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

"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
>
>

"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

"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

"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

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 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

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in
:

>> 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?

De digustibus et coloribus non disputantur.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

"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


Hardly the same thing. Your opinion of what makes good music does not define
what good music is. Need I say more?

kimberly
>
>

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.
>
> nb

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

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:

> 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 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).

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> 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

apparently all the jurors in California are ignorant and unable to tell
truth from fiction - unlike those of us who can tune in for a 10 minute fox
news recap and really know
what's going on, thus not having to endure all that tedious trial evidence
and interpretations given from two sides.
where do they get so many jurors who don't agree with the fox analysts?
It's a crime.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:42:21 -0700, sf > wrote:

>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.

Yeah, and if they had had the trial where the murder occurred, i.e.,
Brentwood, you might have had a different outcome. For one thing, you
might not have had a judge who lost complete control of his courtroom
to the lawyers involved, and you might also have had an ADA who wasn't
grandstanding. *That* trial was one massive cluster f*ck.

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"

"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 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

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...
> 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¬


Wayne,

He's doing much better. There was some muscle damage (tears and separation)
but no broken bones. He's had alot of headaches too, but not as bad the last
few days.
The person who hit him wasn't someone he knew, but he'd met him. It's a long
story, but apparently the officer on the scene knew the guy, and so took him
at his word. Personally, I'm not a litigious person, but I plan to sue the
pants off this guy.


kimberly

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

"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.

"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

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.

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.

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

"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

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

150 years ago in the US, no one thought anything odd when two males slept
in the same bed. They weren't ***. That was the way it was if the inn was
full or a guest came over. And there were two beds for the family.

60 years ago, men and boys in the extended family in much of the US slept in
the same bed when guests were over, or when it was below zero outside and
the oil stove was downstairs, and no one thought badly of it. No ***, no
pedophilia to it.

Today, there must be a wall between anyone over 40 and anyone under 40, and
an adult present whenever men are around children, because "we all know"
that adult males chase children for sexual gratification
- why do we know this? Because the viewer has a boring life and she watches
too much Oprah and Jerry Springer and has such a boring life they are not
like the guests? Or is it because all the brothers, the Uncle Bobs, are
pedophiles that you have to invite over?

Sad state of affairs when every close relative in the US is thought of as a
potential pedophile, and every bit of aberrant behavior is seen as an
indication of irreparable harm to another.

------------------

Of course, Rush has been telling everyone they are all equally as expert as
some person who has spent their life in a particular field, so after being
pandered to long enough, it figures that much of the country might get
ignorant and kind-of-pregnant.

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
...
> 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, -- > wrote:
> 150 years ago in the US, no one thought anything odd when two males slept
> in the same bed.

I'm sure it's not as big a deal as you make it out to be, even today.
It's one thing for cousin Freddy to sleep with uncle Gus during a
family reunion or a cold night or Ishmeal bunking with Queequeg when
the inn is full. It's quite another when a 40 year old man invites 12
year olds to his bed when he has bedrooms and bunks aplenty. In
Michael's case, there are no valid reasons to invite kids into his bed
other than questionable ones. MJ didn't pay *millions* of dollars to
hush up something that didn't happen.

nb

I don't recall ever hearing that MJ was related to these children he
had for sleepovers. And, most importantly, it is pretty naive to think
that 60 to 150 years ago pedopilia was not a possibility or probality when
adult men slept in the bed with male children -- relatives or not.
Happened more than people want to admit.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, -- wrote:

> 150 years ago in the US, no one thought anything odd when two males slept
> in the same bed. They weren't ***. That was the way it was if the inn was
> full or a guest came over. And there were two beds for the family.
>
> 60 years ago, men and boys in the extended family in much of the US slept in
> the same bed when guests were over, or when it was below zero outside and
> the oil stove was downstairs, and no one thought badly of it. No ***, no
> pedophilia to it.
>
> Today, there must be a wall between anyone over 40 and anyone under 40, and
> an adult present whenever men are around children, because "we all know"
> that adult males chase children for sexual gratification
> - why do we know this? Because the viewer has a boring life and she watches
> too much Oprah and Jerry Springer and has such a boring life they are not
> like the guests? Or is it because all the brothers, the Uncle Bobs, are
> pedophiles that you have to invite over?
>
> Sad state of affairs when every close relative in the US is thought of as a
> potential pedophile, and every bit of aberrant behavior is seen as an
> indication of irreparable harm to another.
>
> ------------------

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:
> 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

I totally agree and have from the beginning. He is also guilty of
being really, really strange. I thought all along that Sneddon's
vendetta-ish case was so weak that if MJ's lawyers couldn't get him
acquitted, they would have to be the most incompetent lawyers ever.

I do hope MJ does manage to fade away into nothingness, as far as being
newsworthy goes.

N.

wrote in
oups.com:

> I totally agree and have from the beginning. He is also guilty of
> being really, really strange.

But that's not a crime in the US.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/nationa...res050608.html

I especially like the part where the customs officer says:

"Being bizarre is not a reason to keep somebody out of this country or
lock them up," said Anthony, adding Despres had not violated any
regulations.

--

"Compassion is the chief law of human existence."

Dostoevski, The Idiot

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:22:53 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:

>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.

But there's the pornography...

I don't believe he is asexual, but obviously socially dysfunctional.
And guilty.

The creep dodged a bullet. Despite losing, the prosecution did a good
thing because the case put Sicko's behavior in the spotlight so that
it's unlikely he'll go back to his old ways with little boys anytime
soon.

It's really too bad he didn't use his fortune for therapy instead of
gratification.

Sue(tm)
Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself!

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 00:00:57 GMT, in rec.food.cooking, Curly Sue wrote:

>On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:22:53 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>But there's the pornography...

Yes. There's that. Legal, heterosexual pornography with no children in it.
No homosexuality. So maybe he's not asexual, but he certainly doesn't
appear to be interested in homosexual porn.

Given that to convict a juror has to accept the prosecution's evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt -- pretty hard to do in this case, the acquittal
sounds very very justified.

The guy is weird, very very childish probably, very different from a
normal person - obviously. And he put himself in a position where such
claims were inevitable. But you can't convict someone for that.

Doug
--
Doug Weller -- exorcise the demon to reply
Doug & Helen's Dogs http://www.dougandhelen.com
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk