloves, but even then it was just so much bullshit. I'm
forever stunned by the gullibility of the average citizen. Case in
point.

One of my closest friends served on a jury. The defendent was charged
with 1st degree murder. He paid a hit man to kill his partner. The
crime took place in the defendents car when the hit man, riding
shotgun, turned around and blasted both the company's secretary
(killed instantly) and his partner in the back seat. The car stopped
and the still living partner clawed his way out the back door and made
a break for it, running for his life down the street. The defendent
grabbed the gun from the hit man and started chasing his partner.
After several blocks chase and running his partner down, the defendent
emptied the gun into his partner.

But surprise, the victim lived!! He testified against the defendent
and the hit man. End of story, the perp was found guilty of 1st deg
murder. Comes the penalty phase. The jury votes to life in prison
instead of the death penalty. Why? I asked my friend why he voted
for life instead of he death penalty. Turns out the defendent had
done a couple nice things in his life like funding a Little League
team. Arrrhggg....

It's no wonder perps think they can get away with anything. They
usually can!!

nb

On 2005-06-14, Nexis > wrote:

> any better than the rest of us in the general public if he is guilty of
> anything more than a disconnection from reality.

If you truly believe that, I think you are suffering from a
disconnection from reality.

nb

"Nexis" > wrote in message
news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>
> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>> NOT GUILTY
>>>
>> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly
>> guilty of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total
>> mystery how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost
>> the definition of bad.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>
> I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world
> who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious
> therapy, but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be
> your cup of tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
>

Yes, and lots of people eat at McDonalds but that does not make it good
food. Lots of people read romance novels but that does not make them good
writing. Lots of people watch soap operas but that does not make them good
drama. Need I continue?

--
Peter Aitken

sf wrote:

> You don't remember why he wore that extra pair of gloves? It was to
> protect him from the cooties of the "real murderer" (it was something
> contagious, like HIV, which the jury understood as well as they
> understood the DNA evidence).

Well obviously he didn't like to get the blood of other people on his hands,
which explains why he used the gloves in the first place. If I had a snug
fitting pair of gloves that had been wet with blood, dried out and then a year
and a half later I tried to put them on over top of a dry latex glove I can
guarantee that I would not be able to get them on without great effort.

He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....

Gene wrote:

> He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....

He finally got off :-)

Dave Smith wrote:
> Gene wrote:
>
>
>>He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....
>
>
> He finally got off :-)
>
>
LOL
Cathy

--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
...
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
> >
> > "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >>> NOT GUILTY
> >>>
> >> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly
> >> guilty of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a
total
> >> mystery how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost
> >> the definition of bad.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Aitken
> >
> > I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world
> > who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious
> > therapy, but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not
be
> > your cup of tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
> >
>
> Yes, and lots of people eat at McDonalds but that does not make it good
> food. Lots of people read romance novels but that does not make them good
> writing. Lots of people watch soap operas but that does not make them good
> drama. Need I continue?
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
>
>

Ever hear of "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Sorry to have to inform
you of this, but your opinion doesn't carry much weight with the masses.
H

sf wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2005 14:22:15 -0700, BeautyBuyNature.com wrote:
>
> > NOT GUILTY
>
> Good! The prosecution's witnesses were too weak.
>
> I am not a MJ lover, but I know a feeding frenzy when I see one.
> Unfortunately, he never grew up (he matured in age only) and that's
> what took him to court.
>
> I think he is so rich (and surrounded by sycophants) that no one has
> ever dared tell him what is socially appropriate - considering the age
> differences between him and his guests.

I'm sure some dared, they were dismissed.

Michael Jackson exhibits all the signs of a severely disturbed adult
afflicted with one or a combination of the many Regressive Behavioural
syndromes, he is as classic an example as there is, right down to the
self-mutilation. He lives 24/7 as a 12 year old, a severely disturbed
12 year old, and when in the presence of other 12 year olds, in his
depraved mind IS one of them (he is not acting), and they, so easily
manipulated as typical 12 year olds wont to be see him as one of
them... one and the other see each other as actual peers, and trust
among 12 year old males develops very rapidly and with great depth (ie.
there is no female equivalent of 'blood brothers'), call it early male
bonding, females do not ever truly bond, not even with their mothers.
Now try to put away your naiveties and think about what typically
occurs regarding sexual awakening/experimentation at nubile oriented
sleep-away camps, both male and female based... Michael Jackson has
created the ultimate sleep-away camp... he's created the best "little
boy, want a lolly pop?" the world has ever seen. Ordinary/regular
people with regressive behavioural diseases extremely rarely ever get
exposed (it's extremely rare that children will confide in anyone,
adult or their own peers, what sexual experimentation they engaged in
as youngsters (your own children wont, neither will you), someone with
Michael Jackson's charisma/celebrity/wealth even when exposed will
escape, and he'll do it again and escape again... mental illness of his
ilk does not go away... it's quite common but very rarely exposed, even
when right in your face does it get recognized for what it is and
therein lies the irony of Michael Jackson's disease. Mark my words,
one day the medical community will term it "Michael Jackson Syndrome".

