MJ realists are called "lowlife scum"...

MJ realists are called "lowlife scum" lol

Posted in the Michael Jackson Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#1 Feb 3, 2014
Apparently the fanatics here think if we even talk about how inappropriate Michael Jackson was with children throughout his life, even if we just talk about him sleeping with children, we're "lowlife scum" or "haters". I don't get how they come to the conclusions they do. Would they say the same thing about Woody Allen's critics? Or R. Kelly's? Or Jerry Sandusky's? Or Roman Polanski's? But with MJ we have to accept that he slept with children to "recover from a lost childhood". I mean the logic with some stans/f'loons or what have you is that we have to tolerate the fact that Michael was "sharing his bed" with a boy between the ages of 7 and 14. But yet when we ask them to explain how MJ was innocent, they resort to name calling and insults. It's really tiring at this point but as an ex fan/now realist, my job is to let it be known that what Michael was doing was inappropriate and down right criminal. I refuse to no longer sip from the cup of an over the hill fan base that hasn't come face to face with reality since being fans of Michael Jackson's persona (music fans of his are a different story though they sometimes defend his off stage activities too). Can't even accept that their hero was the "lowlife scum" they claim the realists are. Funny.
You wish

Avon, CT

#2 Feb 3, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
Apparently the fanatics here think if we even talk about how inappropriate Michael Jackson was with children throughout his life, even if we just talk about him sleeping with children, we're "lowlife scum" or "haters". I don't get how they come to the conclusions they do. Would they say the same thing about Woody Allen's critics? Or R. Kelly's? Or Jerry Sandusky's? Or Roman Polanski's? But with MJ we have to accept that he slept with children to "recover from a lost childhood". I mean the logic with some stans/f'loons or what have you is that we have to tolerate the fact that Michael was "sharing his bed" with a boy between the ages of 7 and 14. But yet when we ask them to explain how MJ was innocent, they resort to name calling and insults. It's really tiring at this point but as an ex fan/now realist, my job is to let it be known that what Michael was doing was inappropriate and down right criminal. I refuse to no longer sip from the cup of an over the hill fan base that hasn't come face to face with reality since being fans of Michael Jackson's persona (music fans of his are a different story though they sometimes defend his off stage activities too). Can't even accept that their hero was the "lowlife scum" they claim the realists are. Funny.
Great post !

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#3 Feb 3, 2014
You wish wrote:
<quoted text>
Great post !
Thanks. I just had to post this because I think it's funny how they continue to repeat the same old song. They ain't gonna like this post but whatever lol
You wish

Avon, CT

#4 Feb 3, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I just had to post this because I think it's funny how they continue to repeat the same old song. They ain't gonna like this post but whatever lol
This is why I believe mj was guilty . A seasoned expert detective thought he was in addition the match and evidence found. I don't know anyone who has those books. Why do floors dismiss the match ? It's obvious mj was a pedophile .
MICHAEL I WANT YOU BACK

UK

#7 Feb 3, 2014
You are all stupid Idiots.Michael is Innocent you fools. Your the clowns who turned your back on him.its your loss.and our gain.I am not listening to your lies.I dont care what you say.I know Michael is Innocent.I know how I feel about him.it makes all you haters the lowlifes.you shouldnt make Judgements on anybody.the mans no longer with us.I know I cant Imagian life without him for one moment.you haters really have no idea what you are talking about.you all really need to live in the real world.and except it for what it is.when that persons telling the truth! I am so fed up with Michael being badly attacked for things he never did.he never had a childhood.and just living his childhood again.he was child at heart.he was peter pan you fool..I dont care what people state because they are Lying.instead of listening to gossip and lies.for greed hear the truth!
I believe in every word MJ said.I knew truly what was in his heart.I trust in him,Michael is the safest hands anybody could be in.I will always be defending him.because I Love him.and believe in him Michael Jackson will forever be an angel
SO LEAVE THE MAN ALONE
persephone

