View Full Version : THREADS MERGED - OT: A question for all you Michael Jackson fans.......
Shadow Dancer
03-12-03, 14:40
If somehow evidence was presented that MJ did molest children(or a child) in the past and he was convicted, would you continue to hear his music?
I was thinking about this while listening to smooth criminal the other day. That song>u. But anyways, I would feel uncomfortable listening to and enjoying the music of a child molester.
How do you feel?
i'm not an MJ fan but good music is good music regardless.
I agree . . . if the music or art or whatever someone does is good . . . I'll still listen to it/look at it or whatever . . . what people do behind closed doors is none of my buisness ... I'm not saying that I'm saying if the evidence is found that I'm okay with it . .I"m just saying that it'stheir life and they make their own choices and should be prepared for the consquences of their actions . . .
and just cause they commited a crime doesn' automatically make their music sound go from cd quality to telephone quality :p
Dade Murphey
03-12-03, 14:49
you gotta think man...there's alot of fuckin weird musician/actors/famous people out there...and people still support them...shit I grew up with some of his best music...though I barely listen to him today, when I hear one of his old songs I used to love I'll still listen to it...hell, I already thought the dude was a weird fucker...haha
I dont like his music except for the song smooth criminal,
mostly because of the lyrics :D And well, the song wont change
just because the artist has done something, just look a great
book or whatever could still be written by someone you despise.
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 14:57
there arent many MJ tracks i like - but no matter what i will like the songs i like
yea Dade Murphey
it's not like there are really any TRUE role models anyhow . . where alot of actors/musicians and what not can be involved in heavy drinking(followed by heavy driving >_< ) . .. major drugs .. . sex offenders ... assult .. and what not . . I'm not saying child molesting is good . .but I think all of those things are JUST as bad . . . alot of people might not think it cause it's all too common now a days .. and that's just sad
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 15:01
Originally posted by amfest
yea Dade Murphey
it's not like there are really any TRUE role models anyhow . . where alot of actors/musicians and what not can be involved in heavy drinking(followed by heavy driving >_< ) . .. major drugs .. . sex offenders ... assult .. and what not . . I'm not saying child molesting is good . .but I think all of those things are JUST as bad . . . alot of people might not think it cause it's all too common now a days .. and that's just sad
you think drugs are as bad as child molesting? O_o
Shadow Dancer
03-12-03, 15:04
Originally posted by Jesterthegreat
you think drugs are as bad as child molesting? O_o
I know, I was about to respond with the same question. lol
Dade Murphey
03-12-03, 15:04
Oh lord jester...don't start that sort of topic man...just don't...
how about that Billie Jean eh...eh...aw hell...:eek:
actually yes I think drugs are bad . .. never done them myself . . and don't see a need to . . . but keep it on topic plz and not on what I think is right and wrong :p
Shadow Dancer
03-12-03, 15:08
Originally posted by amfest
actually yes I think drugs are bad . .. never done them myself . . and don't see a need to . . . but keep it on topic plz and not on what I think is right and wrong :p
"drugs are bad", and "drugs are as bad as child molestation" are 2 different worlds. Which one did you mean?
:p
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 15:09
lol ok i think that wouldnt be a good discussion. i will quickly say that the simple fact that drugs mess you up and the other thing messed others up seems like one is worse... but lets stay on topic before we get locked :p
Dade Murphey
03-12-03, 15:12
man...I really doubt a game forum probably isn't the best place for talking about someone's moral objection priorities man...hahah...so again...how about Beat It...that was a decent song :p Maybe something from the jackson 5 days?
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 15:14
Billie Jean > you all
OMFG nobody thinks thriller was a killer tune. shame on you all.:p
Shadow Dancer
03-12-03, 15:15
Sorry but Smooth Criminal>sex
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 15:16
while thriller is indeed a good song... i wouldnt say its his best IMHO
Billie Jean > Smooth Criminal > Thriller > j00
:p
Dade Murphey
03-12-03, 15:17
Originally posted by enablerbr
OMFG nobody thinks thriller was a killer tune. shame on you all.:p
Ahh!! thriller!! I was trying to think of that song...I kept seeing the video in my head but couldn't think of the name...hahah...too tired :p
Eat It was a good song . .. errr n/m :p
Originally posted by amfest
Eat It was a good song . .. errr n/m :p
just for that. name the artist without looking it up on a searcxh engine. :p
I would never. ever. listen to music, or enjoy music that was created by the same sick mind who was capable of taking the innocence away from a child.