Btw, watching the post verdict interviews, I've never before seen such
a conglomeration of low IQ pinheads as the Michael Jackson jury.

Obviously the prosecution couldn't (not didn't) make its case, gave it
a mighty effort, but were losers from the get go. Had they demanded
Michael Jackson undergo psychiatric examination before trial and then
geared their case on those results there's a very good liklihood
Michael Jackson would have been remanded to a mental institution rather
than released.

A more intelligent jury would have convicted Michael Jackson on all
counts... fear and lack of personal conviction was written all over
those juror's faces everytime they spoke

Sheldon

On Tue 14 Jun 2005 02:37:51a, notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2005-06-14, Nexis > wrote:
>
>> any better than the rest of us in the general public if he is guilty of
>> anything more than a disconnection from reality.
>
> If you truly believe that, I think you are suffering from a
> disconnection from reality.
>
> nb
>

Obviously, you must have been there. Maybe in his bed, too.

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>
>>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>"BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
egroups.com...
>>>
>>>>NOT GUILTY
>>>>
>>>He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly
>>>guilty of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total
>>>mystery how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost
>>>the definition of bad.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Peter Aitken
>>
>>I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world
>>who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious
>>therapy, but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be
>>your cup of tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
>>
> Yes, and lots of people eat at McDonalds but that does not make it good
> food. Lots of people read romance novels but that does not make them good
> writing. Lots of people watch soap operas but that does not make them good
> drama. Need I continue?

Lots of people like Shakespeare. Lots of people like Michaelangelo. Lots
of people like French cuisine. Lots of people like Palladian
architecture. Need I go on?

"Good" is a *subjective* evaluation. I don't especially like MJ's music,
but he sure does put on a show. That moon walk is pure poetry in motion.
But I also think he's irredeemably weird and wouldn't walk across the
street to go to a concert of his.

Pastorio

On Mon 13 Jun 2005 09:07:22p, Nexis wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> That does it. If I ever get the urge to go out and kill some one or
>> have sleepovers with little boys, I am going to go to California, the
>> place where you can get away with murder if you have enough money.
>>
>>
>
> I don't know about Michael or OJ....but apparently it is perfectly okay
> to run someone over with your car in our lovely sunshine-filled state.
>
> My husband was hit by a car almost 2 weeks ago. It was deliberate. My
> daughter and his brother witnessed it. The police came, handcuffed the
> guy, stayed until an ambulance took my husband to the hospital, then
> uncuffed and released the guy. When my BIL asked why, the cop replied
> "It wasn't like he did it on purpose".
> Oddly enough, I was at the Farmer's Market in Hillcrest ( I bought some
> luscious raspberries, does that count as OBFood??), and overheard
> another couple recounting a similar experience...although the person hit
> in that case was on a bike, not on foot.
>
> kimberly

How is your husband doing, kimberly? Was the person who hit him someone
known to your family, or just a random act of intentional violence? I
can't believe the police simply let the guy go. Was he not charged with
hit and run?

I hope you husband is doind well.

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

Sheldon wrote:

Oh, wait. Sheldon is giving us his considered psychological evaluation
of MJ. Wonder what book he copied this from.

Friends of irony, take note.

