Micky Jackson in trouble again

sligeach

Ashbourne hoop wrote: »

Ray D'Arcy made a big thing about not playing Jackson songs after LN, but he'll jump on any bandwagon.

No, Ray D'Arcy. What I'd like to call him. He jumped on the bandwagon before it even came out. I remember when he did it.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109597707&postcount=112

He wasn't the only one who jumped on the bandwagon. Ryan Tubridy and Claire Byrne did as well. This is a piece by Claire Byrne. It's the biggest pile of ####!

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0309/1035405-claire-byrne-live/

Read the first and last lines.

"I believe you before you open your mouth."

Our message should always be that we believe them before they open their mouths.

She shouldn't be allowed turn on a TV or a radio. Never mind allowed on them.

sligeach

They make a mockery of RTE's campaign, "The Truth Matters". Michael Jackson is what I think of whenever I hear or see the ads, because the truth is all but absent and it certainly doesn't matter when he's talked about.

MOR316

People will believe anything that suits their narrative.
Some people just don't want to be proved wrong. They hate it. See it a lot on Boards. In terms of Jackson, leaving any accusation aside for a moment, some people flat out hated him because of his act, his eccentricities (some of which he leaked himself to the media just for publicity so his own fault there) his surgeries, and because he had certain diseases that he kept quiet about and people didn't understand.
People also hated him because he was black. I know at least two people who do.

As for RTE... Ha yeah well, Eoin McDermott says hi.
They're just virtue signalling. Both D'Arcy and Tubs play music by artists who have admitted to fiddling with under age minors. Both have said these artists are their heroes. All of a sudden, an artist has an accusation thrown at them and he's banned?
Yeah, OK...

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Indeed. Many are nowhere that number, I’d say.

As for the number of MJ accusers, this is often said by MJ supporters - “Why haven’t MORE people come forward?”. It’s hard for any victim of child abuse to come forward, even if their abuser isn’t famous. People who accuse MJ have their characters absolutely destroyed. There’s no perfect victim but to these mouth-breathers, if you’ve cheated on your girlfriend in your adult life or whatever, that apparently means you couldn’t possibly have been abused as a child. :rolleyes: Who’d put themselves forward for that? People say easy money is being looked for. To me, it seems like the hardest money you’d ever earn.

Just FYI, after 1993, The Chandlers, the father included (not Jordie) tried suing him again, twice!
Nothing to do with abuse at all but, brought civil cases against him for negligence and because he brought an album out. Wanted 60 million in one case, over 100 million in another.
Never made the courts.
So yeah, it's easy money for people in that respect.
It's also the hardest money to get if you have no idea what the **** you're talking about, like in this case

EDIT: In the book Ray Chandler (Jordie's uncle) wrote, he said they demanded 20 million from Jackson for months before deciding to make it public and to take it to the civil courts. He said Jackson flat out refused to give them a cent and said he should have just given the money and they wouldn't have said a thing...
I'm sure you'll come to your own conclusion with that but, it's pretty obvious what went on there...
I mean, there is a recording of the father, admitting it was extortion because he didn't want the mother getting custody of Jordan...

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Indeed. Many are nowhere that number, I’d say.

As for the number of MJ accusers, this is often said by MJ supporters - “Why haven’t MORE people come forward?”. It’s hard for any victim of child abuse to come forward, even if their abuser isn’t famous. People who accuse MJ have their characters absolutely destroyed. There’s no perfect victim but to these mouth-breathers, if you’ve cheated on your girlfriend in your adult life or whatever, that apparently means you couldn’t possibly have been abused as a child. :rolleyes: Who’d put themselves forward for that? People say easy money is being looked for. To me, it seems like the hardest money you’d ever earn.

See, you've just twisted that to suit your agenda.
I could give you many examples of child molesters, who have had multiple cases against them, where plenty have come forward. It's clearly not difficult for two men to get on a camera for 4 hours and laugh about it, whilst describing alleged abuse...