I don't care if it's the best music in the world, I would not listen to someone who could abuse a child.
(PS. This is in regards to anyone who would/has ever hurt a child - I am a parent, perhaps that makes a difference, and I've also lived through being an abused child myself so maybe that is why I am so vehement.)
just for that. name the artist without looking it up on a searcxh engine.
it was Wierd Al Yankovich and errr I misspelled his last name :D I'm 27 I remember when Mtv First came out on tv . .. and used to actually *gasp* play music videos . .lol
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 15:25
hmm... torn between good music and the fact that music is a way to express his feelings O_o
ReefSmoker
03-12-03, 15:29
Originally posted by Shadow Dancer
If somehow evidence was presented that MJ did molest children(or a child) in the past and he was convicted, would you continue to hear his music?
I was thinking about this while listening to smooth criminal the other day. That song>u. But anyways, I would feel uncomfortable listening to and enjoying the music of a child molester.
How do you feel?
If it's proved that he did indeed molest children then I would never buy any of his music again.
Remember folks, don't judge him until you have the facts.
Last time round Jordy Chandler's father had asked Mr Jackson for 12 million dollars to make a film and Mr Jackson refused. Two weeks later the allegations came out. At the end of it all, how much was the out of court settlement for ? Yup, 12 million dollars. This was all reported in the newspapers at the time, but didn't receive the attention it was due. Even came up in court and was on the court transcripts. Guess some folk will say and believe whatever pops into their heads :rolleyes:
Take care all,
ReefSmoker
I would never. ever. listen to music, or enjoy music that was created by the same sick mind who was capable of taking the innocence away from a child.
Okay let's get away from the music thing . . . and use a different example .. it's WHAT IF time!!
What if there was a plague that hit the world and everyone was infected . . you and your loved ones were dying but . . a cure has been discovered .. .but what if the person who created the cure was a child molestor . . rapist . .. or what not .. would you keep your same stance and die and maybe keep your loved ones from recieving the cure made by a sick mind?
Jesterthegreat
03-12-03, 15:31
she would ask doctor junkie to combine some... "chemicals" to make a cure (or something enjoyable anyway) :p
lol j/k
If that desease happened I would get that killer drug MJS was talking about that would blow our mind
But re MJ I like some of his music but hey I can live without it. I think that guy has problems but the latest accusation sounds a bit fake to me
I think after getting away with one accusation it is rather silly to carry on having 'innocent' slumber parties or whatever with kids but being stupid and careless is not the same as being a filthy child molester
should it be proven though i will live without his music
I think people have come to distinguish Michael Jackson as two different people. One who has made some amazing music, and another as someone who leads a strange life with many complications.
I'm not sure if I would listen to anything by him if hard evidence was brought up, but for now I'm cool.
ghandisfury
03-12-03, 21:23
Originally posted by Danae
I would never. ever. listen to music, or enjoy music that was created by the same sick mind who was capable of taking the innocence away from a child.
I don't care if it's the best music in the world, I would not listen to someone who could abuse a child.
(PS. This is in regards to anyone who would/has ever hurt a child - I am a parent, perhaps that makes a difference, and I've also lived through being an abused child myself so maybe that is why I am so vehement.)
Exactly....I love some of the songs that MJ sings, but I could not listen to them without thinking of my daughter.....I think it adds a new reality when you have a child that you're slated to love, cherish, PROTECT.
However, the above statement is what leads me to beleive that the parents/child is lying. In MJ's last law suit they settled out of court for an "undisclosed" (I'm sure in the millions) amount of money. If my daughter was ever molested/harmed by ANYBODY money would be the very last thing on my mind. No amount of money could entice me to settle out of court......that person would be procecuted fully, and hopefully spend the majority of his/her life in jail. When they settled, I knew that one of two things had happend. #1, they lied thier asses off. #2 they are shit for parents.