Pastorio

> Michael Jackson exhibits all the signs of a severely disturbed adult
> afflicted with one or a combination of the many Regressive Behavioural
> syndromes, he is as classic an example as there is, right down to the
> self-mutilation. He lives 24/7 as a 12 year old, a severely disturbed
> 12 year old, and when in the presence of other 12 year olds, in his
> depraved mind IS one of them (he is not acting), and they, so easily
> manipulated as typical 12 year olds wont to be see him as one of
> them... one and the other see each other as actual peers, and trust
> among 12 year old males develops very rapidly and with great depth (ie.
> there is no female equivalent of 'blood brothers'), call it early male
> bonding, females do not ever truly bond, not even with their mothers.
> Now try to put away your naiveties and think about what typically
> occurs regarding sexual awakening/experimentation at nubile oriented
> sleep-away camps, both male and female based... Michael Jackson has
> created the ultimate sleep-away camp... he's created the best "little
> boy, want a lolly pop?" the world has ever seen. Ordinary/regular
> people with regressive behavioural diseases extremely rarely ever get
> exposed (it's extremely rare that children will confide in anyone,
> adult or their own peers, what sexual experimentation they engaged in
> as youngsters (your own children wont, neither will you), someone with
> Michael Jackson's charisma/celebrity/wealth even when exposed will
> escape, and he'll do it again and escape again... mental illness of his
> ilk does not go away... it's quite common but very rarely exposed, even
> when right in your face does it get recognized for what it is and
> therein lies the irony of Michael Jackson's disease. Mark my words,
> one day the medical community will term it "Michael Jackson Syndrome".
>
> Btw, watching the post verdict interviews, I've never before seen such
> a conglomeration of low IQ pinheads as the Michael Jackson jury.
>
> Obviously the prosecution couldn't (not didn't) make its case, gave it
> a mighty effort, but were losers from the get go. Had they demanded
> Michael Jackson undergo psychiatric examination before trial and then
> geared their case on those results there's a very good liklihood
> Michael Jackson would have been remanded to a mental institution rather
> than released.
>
> A more intelligent jury would have convicted Michael Jackson on all
> counts... fear and lack of personal conviction was written all over
> those juror's faces everytime they spoke
>
> Sheldon
>

On Tue 14 Jun 2005 05:51:34a, Peter Aitken wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> "Nexis" > wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" > wrote in message
>>> oups.com...
>>>> NOT GUILTY
>>>>
>>> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly
>>> guilty of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a
>>> total mystery how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are
>>> almost the definition of bad.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter Aitken
>>
>> I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world
>> who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious
>> therapy, but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not
>> be your cup of tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
>>
>
> Yes, and lots of people eat at McDonalds but that does not make it good
> food. Lots of people read romance novels but that does not make them
> good writing. Lots of people watch soap operas but that does not make
> them good drama. Need I continue?
>

Yes, perhaps you should. You haven't convinced me yet.

--
Wayne Boatwright Õ¿Õ¬
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...

<snip>

> Michael Jackson exhibits all the signs of a severely disturbed adult
> afflicted with one or a combination of the many Regressive Behavioural
> syndromes, he is as classic an example as there is, right down to the
> self-mutilation. He lives 24/7 as a 12 year old, a severely disturbed
> 12 year old, and when in the presence of other 12 year olds, in his
> depraved mind IS one of them (he is not acting), and they, so easily
> manipulated as typical 12 year olds wont to be see him as one of
> them... one and the other see each other as actual peers, and trust
> among 12 year old males develops very rapidly and with great depth (ie.
> there is no female equivalent of 'blood brothers'), call it early male
> bonding, females do not ever truly bond, not even with their mothers.
> Now try to put away your naiveties and think about what typically
> occurs regarding sexual awakening/experimentation at nubile oriented
> sleep-away camps, both male and female based... Michael Jackson has
> created the ultimate sleep-away camp... he's created the best "little
> boy, want a lolly pop?" the world has ever seen. Ordinary/regular
> people with regressive behavioural diseases extremely rarely ever get
> exposed (it's extremely rare that children will confide in anyone,
> adult or their own peers, what sexual experimentation they engaged in
> as youngsters (your own children wont, neither will you), someone with
> Michael Jackson's charisma/celebrity/wealth even when exposed will
> escape, and he'll do it again and escape again... mental illness of his
> ilk does not go away... it's quite common but very rarely exposed, even
> when right in your face does it get recognized for what it is and
> therein lies the irony of Michael Jackson's disease. Mark my words,
> one day the medical community will term it "Michael Jackson Syndrome".
>
> Btw, watching the post verdict interviews, I've never before seen such
> a conglomeration of low IQ pinheads as the Michael Jackson jury.
>
> Obviously the prosecution couldn't (not didn't) make its case, gave it
> a mighty effort, but were losers from the get go. Had they demanded
> Michael Jackson undergo psychiatric examination before trial and then
> geared their case on those results there's a very good liklihood
> Michael Jackson would have been remanded to a mental institution rather
> than released.
>
> A more intelligent jury would have convicted Michael Jackson on all
> counts... fear and lack of personal conviction was written all over
> those juror's faces everytime they spoke
>
> Sheldon

Well said - As you mentioned he should have had his head examined.

