| BeautyBuyNature.com |
NOT GUILTY
|
|
|
| Peter Aitken |
"BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
notbob wrote:
> On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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.
|
|
|
| Bigbazza |
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:W4SdnT0eKqjBvTPfRVn-1Q@comcast.com...
> On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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
|
|
|
| rmg |
"Bigbazza" <bigbazza@wideworld.co> wrote in message
news:3h6on3Ffbh80U1@individual.net...
>
>
> 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.
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
> news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> NOT GUILTY
>>
> He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly guilty
> of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total mystery
> how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost the
> definition of bad.
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken
I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world who
find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious therapy,
but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be your cup of
tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
As to the not guilty, there's plenty of evidence that the general public did
not see that the jury did, so I have to believe there is a reason he was
acquitted based on that.
It's easy to say that people with money get acquitted, and it is true, but
not for the reasons most people would think. It happens because people with
money can afford a good defense. They can afford to have good attorneys,
invesitgators, rebuttal witnesses, etc. The problem lies not with them but
with the way trials are filled with witnesses and experts that are there
solely because they are being paid to be.
kimberly
>
>
|
|
|
| Bigbazza |
"rmg" <roxmarie_nofriedspam42@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:uBqre.27884$J12.9772@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bigbazza" <bigbazza@wideworld.co> wrote in message
> news:3h6on3Ffbh80U1@individual.net...
>>
>>
>> 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
|
|
|
| Bigbazza |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>
> "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
|
|
|
| Terry Pulliam Burd |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 19:10:04 -0500, notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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"
|
|
|
| Bubbabob |
"Bigbazza" <bigbazza@wideworld.co> wrote:
> 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 ?
>
Correct. At this point there isn't much hope.
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2005-06-14, Terry Pulliam Burd <ntpulliam@spaminator.net> 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
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
notbob wrote:
> On 2005-06-14, Terry Pulliam Burd <ntpulliam@spaminator.net> 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.
|
|
|
| sf |
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.
|
|
|
| sf |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:39:53 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>
> > On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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.
>
|
|
|
| sf |
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.
|
|
|
| sf |
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.
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:Oc-dnZwEpIhw1TPfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
> On 2005-06-14, Terry Pulliam Burd <ntpulliam@spaminator.net> 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
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:42AE2759.11DD381B@sympatico.ca...
> notbob wrote:
>
>> On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2005-06-14, sf <sf@gmail.com> 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 bull**** and the jury and judge should
have seen through it.
nb
|
|
|
| sf |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 23:16:55 -0500, notbob wrote:
> On 2005-06-14, sf <sf@gmail.com> 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 bull**** 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).
|
|
|
| Elaine Parrish |
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005, Dave Smith wrote:
> notbob wrote:
>
> > On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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 |
On 2005-06-14, sf <sf@gmail.com> 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 bull**** 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 bull****. 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
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2005-06-14, Nexis <nexis1@cox.net> 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
|
|
|
| Peter Aitken |
"Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>
> "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
>> news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
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.
|
|
|
| Gene |
He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Gene wrote:
> He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....
He finally got off :-)
|
|
|
| cathyxyz |
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
|
|
|
| Hairy |
"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qpAre.9468$Kw.292097@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
> >
> > "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >> "BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
|
|
|
| Wayne Boatwright |
On Tue 14 Jun 2005 02:37:51a, notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> On 2005-06-14, Nexis <nexis1@cox.net> 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 տլ
____________________________________________
Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974
|
|
|
| Wayne Boatwright |
On Mon 13 Jun 2005 09:07:22p, Nexis wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:42AE2759.11DD381B@sympatico.ca...
>> notbob wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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 տլ
____________________________________________
Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974
|
|
|
| Bob (this one) |
Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>
>>"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>
>>>"BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>NOT GUILTY
>>>>
>>>He may not be guilty of child molestation, but he is most certainly
>>>guilty of being a no talent, nose-jobbed, bleached jackass. It is a total
>>>mystery how anyone can find him appealing. His performances are almost
>>>the definition of bad.