On a lighter note......any dates for DoY yet?:D *runs for the door*
I am not really an MJ fan but I would continue to listen to his music. No one is perfect, every one does wrong. To think that I am some how a better person than MJ because of what he did would be wrong on my part.
Granted, I can understand where statements made by Danae are Ghandi are coming from and I can appreciate them. I wouldn't try to argue my point to them or anything and if for example one of them was in my car when an MJ song came in over the radio then I would turn it out of respect to them.
But like I said, if I wanted to only listen to music created by pure or perfect people, then I guess I'm stuck not listening to any music at all.
I'm relucant to even believe MJ did it. I think he has a warped view of the adult/child relationship but that doesn't mean he got a kid drugged up and raped him. I am prone to think its just another money grubbing faimily. If they settle this lawsuit financially then I will be highly pissed at that family. And don't get me wrong, if he did do it then his ass belongs in jail.
I'm with Danae on this one. Not that I ever listened to his music before though.
Also when someone says "Drugs are bad" I'm assuming that they are talking about Alchol and Caffine as well because they are both drugs. A fact which alot of people ignore. So you've "never done drugs", what does that mean you've never drunk any sort of acohol, coffee or tea?
What really pisses me off is when people start saying things like "Drugs are bad" and "All people who use drugs are low lives", things like that. Then they go out and get pissed. How the fuck is that any different from getting stoned hmmm....?
Good to see you all are not jumping MJ like we were back in the year of 1800 hunting down witches to burn them alive based on accusations by evil children.
I saw a similar thread on another forum, a forum for professional musicians. They jumped him all toghether, and I swear if they met him i.r.l. they would probably kill him at once. They blindly follow the holy word of the TV, radio and internet (and word of mouth, of course).
I am not a dedicated MJ fan, got a couple of his CD's. But the way media has been treating him since he was a child, destroyed his life a long time ago. And some people still don't understand that he seems to be a child again, trying to re-live what should have been happy hears of growing up with friends the same age.
I am just sick and tired of the witch hunt, and wish him good luck, guilty or not guilty. He needs help either way.
okay you got me on that one heh . . I don't drink alcohol anymore though . . . not for many years now . . as for coffee .. the only time i've drank that was when I would sleep over at this columbian girl's house and she would make me breakfast in bed :D though that was in my teenage years otherwise I didn't drink coffee .. and haven't since . .. now for tea . . okay you really got me there .. I drink Iced tea or green tea from time to time :p
oh yeah and even when I did drink I never got plastered . . .
Originally posted by Judge
Also when someone says "Drugs are bad" I'm assuming that they are talking about Alchol and Caffine as well because they are both drugs. A fact which alot of people ignore. So you've "never done drugs", what does that mean you've never drunk any sort of acohol, coffee or tea?
What really pisses me off is when people start saying things like "Drugs are bad" and "All people who use drugs are low lives", things like that. Then they go out and get pissed. How the fuck is that any different from getting stoned hmmm....? The difference being that the drugs being reffered to are illegal. Doing some thing that can get you thrown in jail is not the same as having a mocha grande at Starbucks. Example, would I ever smoke marijuana where its illegal? No. If I visitied some where smoking it was legal would I try it? Probably yes.
And even then there is a rather large different between something like alchohol and cocaine. The difference between some one who just took a hit of acid and some one who has had one too many beers is just a tad bit different. The drugs that are illegal are illegal for a reason. ;)
shodanjr_gr
03-12-03, 22:04
Originally posted by Judge
I'm with Danae on this one. Not that I ever listened to his music before though.
Also when someone says "Drugs are bad" I'm assuming that they are talking about Alchol and Caffine as well because they are both drugs. A fact which alot of people ignore. So you've "never done drugs", what does that mean you've never drunk any sort of acohol, coffee or tea?
What really pisses me off is when people start saying things like "Drugs are bad" and "All people who use drugs are low lives", things like that. Then they go out and get pissed. How the fuck is that any different from getting stoned hmmm....?
This is not a correct way of thinking. You are kind of right with alcohol (since mass consumption can lead to loss of selfcontrol and huge consumption can lead to poisoning and even death) but wtf does caffeine have to do with this?
Caffeine can be addictive BUT ive never seen anyone rob or kill a person to get his caffeine dose. On the contrary i myself have been mugged by a drug addict. Drugs are very bad. Alcohol is bad. Caffeine is OK.