In 1993, the FBI interviewed nearly 400 kids Jackson had been in contact with. Some from America, some from Asia, Oz and some from Europe. All of them said nothing happened.
Corey Feldman, a man abused by people in Hollywood, credits Jackson with helping him through it as a kid and has always said Jackson was innocent and never done anything...

Wade Robson got on a stand in a court, under oath and said nothing ever happened!
Wade Robson wanted to get married and have his honeymoon at Neverland.
Wade Robson made a video from Neverland in 2008, where he gushes over MJ and how great he is
Wade Robson gave dance classes using MJ's music until 2015, despite making the allegations 2 years previous (The video is on YT)
James Safechuck went back and worked for Michael Jackson as an adult

And that's before we get into the changing stories, timelines and depositions...
"He abused me in 1988 in Disneyland Paris"
Place didn't open until 1992 ffs...

You don't do any of those things if you're a victim

And again, I know you'll twist this into whatever point of view or agenda you have. But what I posted above isn't speculative or hearsay, they're facts. "Pesky facts" as you called them, that just won't go away.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

See, you've just twisted that to suit your agenda.
I could give you many examples of child molesters, who have had multiple cases against them, where plenty have come forward. It's clearly not difficult for two men to get on a camera for 4 hours and laugh about it, whilst describing alleged abuse...

In 1993, the FBI interviewed nearly 400 kids Jackson had been in contact with. Some from America, some from Asia, Oz and some from Europe. All of them said nothing happened.
Corey Feldman, a man abused by people in Hollywood, credits Jackson with helping him through it as a kid and has always said Jackson was innocent and never done anything...

What’s my agenda, MOR316? Do tell. You are straining hard to portray nonchalance on this topic but you always betray yourself eventually. Yes, I must have an agenda. :rolleyes:

As for the bolded, super. But for ever person who has come forward, there will be far more who never did. Sexual crimes are depressingly hugely unreported.

And I bet of the victims of child sexual abuse who have come forward, many have had to endure people telling people what a great person the accused was. Children (and grown adults) were and still are routinely dismissed based on “Sure he’s a grand fellow, he wouldn’t do that!” and “How dare you share you say that about him, he’s an upstanding citizen!”. That is exactly how Larry Nassar got away with his crimes for as long as he did. His accusers were vilified and that vilification only stopped when child porn was found on his computer. And he got away with it until very recently. This is still a huge problem. I’m amazed people still trot out that sentiment - “Well, this person must be wrong because that person said he’s sound”. It’s utterly depressing, to be honest.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What’s my agenda, MOR316? Do tell. You are straining hard to portray nonchalance on this topic but you always betray yourself eventually. Yes, I must have an agenda. :rolleyes:

As for the bolded, super. But for ever person who has come forward, there will be far more who never did. Sexual crimes are depressingly hugely unreported.

And I bet of the victims of child sexual abuse who have come forward, many have had to endure people telling people what a great person the accused was. Children (and grown adults) were and still are routinely dismissed based on “Sure he’s a grand fellow, he wouldn’t do that!” and “How dare you share you say that about him, he’s an upstanding citizen!”. That is exactly how Larry Nassar got away with his crimes for as long as he did. His accusers were vilified and that vilification only stopped when child porn was found on his computer. And he got away with it until very recently. This is still a huge problem. I’m amazed people still trot out that sentiment - “Well, this person must be wrong because that person said he’s sound”. It’s utterly depressing, to be honest.

What do you mean, "betray myself?"
I said to you before that I have a keen interest in this topic due to my passion and interest in Law/Justice and Sociology...
Your agenda is anything people have said to you, no matter what facts you've been presented with, you've twisted them to suit your point of view, instead of actually accepting it and arguing/debating another aspect of this case/topic.
I mean, you presented me with a fact that no one can argue against. I accepted it. Perhaps you just feel very strongly about the topic of abuse and I wasn't understanding that