Mountain View, CA

#8 Feb 3, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
Apparently the fanatics here think if we even talk about how inappropriate Michael Jackson was with children throughout his life, even if we just talk about him sleeping with children, we're "lowlife scum" or "haters". I don't get how they come to the conclusions they do. Would they say the same thing about Woody Allen's critics? Or R. Kelly's? Or Jerry Sandusky's? Or Roman Polanski's? But with MJ we have to accept that he slept with children to "recover from a lost childhood". I mean the logic with some stans/f'loons or what have you is that we have to tolerate the fact that Michael was "sharing his bed" with a boy between the ages of 7 and 14. But yet when we ask them to explain how MJ was innocent, they resort to name calling and insults. It's really tiring at this point but as an ex fan/now realist, my job is to let it be known that what Michael was doing was inappropriate and down right criminal. I refuse to no longer sip from the cup of an over the hill fan base that hasn't come face to face with reality since being fans of Michael Jackson's persona (music fans of his are a different story though they sometimes defend his off stage activities too). Can't even acce pt that their hero was the "lowlife scum" they claim the realists are. Funny.
Actually, since you mentioned Woody Allen, you definitely should take a look at some of the comments that people have posted in response to the renewed claim that he allegedly molested his daughter.

Many have noted the lack of any actual evidence, medical and otherwise, and that no one went to the police. Many people are quite capable of understanding that merely making an accusation isn't enough to make it true.

I suggest you take a look at your own bias when it comes to MJ. See how you reduce the opposition to nothing more than a fan-based stereotype. There's quite a lot of solid facts and arguments in favor of his innocence.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#9 Feb 3, 2014
BadMan84 wrote:
Apparently the fanatics here think if we even talk about how inappropriate Michael Jackson was with children throughout his life, even if we just talk about him sleeping with children, we're "lowlife scum" or "haters". I don't get how they come to the conclusions they do. Would they say the same thing about Woody Allen's critics? Or R. Kelly's? Or Jerry Sandusky's? Or Roman Polanski's? But with MJ we have to accept that he slept with children to "recover from a lost childhood". I mean the logic with some stans/f'loons or what have you is that we have to tolerate the fact that Michael was "sharing his bed" with a boy between the ages of 7 and 14. But yet when we ask them to explain how MJ was innocent, they resort to name calling and insults. It's really tiring at this point but as an ex fan/now realist, my job is to let it be known that what Michael was doing was inappropriate and down right criminal. I refuse to no longer sip from the cup of an over the hill fan base that hasn't come face to face with reality since being fans of Michael Jackson's persona (music fans of his are a different story though they sometimes defend his off stage activities too). Can't even accept that their hero was the "lowlife scum" they claim the realists are. Funny.
Amen.

And look at what I WANT YOU BACK MICHAEL posted. The case is rested.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#11 Feb 3, 2014
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, since you mentioned Woody Allen, you definitely should take a look at some of the comments that people have posted in response to the renewed claim that he allegedly molested his daughter.
Many have noted the lack of any actual evidence, medical and otherwise, and that no one went to the police. Many people are quite capable of understanding that merely making an accusation isn't enough to make it true.
I suggest you take a look at your own bias when it comes to MJ. See how you reduce the opposition to nothing more than a fan-based stereotype. There's quite a lot of solid facts and arguments in favor of his innocence.
According to Dr. Stan Katz, children over seven rarely ever lie. A child doesn't have to be penetrated to be sexually abused. As a result, there may not be physical evidence on the child. After reading Dylan's tragic and poignant open letter, I believe her. I find it horrifying people rally around the rich and famous when they commit atrocities against children.

You seem to have too much of a personal stake in all of this.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#12 Feb 3, 2014
Correction: Children over the age of five rarely lie.
persephone

Mountain View, CA

#13 Feb 3, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Dr. Stan Katz, children over seven rarely ever lie. A child doesn't have to be penetrated to be sexually abused. As a result, there may not be physical evidence on the child. After reading Dylan's tragic and poignant open letter, I believe her. I find it horrifying people rally around the rich and famous when they commit atrocities against children.
You seem to have too much of a personal stake in all of this.
No, it's really that you just can't handle it when people disagree with you. Therefore, the only thing you can do is make accusatory, slanderous accusations against the opposition.