And before u say anything, no im not a caffeine junkie or an alcohol junkie. I drink coffee like once or twice a week and i drink alcohol like 5 times a year.
In other news, even though i hate MJ (just cause of his looks) even if i loved him i would never listen to the music of a man that hurt anyone (the fact that he "could" have hurt a child makes my feelings about him even harder). People like this should be the sole reason death penalty exists in countries...
Originally posted by Jest
The difference being that the drugs being reffered to are illegalThe drugs that are illegal are illegal for a reason. ;)
Why is Cannabis illegal? It does less bodily harm to you than alcohol does and it isn't a depressant like Alcohol is.
This is not a correct way of thinking. You are kind of right with alcohol (since mass consumption can lead to loss of selfcontrol and huge consumption can lead to poisoning and even death) but wtf does caffeine have to do with this?
I was using it as an example that people forget certain things are drugs.
Caffeine can be addictive BUT ive never seen anyone rob or kill a person to get his caffeine dose. On the contrary i myself have been mugged by a drug addict. Drugs are very bad. Alcohol is bad. Caffeine is OK. And before u say anything, no im not a caffeine junkie or an alcohol junkie. I drink coffee like once or twice a week and i drink alcohol like 5 times a year.
You make the generalisation again, the point is that not all drugs are bad. That is why I used caffine as an example, its not a very "bad" drug. If you want to say that drugs are bad then why do we take them as medicine? Every type of medicine is technically a drug.
I'm very sorry that you were mugged but saying he was a drug addict then commenting that drugs are bad tarnishes every type of drug with the same brush. Of course cocaine and herion are worse than caffine, thats exactly the point I'm making, that there are varying degrees of drugs and that not all are bad. Some, however, are.
Originally posted by Danae
I would never. ever. listen to music, or enjoy music that was created by the same sick mind who was capable of taking the innocence away from a child.
I don't care if it's the best music in the world, I would not listen to someone who could abuse a child.
Does this also apply to murderes and rapists?
How about racists or hatemongers?
What crimes does your "personal ban" include or exclude?
How sure are you about your standards?
Originally posted by Judge
Why is Cannabis illegal? It does less bodily harm to you than alcohol does and it isn't a depressant like Alcohol is.
I'm not arguing that it SHOULD be illegal, I'm arguing that it IS illegal. If I am caught smoking marijuana by a cop and he decides to bring me in, I don't think he will be convinced by my argument that alchohol is worse of a drug than marijuana is.
I agree you that some people can be hypocritical and quick to judge some one else without realizing that they themselves may take legal drugs excessively. Its possible to abuse some thing legal just as easy as it is to abuse something illegal, but that still doesn't rationalize taking an illegal drug. :)
I liked his music alot when I was younger *shudder*, but after awhile the sound no longer appealed.
I don't think his actions should effect a persons view of his music; because in most cases the music is nothing more than bullshit spewed and lined up with a pretty tune.
I can understand people not wanting to financially support a convincted (insert criminal title), but that's where peer to peer hookups come into play.
;)
Dade Murphey
04-12-03, 00:45
Here...let me make a point about the drug arguement thing:
how many times have you heard of some dude suckin cock for a grande mocha late or a beer? drugs are bad k....haha
and if what I had been told is true...a large reason marijuana is illegal in the US is because of DuPont...he owned a large company that supplied paper...and they were starting to find out how good hemp would be inplace of wood...well about this time there's a couple that's in this nasty car accident and they find a sack in the car...DuPont luckily for him owns a newspaper as well...and amps up this story a bit and runs it in his paper for about a month...to show the people the "evils" of marijuana...not long after the US outlawed marijuana use
but like I'm saying this might not be entirely true...could just be part of the bigger story or it might be entirely wrong...
ghandisfury
04-12-03, 01:47
Originally posted by Chaplin
Does this also apply to murderes and rapists?
For the life of me I can't think of any singers that have been accused of raping or murdering anybody......If you can't point one out I will stop listening to thier music.
Originally posted by Chaplin
How about racists or hatemongers?
You mean like 99% of the rap out there? No, I don't listen to that either.