The highlighted paragraph, I am not disagreeing with at all. You're 100% correct. It is depressing and I share that mindset with you.
However, in this case, no one here has said "Michael Jackson was a sound person so therefore he didn't do it"
The closest anyone said anything to that was me. I said his heart was in the right place, as from the age of 11 he was doing humanitarian work to help people less fortunate. But that was unrelated to any accusation.
I feel very shameful for admitting this as I feel it's an invasion of privacy on my part but, I listened to a series of private phone calls where he was unknowingly recorded in 1991 and he came across like a very sad and depressed man, saying he knew he wouldn't live long, how he longed for a relationship for someone to love him, his heartbreak over Diana Ross and two other women he had been involved with and how he hated his Father and details about what he done to him (He admitted to all his surgery to that point in them btw, if anyone is interested)
As for victims coming forward, I can't name them all obviously but, there's so many on social media who were around him as kids defending him on social media. Boys/Girls, sleepovers, all saying nothing happened. I mean, Safechuck's cousin, who was around the two of them, is on Twitter saying it's lies

To make it clear, in my opinion no matter what age you are, sexual abuse is a disgusting and horrid crime to commit! I know one who was abused when under age, the others were adults when it happened. It's tough to put into words the disgust I feel about it
I understand where you're coming from with your views on Jackson. If evidence or facts supported it, I would totally be here agreeing with you.
However, they just don't. Maybe some day there will be but, I can't see it. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused and they haven't come out with any proof at all.

I guess from my perspective, I just have this passion for truth. I want justice to prevail (I know that sounds corny)
I'm not a massive fan of Jackson. I never saw him live but, if his songs came on, I'd always listen. He was good.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

What do you mean, "betray myself?"
I said to you before that I have a keen interest in this topic due to my passion and interest in Law/Justice and Sociology...
Your agenda is anything people have said to you, no matter what facts you've been presented with, you've twisted them to suit your point of view, instead of actually accepting it and arguing/debating another aspect of this case/topic.
I mean, you presented me with a fact that no one can argue against. I accepted it. Perhaps you just feel very strongly about the topic of abuse and I wasn't understanding that

How so?

And I’m afraid to tell you, I and others haven’t always been presented with facts (on this thread or elsewhere). Much of it is speculation and if people were so sure of themselves and Jackson’s innocence, they wouldn’t have to grasp at entirely irrelevant things like the accusers cheating on girlfriends and attack their lives and personalities. If the facts are so compelling, why would that be necessary? And such cheap smears would also have the affect of stopping others forward. I know I wouldn’t if I saw what happened to them.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How so?

And I’m afraid to tell you, I and others haven’t always been presented with facts (on this thread or elsewhere). Much of it is speculation and if people were so sure of themselves and Jackson’s innocence, they wouldn’t have to grasp at entirely irrelevant things like the accusers cheating on girlfriends and attack their lives and personalities. If the facts are so compelling, why would that be necessary? And such cheap smears would also have the affect of stopping others forward. I know I wouldn’t if I saw what happened to them.

Well, I only present fact based information. I can't comment on anyone else. Speculative information is not helpful in any situation nor does it help educate people on the matter.

I haven't seen anyone attack anyone's personalities in this thread. Maybe I didn't see it on some pages from 2019. I only joined this thread in 2020 (I think, could be wrong) However, accusations aside, people seem to think it's OK to attack Michael Jackson's personal and medical issues so, perhaps they think it's fair game. Some even speculate he was gay and are disgusted by it :rolleyes:

If you are referring to people dishing Wade Robson's personal problems, that's not speculative. That is indeed the truth. He completely messed up his career by having flings with his employee's partners (Justin and Britney being an example) and because of this, he was shunned. He did apply for the choreograph job for the MJ one show in Las Vegas, he didn't get it for various reasons and that's what kicked all of this off.
Me saying he has a link for donations for victims, that isn't attached to any charity, that is also true and is suspicious in my opinion.
Me saying he gave dance classes to MJ's music, after he made the accusations or wanted his wedding and honeymoon at Neverland etc are also not speculative but, are indeed facts.