>>>
>>>--
>>>Peter Aitken
>>
>>I'm not a fan of his, but there are millions of people around the world
>>who find him to be very talented. I think he has BDD, and needs serious
>>therapy, but attacking him through his music is just silly. It may not be
>>your cup of tea, but that hardly makes him a "no-talent" performer.
>>
> Yes, and lots of people eat at McDonalds but that does not make it good
> food. Lots of people read romance novels but that does not make them good
> writing. Lots of people watch soap operas but that does not make them good
> drama. Need I continue?
Lots of people like Shakespeare. Lots of people like Michaelangelo. Lots
of people like French cuisine. Lots of people like Palladian
architecture. Need I go on?
"Good" is a *subjective* evaluation. I don't especially like MJ's music,
but he sure does put on a show. That moon walk is pure poetry in motion.
But I also think he's irredeemably weird and wouldn't walk across the
street to go to a concert of his.
Pastorio
|
|
|
| Wayne Boatwright |
On Tue 14 Jun 2005 05:51:34a, Peter Aitken wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> "Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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 տլ
____________________________________________
Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974
|
|
|
| sf |
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.
|
|
|
| Elaine Parrish |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, 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.
>
>
Then there is that factor that leather "draws up" when it is soaking wet
and then allowed to dry - no matter what the "wet" was. The finer the
cure, the finer the leather, and the more the shrinkage.
He couldn't have gotten that glove on his hand with the jaws of life. If
the prosecution had really been trying the case, they would have had a new
pair of gloves of the same make, model, and size to show the difference.
The "bloody glove" was distorted from its original shape and size so
drastically that it was easily discernable on my tv screen.
Elaine, too
|
|
|
| Elaine Parrish |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005, Gene wrote:
> He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....
>
>
>
That's why they call it "not guilty [under the law]" instead of innocent.
Elaine, too
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2005-06-14, Wayne Boatwright <waynesgang@waynes.gang> wrote:
> On Tue 14 Jun 2005 02:37:51a, notbob wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 2005-06-14, Nexis <nexis1@cox.net> 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.
>
|
|
|
| notbob |
On 2005-06-14, Wayne Boatwright <waynesgang@waynes.gang> wrote:
> Obviously, you must have been there. Maybe in his bed, too.
>
One need not be there to realize this is one sick puppy. He openly
admits his preference for bedding kids. Also, your childish comment
was uncalled for.
nb
|
|
|
| -- |
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:yZydnaWtp_yqxzPfRVn-2Q@comcast.com...
> On 2005-06-14, sf <sf@gmail.com> 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 bull**** 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.
|
|
|
| Dave Smith |
Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> Sorry, nb, I apologize. However, I am getting sick of everyone
> pontificating about the "truth" they "know"! Unless you have first hand
> knowledge, then you simply don't know.
The only truth I know is that he is a man in his 40s who has sleepovers with
young boys. That tells me all I need to know. Whether or not he touched
them inappropriately, fed them booze, showed them **** etc. as the new items
reported, he is pretty sick just to have those sleepovers.
I also consider the parents to be equally culpable for letting their sons
sleep over with a guy who shares his bed with prepubescent boys, a guy who
has a high feminine voice and who has had enough cosmetic surgery to make
himself look like an extraterrestrial. I wouldn't let my kids sleep in the
same bed with any adult, never mind one who is obviously a freak.
> I'll be the first to admit that Michael Jackson is one of the strangest
> people ever known to the public. However, that provides no proof of the
> acts he was allegedly accused of. If there was clear and irrefutable
> evidence of this, he would have been convicted.
It obviously was not a clear cut case, or else the jury would have been out
in an hour or two instead of needed more than 30 hours of deliberation.
|
|
|
| -- |
"Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:42AF2DF4.4D94BB12@sympatico.ca...
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> >
> > Sorry, nb, I apologize. However, I am getting sick of everyone
> > pontificating about the "truth" they "know"! Unless you have first hand
> > knowledge, then you simply don't know.