Originally posted by Chaplin
What crimes does your "personal ban" include or exclude?
Any crime that is willfully hurtfull to other persons is a crime that I cannot excuse, and with my small influence in the world I will try to make it known that (insert famous person here) is guilty of (insert horrible crime here), and not to purchase products from anything affiliated with said person.
Originally posted by Chaplin
How sure are you about your standards?
Speeking for me....I'm quite certain of my standards.
Keeping to the point, I'm not sure whether or not MJ did infact commit any crime.....but he is convicted by a jury of his peers, I will certainly boycott his music.;)
Shadow Dancer
04-12-03, 01:52
Originally posted by ghandisfury
For the life of me I can't think of any singers that have been accused of raping or murdering anybody......If you can't point one out I will stop listening to thier music.
hip hop artist Mystikal :p
http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1456170/07192002/mystikal.jhtml
Although he's not a "singer".
ghandisfury
04-12-03, 01:58
Originally posted by Shadow Dancer
hip hop artist Mystikal :p
http://www.vh1.com/artists/news/1456170/07192002/mystikal.jhtml
Although he's not a "singer".
Geee....imagine that, a rapper accused of commiting a crime undoubtedly rehearsed in his (dare I call it music?)...*ehem*
Originally posted by Chaplin
Does this also apply to murderes and rapists?
How about racists or hatemongers?
What crimes does your "personal ban" include or exclude?
How sure are you about your standards?
I believe hurting a child is worse than rape or murder, or any other crime, because the child has to leave with the pain, shame, fear, and other assorted dysfunctions that result from it. As I said before, I say this from experience.
Having said that, I would never listen to music made by a rapist, murderer, arsenest, terrorist, etc etc either.
As far as drugs go, I don't do them, I don't drink, and I don't use caffine or sugar either :p But I don't really care if the artists I listen to have drug problems.
As far as drugs go, I don't do them
Danae you're missing out.
:p
Originally posted by Danae
Having said that, I would never listen to music made by a rapist, murderer, arsenest, terrorist, etc etc either.
I understand that especially the topic of child abuse triggers lots of emotions for people...
So I hope no one hates me when i tell where i'm coming from, a very theoretical point of view but this really occupies me for quite some time now:
It's „judging art by judging the artist“
If we would find out that Van Gogh killed his wife, Mozart was an anti-semitic hatemonger and Da Vinci raped his housemaid... would their work be less groundbreaking astonishing and phenomenal?
It would ruin their reputation but would not make their work of art less valuable.
This is as humans have „aesthetics“ (now it's getting tricky for a non-natural speaker of the english language), majorly the sense for beauty... not to be confused with personal taste though. For example, certain proportions in paintings are always considered beautiful by western europeans. Recognising the aesthetic value of an artwork beyond the barriers of personal taste is the key to enjoying art to its fullest. Take Techno music: Many hate it for its repetitivity but... being repetitive is also one of many aesthetic qualities (mantras anyone?). This does not mean one has to like everything. Its about judging the quality of art and what standards apply. Leni Riefenstahl may have been a ************ but her movies are considered highest art nonetheless...
If art is judged by moral standards it is just that, a manifestation of a moral standard, projected on a work of art, isolated from aesthetic perception. What happens if art is judged by political instead standards can be seen during the facist dictatorship in the third reich, where artists were even killed for producing the „wrong“ („entartete“) art.
No personal attack is intended by this, hell no. Just some thoughts that go through my mind and i felt the urge to write them down...
Shadow Dancer
04-12-03, 10:52
Chaplin those works would no doubt still be a work of art. If MJ is convicted, his music will still be some of the greatest IMO. I'm not judging the art by judging the artist because I still recognise it's a great achievement. However I will feel "uncomfortable" continuing to enjoy their achievements.
What i'm trying to say is.....
Thinking that his music is bad if he's convicted, and thinking it's good but not listening to it if he's convicted, are 2 different things.
IMO. :angel:
Originally posted by Chaplin
I understand that especially the topic of child abuse triggers lots of emotions for people...
So I hope no one hates me when i tell where i'm coming from, a very theoretical point of view but this really occupies me for quite some time now:
It's „judging art by judging the artist“
If we would find out that Van Gogh killed his wife, Mozart was an anti-semitic hatemonger and Da Vinci raped his housemaid... would their work be less groundbreaking astonishing and phenomenal?