I can't comment as to why some people feel it's necessary though. The facts are compelling. To quote The Judge from 2017, "No trier of facts, who is of sane mind, would ever believe your story, Mr. Robson"

Speculation only helps the person who is speculating, validate their opinion, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Case in point, that Daily Mail article that the poster (can't remember their name) linked a few pages back

Anyways, I feel I've tried to provide a balanced and different view to yourself and others. Maybe some of it you guys will accept, some of it you may not. I did come across two interesting pieces of info over the last year or so that gives an insight into his mind.
1. From when he was a teenager, he always said in interviews that he found it very hard to form friendships as people had let him down all his life. It made him very lonely according to him, to the point he wouldn't socialise with his band mates or brothers.
2. Shortly after Off The Wall(1980?), he still lived with his parents but, he sent them on holiday and he turned the house into a Disney themed place, with Disney characters painted on walls and petting zoos.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

If you are referring to people dishing Wade Robson's personal problems, that's not speculative. That is indeed the truth.

And much of it is entirely irrelevant. You’re not really getting it.

Such as...

He completely messed up his career by having flings with his employee's partners (Justin and Britney being an example) and because of this, he was shunned. He did apply for the choreograph job for the MJ one show in Las Vegas, he didn't get it for various reasons and that's what kicked all of this off.
Me saying he has a link for donations for victims, that isn't attached to any charity, that is also true and is suspicious in my opinion.
Me saying he gave dance classes to MJ's music, after he made the accusations or wanted his wedding and honeymoon at Neverland etc are also not speculative but, are indeed facts.

These are irrelevant facts (though some of what you say is disputed and far from fact). Were you trying to back up my point here? Why would anyone so sure of MJ’s innocence need to resort to combing through the personal lives of the accusers? And, as very few people have lived a perfect life, it could absolutely put people off coming forward. It’s really cheap stuff and IMO, all this muckraking is designed to be intimidating. MJ’s most ardent defenders are quite militant.

See, character assassination. The need to smear Robson because apparently if one errs in their life, they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth.

James Safechuck proved a much more difficult person to take down with cheap smears, not for want of effort. And he was the more compelling documentary subject. Hence why “BuT tHe TrAiN sTaTiOn!” was jumped on by MJ defenders. They were desperate.

lintdrummer

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And much of it is entirely irrelevant. You’re not really getting it.

Such as...



These are irrelevant facts (though some of what you say is disputed and far from fact). Were you trying to back up my point here? Why would anyone so sure of MJ’s innocence need to resort to combing through the personal lives of the accusers? And, as very few people have lived a perfect life, it could absolutely put people off coming forward. It’s really cheap stuff and IMO, all this muckraking is designed to be intimidating. MJ’s most ardent defenders are quite militant.

See, character assassination. The need to smear Robson because apparently if one errs in their life, they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth.

James Safechuck proved a much more difficult person to take down with cheap smears, not for want of effort. And he was the more compelling documentary subject. Hence why “BuT tHe TrAiN sTaTiOn!” was jumped on by MJ defenders. They were desperate.

In light of the fact that the courts found there was no evidence to validate the claims, I think it's not only fair, but inherently right to assess the character of the person making the accusation. That is not a smear campaign, it's a judgment of character.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And much of it is entirely irrelevant. You’re not really getting it.

Such as...



These are irrelevant facts (though some of what you say is disputed and far from fact). Were you trying to back up my point here? Why would anyone so sure of MJ’s innocence need to resort to combing through the personal lives of the accusers? And, as very few people have lived a perfect life, it could absolutely put people off coming forward. It’s really cheap stuff and IMO, all this muckraking is designed to be intimidating. MJ’s most ardent defenders are quite militant.

See, character assassination. The need to smear Robson because apparently if one errs in their life, they couldn’t possibly be telling the truth.

James Safechuck proved a much more difficult person to take down with cheap smears, not for want of effort. And he was the more compelling documentary subject. Hence why “BuT tHe TrAiN sTaTiOn!” was jumped on by MJ defenders. They were desperate.

See, you've just shifted the goal posts.
First you say you aren't being presented with facts, then when you are you say they're irrelevant and then say they're not facts (which they are) thus proving my point earlier that you twist everything to suit your agenda and mindset. You've constantly shot down Jackson due to his personal life, accusations aside so why should I take you seriously?
When even presented with the train station fact, when even the director admits it was a **** up, you still try to twist it to suit some weird agenda in your mind. As I also said earlier, some people hate being proved wrong. I've seen it in other threads you've posted in.