>
> The only truth I know is that he is a man in his 40s who has sleepovers
with
> young boys. That tells me all I need to know. Whether or not he touched
> them inappropriately, fed them booze, showed them **** etc. as the new
items
> reported, he is pretty sick just to have those sleepovers.
1) As I understood, Jackson didn't have ordinary healthy kids staying at
Neverland - just those with serious illness or serious problems and the
like, who passed the ranch's screenings. It wasn't like he had a bunch of
kids over for a sleepover.
I understood that that ranch was set up kind of like the "make-a-wish"
group, except it handled kids that didn't meet all of the make-a-wish
criterion. It was Jackson's charity, funded by his money as well as
donations from star friends.
So weren't those stays only for children who were quite ill or having
deep problems, as part of their therapy/care?
2) I thought the idea behind the ranch, as dangerous for Jackson as it was
(given Fox and its ilk and their pandering to the dark side and making
their money by claiming anything good was dirty, and them having a famous
target around kids who had problems meant he National Fox Enquirer would
attack), was that the kids who were invited to the ranch were the ones who,
because of a variety of problems had missed out on much of their childhood,
and the kids had problems because of missing playing.
I understood that the idea was that at the ranch they got to have some
of thir play time back as part of therapy, and they got to meet and be with
real "stars" - and they could be with a superstar for a few minutes in their
troubles and they could act like kids without repercusions, thus boosting
their self-esteem and bringing them out of their shells. Thus the reason
Leno and Caulkin, et al, visited there regularly and played.
And the list of kids who were helped by the ranch and this approach was
apparently fairly large.
So it seems it would be kind of hard to have a charity set up on the idea
that approachability to a pop star will help the kid more than any other
therapy, and then set up doors and walls to deny the kid acess to the pop
star, as some say normal people would have done.
That's what I heard about the ranch and Jackson's part in it.
BTW, I also understood he was running his businesses and record labels and
overseas concerts and rehearsing, etc., while also going to the ranch. It
wasn 't like he retired and played with kids at the ranch 24/7.
>
> I also consider the parents to be equally culpable for letting their sons
> sleep over with a guy who shares his bed with prepubescent boys, a guy who
> has a high feminine voice and who has had enough cosmetic surgery to make
> himself look like an extraterrestrial. I wouldn't let my kids sleep in
the
> same bed with any adult, never mind one who is obviously a freak.
>
>
> > I'll be the first to admit that Michael Jackson is one of the strangest
> > people ever known to the public. However, that provides no proof of the
> > acts he was allegedly accused of. If there was clear and irrefutable
> > evidence of this, he would have been convicted.
>
> It obviously was not a clear cut case, or else the jury would have been
out
> in an hour or two instead of needed more than 30 hours of deliberation.
>
>
|
|
|
| Doug Weller |
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
><ntpulliam@spaminator.net> 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 ****ography...
Yes. There's that. Legal, heterosexual ****ography with no children in it.
No homosexuality. So maybe he's not asexual, but he certainly doesn't
appear to be interested in homosexual ****.
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
|
|
|
| Doug Weller |
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 13:27:08 GMT, in rec.food.cooking, Gene wrote:
>He's GUILTY...he just got away with it.....
>
Sure, toss out American justice, let's get rid of it and have votes on
whether people or guilty.
That's what you're saying.
Unless of course you have proof no one knows about.
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
|
|
|
| Hairy |
> >
> >But there's the ****ography...
>
> Yes. There's that. Legal, heterosexual ****ography with no children in it.
> No homosexuality. So maybe he's not asexual, but he certainly doesn't
> appear to be interested in homosexual ****.
>
Really? What about the **** that was so bad that they weren't allowed to
view it in the courtroom? It involved nude teen and pre-teen boys in various
sexual poses. Those were sent to the jury room so that they could peruse
them in private.
H
|
|
|
| -- |
"Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3hc0qfFgdsuiU1@individual.net...
> > >
> > >But there's the ****ography...
> >
> > Yes. There's that. Legal, heterosexual ****ography with no children in
it.