It would ruin their reputation but would not make their work of art less valuable.
This is as humans have „aesthetics“ (now it's getting tricky for a non-natural speaker of the english language), majorly the sense for beauty... not to be confused with personal taste though. For example, certain proportions in paintings are always considered beautiful by western europeans. Recognising the aesthetic value of an artwork beyond the barriers of personal taste is the key to enjoying art to its fullest. Take Techno music: Many hate it for its repetitivity but... being repetitive is also one of many aesthetic qualities (mantras anyone?). This does not mean one has to like everything. Its about judging the quality of art and what standards apply. Leni Riefenstahl may have been a ************ but her movies are considered highest art nonetheless...
If art is judged by moral standards it is just that, a manifestation of a moral standard, projected on a work of art, isolated from aesthetic perception. What happens if art is judged by political instead standards can be seen during the facist dictatorship in the third reich, where artists were even killed for producing the „wrong“ („entartete“) art.
No personal attack is intended by this, hell no. Just some thoughts that go through my mind and i felt the urge to write them down...
I agree.
A great song is a great song regardless of whether or not the artist who sang or wrote the song is a piece of shit.
If Michael is found to be guilty, it will not make me go out and burn the CD's of his that I own or make me appreciate the music that he has created any less. It will only affect my opinion of him as a, well, whatever he is. :D
Anyway, I don't really think that he is guilty. I think that this is just some pathetic attempt by some family to make some quick money at the expense of a rich and easy target (though he doesn't do anything to avoid the situation).
To me, the question is a lot like Milli Vanilli. A local radio station here in Tampa, many, many years ago held a bon fire outside their radio station offices inviting people to come burn their Milli Vanilli CD's just because it was found out that the front men did not actually sing the songs. Who cares? It doesn't change the fact that some of the songs, at the time anyway, were actually pretty good.
In summary, art is art. Appreciate it for what it is or don't. Just don't be so closed minded that you don't even give it a chance just because you don't like who created it.
this makes me think of when pee wee herman lost his children's show :lol:
Originally posted by amfest
this makes me think of when pee wee herman lost his children's show :lol:
Yeah, and he hasn't done much of anything since then either. IIRC, he played 'The Spleen' in Mystery Men, but that's about it.
MJ's Moonwalk > PWH's Tequila dance anyday :D
errr .. he was in buffy the vampire slayer movie wasn't he and that was after that incident .. . and Mitilda movie . . . I believe he has also shown in a few other movies here and there . .just not as a main character .. .
I never liked the man or his music so no change for me.
I agree with what Shadow is saying. Even if it does not change the music in any way, I think if he was really proven guilty it would make me feel uncomfortable listening to his voice.
If any great artist was proven to have done something that I would absolutely detest, I would not use his 'art' because I would not be able to enjoy it as I will associate it with the person and his deeds and it will not bring me enjoyment
Originally posted by jernau
I never liked the man or his music so no change for me.
WHAT part of "A question for all you Michael Jackson fans" did you not understand?
Vampire222
04-12-03, 17:27
Screw mj, oh no hed like that, id punch him on the nose, if he had one
Hey guys how about computer games? I know its a little off-topic.
Is it right to sit and play desert combat while americans and irakis are being shot to pieces down in irak? I know there isnt a direct line between the makers of DC and the casualties of the war in Irak (like there would be in the MJ case,if it is true), but when I saw pictures of dead soldiers and burnt out tanks(not to mention when I remember the pictures from the first gulf war where burnt out corpses littered the ground around destroyed tanks) I got a little sour taste in my mouth.
Maybe im little off here, what do you think?
rubaduckythug
04-12-03, 17:48
I dont really listen to MJ but sure i still listen to some of his old songs some times, but if he was convicted i dont think i could listen to smooth criminal ever again ;) and somone said somthing about there songs being a expression of there emotions or wut ever, lets jsut hope if he is convicted or guilty he dosnt wright a song titled smooth molest/..... ermm criminal, anyways his career is pretty much F'd :( shitty how it happens
EDIT: yea i know wut ya talking about, somtimes i feel bad about playing war type games with all that is going on :(
Matthew.v.smith
04-12-03, 18:20
It seems everyone is out to get michael Jackson because he has lots of money and likes children that are less fortunate to come to his house and enjoy themselfs.....it gives the press, the children who go to stay there, and many others the perfect oppertunity to make accusations and if they can manage to make the children lie also.
then you've got yourself a case in the courts.