James Safechuck sued MJJ productions for enabling sexual abuse. He said he was an employee of MJJ productions.
The alleged abuse took place before the companies existed and he was never an employee of the company. He worked as an intern, when he was an adult for Jackson in 1996 and 1997.
"He abused me in 1988 in Disneyland Paris"
Didn't open until 1992.
"He abused me every day in the Neverland Train station"
Train station didn't exist until 1994.
"He spent thanksgiving 1987 in my house in my bed" MJ was performing in Oz on Thanksgiving 1987. The concert is on Youtube
James says he never told his family about the abuse until 2013. His mother says she told him before 2009.
Testimonials from staff at Neverland that said MJ would purposely stay off the property if the Safechucks visited.
He said he refused to testify in 2005. He was never contacted to testify nor would the courts have allowed it.
His own cousin, a member of his own family who was there, saying he's talking rubbish.
He gave a statement in 1993 when asked that nothing happened.
The "wedding scene" in that movie. Ignoring the fact MJ was seeing a woman at that time, ignoring the fact the director decided to shoot it before the film went to the editing stage, James Safechuck held onto a ring from a man that abused him, for that long and the ring fits him perfectly as an adult and you believe that?

I didn't use one cheap smear against him, never insulted the man once and I'm after ripping his case apart.

If you want to keep doing this, fine. But, it's pointless. I'll just keep hitting you with fact after fact and you will keep twisting it to suit the point of view that you've settled on.

You say you've read up on all of this, you haven't! You literally just said for the most part you haven't been presented with the facts. If you had read about it, you would know everything that I've mentioned and would know everything that's in those court documents and FBI files. They're public information after all...
I'm getting the impression you're just someone who never liked Jackson, saw LN and have decided that based on that and your previous dislike of the guy, you think he's guilty and everyone who says otherwise is wrong.

We can keep doing this if you want but, it's just going to be one giant, never ending circle, going over old ground, again and again. Up to you.

EDIT: Are you on Twitter? That avatar of yours looks very familiar to one that's on a "MJ is guilty" account

innuendo141

lintdrummer wrote: »

In light of the fact that the courts found there was no evidence to validate the claims, I think it's not only fair, but inherently right to assess the character of the person making the accusation. That is not a smear campaign, it's a judgment of character.

The documentary presented him as a pedophile that groomed entire families over a lengthy period of time, yet the court cases present him as if he were running an operation as big as the Catholic Church (as that change in law last year allowed the cases to be re-opened). Things like this should be questioned and shouldn't be considered to be smearing also.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

lintdrummer wrote: »

In light of the fact that the courts found there was no evidence to validate the claims, I think it's not only fair, but inherently right to assess the character of the person making the accusation. That is not a smear campaign, it's a judgment of character.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy. “Inherently right”.

And nothing much at all could be found on Safechuck. So you must think him more trustworthy then, right? Going by the parameters you’ve set out here?

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Whatever you need to tell yourself, buddy. “Inherently right”.

And nothing much at all could be found on Safechuck. So you must think him more trustworthy then, right? Going by the parameters you’ve set out here?

I've just giving you a ton of facts against him and you refuse to even acknowledge it.

Shown your true colours.

Go for a walk, ODB. The fresh air will do you good. Will help you take the L

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR, I don’t read wall-of-texts posts as a rule. On any topic. Ain’t nobody got time for that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

I've just giving you a ton of facts against him and you refuse to even acknowledge it.

Shown your true colours.

Go for a walk, ODB. The fresh air will do you good. Will help you take the L

You keep using that word...

And on the last sentence, you may fuck right off with your condescending advice. I’ll gladly take an infraction for typing this. Totally worth it. I have severe mobility issues. Stick your patronising advice up your hoop.

sligeach

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They were desperate.