> > No homosexuality. So maybe he's not asexual, but he certainly doesn't
> > appear to be interested in homosexual ****.
> >
>
> Really? What about the **** that was so bad that they weren't allowed to
> view it in the courtroom? It involved nude teen and pre-teen boys in
various
> sexual poses. Those were sent to the jury room so that they could peruse
> them in private.
> H
>
BS "urban myth", or was that from the third stall down?
If he really had had pictures of "teen and preteen boys in sexual poses",
they would have brought charges for possession of child **** - and since
that stuff is clearly and without a doubt child **** and not legal ****,
those charges would have stuck.
But there were no such pics.
>
|
|
|
| Hairy |
"--" <dehoberg@comcast.com> wrote in message
news:OcKdnYnfJIHmvizfRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
> "Hairy" <hairy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3hc0qfFgdsuiU1@individual.net...
> > > >
> > > >But there's the ****ography...
> > >
> > > Yes. There's that. Legal, heterosexual ****ography with no children in
> it.
> > > No homosexuality. So maybe he's not asexual, but he certainly doesn't
> > > appear to be interested in homosexual ****.
> > >
> >
> > Really? What about the **** that was so bad that they weren't allowed to
> > view it in the courtroom? It involved nude teen and pre-teen boys in
> various
> > sexual poses. Those were sent to the jury room so that they could peruse
> > them in private.
> > H
> >
>
> BS "urban myth", or was that from the third stall down?
>
No. It was from Court TV, and heavily covered. Where do you get your info?
> If he really had had pictures of "teen and preteen boys in sexual poses",
> they would have brought charges for possession of child **** - and since
> that stuff is clearly and without a doubt child **** and not legal ****,
> those charges would have stuck.
> But there were no such pics.
>
The jurors were asked if they viewed the child **** during deliberations and
they said some did, but since that wasn't one of the charges against him,
they didn't think that affected their verdict.
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Wayne Boatwright" <waynesgang@waynes.gang> wrote in message
news:Xns96755CA09D8E5waynesgang@217.22.228.19...
> On Mon 13 Jun 2005 09:07:22p, Nexis wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "Dave Smith" <adavid.smith@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> news:42AE2759.11DD381B@sympatico.ca...
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2005-06-13, BeautyBuyNature.com <add@execs.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 տլ
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
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:gKGdnZ_mfoPyODPfRVn-pQ@comcast.com...
> On 2005-06-14, Nexis <nexis1@cox.net> 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
First of all, I said that I don't know if he is guilty of more than
that...and more to the point, neither do you. You're making an assumption of
guilt, but the fact is it is nothing more than an assumption/opinion. You
simply do not know. The REALITY is just that: I don't know. You don't know.
The only ones who truly know are him and the accuser.
kimberly
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:4aOdneMnrISOuDLfRVn-ig@comcast.com...
> On 2005-06-14, Wayne Boatwright <waynesgang@waynes.gang> wrote:
>
>> Obviously, you must have been there. Maybe in his bed, too.
>>
>
> One need not be there to realize this is one sick puppy. He openly
> admits his preference for bedding kids. Also, your childish comment
> was uncalled for.
>
> nb
He did not say he had a preference for bedding kids. He said that he let
them sleep in his bed. Your inference and refusal to admit you simply do not
know the truth of it are childish, as was your accusation that I am
disconnected from reality because I can admit that I don't know if he is
guilty or not.
You don't know all the facts, and you have no real idea of what happened.
Your making assumptions based on your own beliefs, and that is far from
stating facts. Sick he may be, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's a
child molester.
kimberly
|
|
|
| Nexis |
"Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:qpAre.9468$Kw.292097@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> "Nexis" <nexis1@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:YJqre.117$X71.61@fed1read07...
>>
>> "Peter Aitken" <paitken@CRAPnc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:K1ore.9408$Kw.244896@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>>> "BeautyBuyNature.com" <add@execs.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1118697735.531630.324590@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.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
>
>
|
|
|
|