As far as children rarely lying, just what do you think the whole McMartin pre-school fiasco was all about? Those very young children weren't exactly lying, but rather manipulated by the so-called 'experts'--those very same 'experts' you seem to think can do no wrong.
persephone

Mountain View, CA

#14 Feb 3, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
Correction: Children over the age of five rarely lie.
Note the use of the word 'rarely'--which means that even you must admit that it does happen.
Juggs Judy

AOL

#16 Feb 3, 2014
MICHAEL I WANT YOU BACK wrote:
You are all stupid Idiots.Michael is Innocent you fools. Your the clowns who turned your back on him.its your loss.and our gain.I am not listening to your lies.I dont care what you say.I know Michael is Innocent.I know how I feel about him.it makes all you haters the lowlifes.you shouldnt make Judgements on anybody.the mans no longer with us.I know I cant Imagian life without him for one moment.you haters really have no idea what you are talking about.you all really need to live in the real world.and except it for what it is.when that persons telling the truth! I am so fed up with Michael being badly attacked for things he never did.he never had a childhood.and just living his childhood again.he was child at heart.he was peter pan you fool..I dont care what people state because they are Lying.instead of listening to gossip and lies.for greed hear the truth!
I believe in every word MJ said.I knew truly what was in his heart.I trust in him,Michael is the safest hands anybody could be in.I will always be defending him.because I Love him.and believe in him Michael Jackson will forever be an angel
SO LEAVE THE MAN ALONE
Denying a crime multiple times does not mean the person is innocent. In Jackson's case, and after the first allegation, he had the simple responsibility of not inviting boys into his bed, but the fact that he continued only supports he was a predatory pedophile who couldn't stop. He always targeted vulnerable boys often from broken homes, including a recovering cancer patient. The parents of those boys may have been foolish in giving Jackson the opportunity to spend alone time with their children but paedophiles are very clever and cunning and don't just groom the child, but also the parents.

“at yet more f'loonspin”

Since: Aug 11

I live far away from f'loons

#17 Feb 3, 2014
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Note the use of the word 'rarely'--which means that even you must admit that it does happen.
According to Dr. Katz, one of the signs children lie is repeating word-for-word what happened. It was his testimony that removed all doubt about whether or not Michael molested Gavin.

Dr. Katz gave quite an explanation. You might want to read his testimony. It begins on page 111.

http://www.mjfacts.info/transcripts/Court_Tra...
You wish

Avon, CT

#20 Feb 3, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
According to Dr. Katz, one of the signs children lie is repeating word-for-word what happened. It was his testimony that removed all doubt about whether or not Michael molested Gavin.
Dr. Katz gave quite an explanation. You might want to read his testimony. It begins on page 111.
http://www.mjfacts.info/transcripts/Court_Tra...
Thank you Len
Page 260
" very few older children lie about molestation"
" very few lie with a non family member"

The lies are from 4 year old and younger usually with divorce/ custody cases.
This makes perfect sense !

Mj was a pediphile !,,,
You wish

Avon, CT

#21 Feb 3, 2014
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Note the use of the word 'rarely'--which means that even you must admit that it does happen.
Outside the family. Where the perpetrator
21 is not a member of the family.
22 Q. What is your understanding about the
23 percentage of false allegations in those types of
24 cases involving older children?
25 A. My experience, my clinical experience, my
26 collegial experience, is that there’s very, very few 27 false allegations made with alleged perpetrators

involving specifically allegations of
2 sexual abuse involving boys, adolescent boys, what 3 are the difficulties involved in making a false
4 allegation --
5 A. Well --
6 Q.-- or sustaining it?
7 A. A pre-adolescent or adolescent boy is
8 hypersensitive about his sexuality. It would be
9 extremely unusual for a child who’s developmentally 10 at a stage where he’s trying to figure out who he 11 is, and to actually become a man, to make an
12 allegation which would suggest that he’s had
13 inappropriate sexual relationships with a male. It 14 would be extremely rare because these children are 15 so protective and so guilt-ridden

Anyone with logic and intelligence would believe a child expert over floors any day .
Sorry
You wish