I'd call your comments desperate. I'd also call Wade Robson and James Safechuck desperate(for money, and to be "relevant" in Wade's case). There isn't one, not one, piece of evidence that Michael Jackson ever abused any kid. I think I've read before that Leaving Neverland has something like over 60 provable lies. Some more damning than others, which they tried editing out of future broadcasts.

Wade Robson is a snake. Sure we could mention his cheating but let's mention how he lied about not knowing of the Michael Jackson Estate, sold his Michael Jackson memorabilia as he was desperate for money, wanted Christie's to keep it quiet(they refused), tried to swindle money from the Estate on the sly, tried to shop his book, refused to hand over relevant documents, e-mails, etc until compelled to do so by the courts, denied that Leaving Neverland was about money, despite 2 failed lawsuits for hundreds of millions, now 3 failed lawsuits.

There isn't as much to say about James Safechuck because he hasn't been as public as Wade Robson. Him and his family were sued for over $1 million around a month before joining Robson in suing the Michael Jackson Estate. Funny timing that. And Safechuck has been arguably caught in the biggest provable lie of all. Both men have lied over and over. Their stories have changed. Facts don't change, lies do though.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

You keep using that word...

And on the last sentence, you may fuck right off with your condescending advice. I’ll gladly take an infraction for typing this. Totally worth it. I have severe mobility issues. Stick your patronising advice up your hoop.

Don't know you, don't know anything about your mobility issues.

Follow your own advice. Your posts are terribly patronising, aggressive and speculative

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

Don't know you, don't know anything about your mobility issues.

Follow your own advice. Your posts are terribly patronising, aggressive and speculative

The sentiment was arsey whatever my personal situation.

And, no, my posts aren’t. Don’t lash out just because you’re embarrassed at not getting away with that “take a walk” guff.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

The sentiment was arsey whatever my personal situation.

And, no, my posts aren’t. Don’t lash out just because you’re embarrassed at not getting away with that “take a walk” guff.

Seriously, you've got anger issues and I'm not humouring you any longer.

You've been aggressive, dismissive, condescending, patronising and quite arrogant/ignorant in your tone. Not just at me but, at everyone else who dares question your views. Seen it in other threads.

I have not lashed out at any point, despite your obvious provocation attempts. I have been respectable and attentive. I haven't been as disrespectful and dismissed your posts to the point of not even reading them like you have with me and others, stating you don't have time for them

I'm not wasting my time interacting with you again.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

sligeach wrote: »

I'd call your comments desperate. I'd also call Wade Robson and James Safechuck desperate(for money, and to be "relevant" in Wade's case). There isn't one, not one, piece of evidence that Michael Jackson ever abused any kid. I think I've read before that Leaving Neverland has something like over 60 provable lies. Some more damning than others, which they tried editing out of future broadcasts.

Wade Robson is a snake. Sure we could mention his cheating but let's mention how he lied about not knowing of the Michael Jackson Estate, sold his Michael Jackson memorabilia as he was desperate for money, wanted Christie's to keep it quiet(they refused), tried to swindle money from the Estate on the sly, tried to shop his book, refused to hand over relevant documents, e-mails, etc until compelled to do so by the courts, denied that Leaving Neverland was about money, despite 2 failed lawsuits for hundreds of millions, now 3 failed lawsuits.

There isn't as much to say about James Safechuck because he hasn't been as public as Wade Robson. Him and his family were sued for over $1 million around a month before joining Robson in suing the Michael Jackson Estate. Funny timing that. And Safechuck has been arguably caught in the biggest provable lie of all. Both men have lied over and over. Their stories have changed. Facts don't change, lies do though.

Well, sadly, sligeach, you’ll just have to make your peace with many people thinking MJ is guilty. Most people won’t think about it too deeply but that will be their gut instinct.

The extent to which people jealously defend a guy who

a) would not give a crap about them at all

b) has admitted to deeply inappropriate behaviour in his lifetime

is bonkers to me. I mean, even some of those who say he did not molest them (and I believe them) have told of some eyebrow-raising stuff. Corey Feldman saying they looked at porn together, for example.