I also believe the mother of the boy should have been thrown in jail for "Child
endangerment" the one question to ask yourself is: Would you let your child have
a sleep-over with a 42 year old person in their bedroom?

I don't know about you but I think not.

Dimitri

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 09:07:48 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
> > You don't remember why he wore that extra pair of gloves? It was to
> > protect him from the cooties of the "real murderer" (it was something
> > contagious, like HIV, which the jury understood as well as they
> > understood the DNA evidence).
>
> Well obviously he didn't like to get the blood of other people on his hands,
> which explains why he used the gloves in the first place. If I had a snug
> fitting pair of gloves that had been wet with blood, dried out and then a year
> and a half later I tried to put them on over top of a dry latex glove I can
> guarantee that I would not be able to get them on without great effort.

He was a bad actor in that scene too! How did you react when you saw
that grimmace on his face and the fakeness of how hard he tried to
"pull" on the gloves? It's a good thing I wasn't on the jury because
I would have gotten into trouble for laughing out loud.

On 14 Jun 2005 08:57:26 -0700, Sheldon wrote:

> Had they demanded
> Michael Jackson undergo psychiatric examination before trial and then
> geared their case on those results there's a very good liklihood
> Michael Jackson would have been remanded to a mental institution rather
> than released.

That's a good idea, but the prosecution didn't even approach it.



Practice safe eating. Always use condiments.

Dimitri wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Michael Jackson exhibits all the signs of a severely disturbed adult
> > afflicted with one or a combination of the many Regressive Behavioural
> > syndromes, he is as classic an example as there is, right down to the
> > self-mutilation. He lives 24/7 as a 12 year old, a severely disturbed
> > 12 year old, and when in the presence of other 12 year olds, in his
> > depraved mind IS one of them (he is not acting), and they, so easily
> > manipulated as typical 12 year olds wont to be see him as one of
> > them... one and the other see each other as actual peers, and trust
> > among 12 year old males develops very rapidly and with great depth (ie.
> > there is no female equivalent of 'blood brothers'), call it early male
> > bonding, females do not ever truly bond, not even with their mothers.
> > Now try to put away your naiveties and think about what typically
> > occurs regarding sexual awakening/experimentation at nubile oriented
> > sleep-away camps, both male and female based... Michael Jackson has
> > created the ultimate sleep-away camp... he's created the best "little
> > boy, want a lolly pop?" the world has ever seen. Ordinary/regular
> > people with regressive behavioural diseases extremely rarely ever get
> > exposed (it's extremely rare that children will confide in anyone,
> > adult or their own peers, what sexual experimentation they engaged in
> > as youngsters (your own children wont, neither will you), someone with
> > Michael Jackson's charisma/celebrity/wealth even when exposed will
> > escape, and he'll do it again and escape again... mental illness of his
> > ilk does not go away... it's quite common but very rarely exposed, even
> > when right in your face does it get recognized for what it is and
> > therein lies the irony of Michael Jackson's disease. Mark my words,
> > one day the medical community will term it "Michael Jackson Syndrome".
> >
> > Btw, watching the post verdict interviews, I've never before seen such
> > a conglomeration of low IQ pinheads as the Michael Jackson jury.
> >
> > Obviously the prosecution couldn't (not didn't) make its case, gave it
> > a mighty effort, but were losers from the get go. Had they demanded
> > Michael Jackson undergo psychiatric examination before trial and then
> > geared their case on those results there's a very good liklihood
> > Michael Jackson would have been remanded to a mental institution rather
> > than released.
> >
> > A more intelligent jury would have convicted Michael Jackson on all
> > counts... fear and lack of personal conviction was written all over
> > those juror's faces everytime they spoke
> >
> > Sheldon
>
> Well said - As you mentioned he should have had his head examined.
>
> I also believe the mother of the boy should have been thrown in jail for "Child
> endangerment" the one question to ask yourself is: Would you let your child have
> a sleep-over with a 42 year old person in their bedroom?
>
> I don't know about you but I think not.
>
> Dimitri

There is less and less competent parenting these days. In more than
half the American househlds there is no parent at home most of the
time, an absentee parent is more detrimental to a child's development
than no parent at all... a foster home or addoption is a far better
choice for those who'd bring children into the world but choose not to
parent full time. And with so many single parent households or with
both mother and father working, chidren are effectively abandoned...
day care centers are a cop-out rationalization, they're no different
from kennels... it's no wonder so many of today's youth ends up in
prison, they are from the cradle made used to a cage. When you foist
your child upon a Child Day-Care Institution you are still the
mother/father but you are NOT a parent.