Avon, CT

#22 Feb 3, 2014
persephone wrote:
<quoted text> Actually, since you mentioned Woody Allen, you definitely should take a look at some of the comments that people have posted in response to the renewed claim that he allegedly molested his daughter.
Many have noted the lack of any actual evidence, medical and otherwise, and that no one went to the police. Many people are quite capable of understanding that merely making an accusation isn't enough to make it true.
I suggest you take a look at your own bias when it comes to MJ. See how you reduce the opposition to nothing more than a fan-based stereotype. There's quite a lot of solid facts and arguments in favor of his innocence.
fathers, and they have been recanted fairly quickly 2 after investigations began.
3 Q. Are there difficulties in a child
4 maintaining false allegations, from a practical
5 standpoint?
6 A. In my experience, a child who is going to
7 lie and fabricate cannot be consistent and hold that 8 very long, because children are impulsive, they
9 can’t delay gratification. You can’t tell a child,
10 “Years from now, if you lie, something good will
11 happen.” Children are very much living in the now.
12 They don’t maintain consistent allegations when they
13 start feeling as if the disadvantages of making
14 those allegations seriously outweigh any advantages.
15 MR. ZONEN: No further questions.

Dworin:“Everybody who listened to this child,‘cause he’s not only interviewed by my officers, he was interviewed by Department of Children and Family Services, he was interviewed by the district attorney’s office at a later date, we were all satisfied he was a very credible witness.”
Mankiewicz:“You’ve been at this a long time. You no doubt have interviewed children whose stories were rehearsed or coached for one reason or another.”
Dworin:“That’s correct. In this instance, we didn’t feel that it was coached. We felt that the child was telling us the truth.”
Police did know the victim’s family had approached Jackson, looking for a financial settlement. But Dworin says the boy’s story stood up under questioning, and immediately all of Jackson’s homes were searched for evidence, including the singer’s Neverland ranch. And for the first time time, an investigating officer is talking on the record about what he found.

Mj was a pedophile. No liar especially a child,can fool so many .

Mj was the King Of Pedophiles

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#23 Feb 3, 2014
You wish wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why I believe mj was guilty . A seasoned expert detective thought he was in addition the match and evidence found. I don't know anyone who has those books. Why do floors dismiss the match ? It's obvious mj was a pedophile .
"Because they're jealous haters who can't let a dude sleep with little Timmy." lol Least that's what these people think. Everyone has to be so innocent about MJ despite the fact he drunk a lot, was a cursing sailor (according to Lisa Marie, who also said he drunk a lot of beer, and cursed a bit on his HIStory album), bribed parents with tears (and money) to let him sleep with their sons, gave away millions of money to the kids' parents, who, according to Brett Ratner, threw water balloons at homeless people and threw stuff at the animals in his care, and that's just half of it.

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#24 Feb 3, 2014
Len is Disgusted wrote:
<quoted text>
Amen.
And look at what I WANT YOU BACK MICHAEL posted. The case is rested.
Yup. Proving my and your and you wish's and Len's and Octopus' points. No clear conversation so they go automatically into attack mode because "how dare they attack the King of Pop!" Lol

Since: Jun 13

Raleigh, NC

#25 Feb 3, 2014
^ Lol I don't know why I wrote your name when I was quoting you. :)

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#26 Feb 3, 2014
Did ya make a thread bout yourself Badman ?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Michael Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
My Gay Fantasy About Michael Jackson King of Po... (Apr '10) Oct 9 You are an idiot 48
News Michael Jackson - Michael Jackson Religious Por... (Jun '12) Oct 9 Spotted Wee 96
MJ fans and haters Oct 4 Space ace 16
News Michael Jackson's 'Scream' Is The Perfect Hallo... Oct 3 fat tired old and... 1
News NFL's embrace of Timberlake a racist, sexist joke Oct 1 Sharon 1
News 'The Voice' Top Six Recap: Unexpected Songs Ste... (May '15) Sep 26 Titan 3
News Dick Polman: An Ignorant America Endangers Demo... Sep 18 Trump is a joke 2
More from around the web