Even if one believes that he didn’t do the most egregious stuff, the stuff we know to be true makes it very hard for me to understand why so many people so fervently defend him, like he is a saint. We know he shared beds with minor boys. We know he had his flavour of the month kids that he brought to events and travelled around with. To explain this away, he is portrayed as a childlike simpleton. Which doesn’t really mesh his highly successful career and evident intelligence and talent. Which is it, like?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

Seriously, you've got anger issues and I'm not humouring you any longer.

You've been aggressive, dismissive, condescending, patronising and quite arrogant/ignorant in your tone. Not just at me but, at everyone else who dares question your views. Seen it in other threads.

I have not lashed out at any point, despite your obvious provocation attempts. I have been respectable and attentive. I haven't been as disrespectful and dismissed your posts to the point of not even reading them like you have with me and others, stating you don't have time for them

I'm not wasting my time interacting with you again.

Ha, get fucked.

Just feckin’ put me on ignore. The dramatics!

And you are attacking the poster, not the post here.

Riesen_Meal

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ha, get fucked.

Just feckin’ put me on ignore. The dramatics!

And you are attacking the poster, not the post here.

A lovely way to interact with people who have different opinions than your own....

FWIW I don't think Jackson was guilty for molesting children, but I do think there is something fishy to the story on all sides of it, why would a grown man (MJ or not) befriend small children to "hang out" with, there's something not all there with that side of it, whilst now since the allegations came out, some are chasing the dollar signs as expected...

I know he had a troubled upbringing, I did myself with similar parental abuse in my early life, but something is just not all there with the whole thing and I don't think we will ever know the truth now that he is gone...

The point blank defense of him by some on here and elsewhere would make you wonder are they just rabid MJ fanboys or what...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Fieldog wrote: »

A lovely way to interact with people who have different opinions than your own...

Interesting that the post I replied to was apparently a-ok with you. You’re very selective in your judgments.

Do you think my reaction that you’ve quoted is down to a difference of opinion? Did you even read the post I was responding to? It was an outright personal attack and, yup, I’ll defend myself.

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Interesting that the post I replied to was apparently a-ok with you. You’re very selective in your judgments.

Do you think my reaction that you’ve quoted is down to a difference of opinion? Did you even read the post I was responding to? It was an outright personal attack and, yup, I’ll defend myself.

As stated, I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. I have never met you so I don't know anything about your medical history nor was it a personal attack.

That's just you crying wolf, making false accusations over something that never happened. Something you took as justifying your tone and language. Something you were trying to provoke me yet, weren't successful in doing so, so now you're clinging onto something that is not even there. You have form for this.

Deplorable, disrespectful and something I've no time for.

Good day!

new92

There's no evidence he got up to "diddler" activities. I believe the experts.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

MOR316 wrote: »

As stated, I don't know you. I don't know anything about you. I have never met you so I don't know anything about your medical history nor was it a personal attack.

That's just you crying wolf, making false accusations over something that never happened. Something you took as justifying your tone and language. Something you were trying to provoke me yet, weren't successful in doing so, so now you're clinging onto something that is not even there. You have form for this.

Deplorable, disrespectful and something I've no time for.

Good day!

Doesn’t matter of you know me or not. You attacked the poster, not the post. Most people posting here don’t know each so that’s no excuse at all. It was a personal attack. At least own it, FFS. And you don’t wriggle out of it by once or twice mentioning ‘tone’. Your comments were mostly directly at me, not my tone. And you brought up other threads.

“You have form for this” isn’t a personal attack?

MOR316

new92 wrote: »

There's no evidence he got up to "diddler" activities. I believe the experts.

As a side note, imagine a Batman themed porno and one of the characters was called, "The Diddler"

MOR316

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Doesn’t matter of you know me or not. You attacked the poster, not the post. Most people posting here don’t know each so that’s no excuse at all. It was a personal attack. At least own it, FFS.

"Go for a walk, the air will do you good and will help you accept the L"

Personal attack? No, it's not! It was me trying to end this interaction
Not my fault you decided to play victim over a meaningless, harmless sentence that was not aimed as an insult.