Since this has happened many times before and many times MJ has been proved innocent i expect nothing will change yet again.
IMO Innocent until proven guilty.... but thats just imo.
I do hate people who pick on MJ tho.
he had a pretty bad upbringing and things just keep getting worse and worse....
some people wont be happy until he is nothing more than bankrupt and on the street.
And all i can say to that is give people a chance.
Matty.
:angel:
And I wouldent feel comfortable listening to "any" artists music if they had done something like this but im not going any further than that.
Matthew.v.smith
04-12-03, 18:22
Michael jackson was my favourite singer when i was younger and has always been damn good at what he does!!
Originally posted by Matthew.v.smith
It seems everyone is out to get michael Jackson because he has lots of money
i thourght he was serverly in debto_O
and do u guys include jackson 5 stuff in this aswell?
cos they pwn =)
nehow ill still listen to his stuff...... cant beat bille jean, thriller smoth criminal, bad etc...
Ch0
Originally posted by Sundiver
WHAT part of "A question for all you Michael Jackson fans" did you not understand?
What part of :p do you not understand?
Looking at his recent sales figures I'd say he has no fans anymore.
•Super|\|ova•
05-12-03, 02:45
The life of an artist isn't what's important. It's the art. As for example; Lane Staley is one of my idols as a singers... the 2nd best singer I know there has ever lived but I really don't like the way he lived his life. At least like the last half of it.
The song of any band is a product. Now why would you stop buying Snickers chocolate bars if you heard that the Vice President of the company beat the shit out of his wife just because he was too drunk!?
hehe, check out the other reconmendations on the site.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/music/B0000DJE9R/advice/103-7682625-0738267
Poor Jacko :(
Jesterthegreat
05-12-03, 12:06
oh dear... O_o
well at least they havent abused the "Customers interested in Michael Jackson may also be interested in:" area O_o
Shadow Dancer
05-12-03, 12:07
Ugh.
Guilty till proven innocent. :(
Notice there's only one or two recommendations for each one. Looks like one person did them all if you ask me.
:lol:
innocent my ass.
Actually it reminds me of 'dysfunctional family circus'. After it got shut down the members would troll the books on amazon. Very funny to read.
Shadow Dancer
05-12-03, 12:57
You think he's guilty Archeus?
Just curious.....
ReefSmoker
05-12-03, 13:01
Originally posted by jernau
What part of :p do you not understand?
Looking at his recent sales figures I'd say he has no fans anymore.
ROFL dunno what sales figures you've been looking at but after his interview with Martin Bashir sales for all his albums increased by 1400% overall !
I'm sure the most recent sales figures are low because of these new allegations, as I've already said in this thread if he's proven guilty I will no longer support the guy by buying his music. Thing is, doesn't matter if he's guilty or not, Billie Jean is an awesome song and I won't stop listening to classic tracks because of the allegations.
TBH some people in this thread really have pissed me off (not you Jernau, this bit's aimed at other folk) because some of you are saying he's pretty much guilty before he's even been tried. I'm not saying he's innocent, but jeez, some of you are from America, where the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' is commonly attributed to have originated from. Anyhow, I've said my bit, mainly if he is proven guilty, he won't be getting anymore sales from me.
Take care,
ReefSmoker
Syntax-Error
05-12-03, 13:05
i do, however its down to the courts to decide
[TgR]KILLER
05-12-03, 13:14
isn't argueing about that shit not alloud on the forum ?
( damn din't make much sence does it :p )
anyway i don't think anything off it.. i'll see if he's guilty or not when trail is over
Jesterthegreat
05-12-03, 13:17
i think whether this is allowed here or not it is not the kinda thing you make polite discussion about O_o
and i agree - i dunno if he did it. he is clearly a messed up person but i dunno if he did this. iirc he has been accused in the past and found innocent.
Junkie
Gah!
see what you people did, you made my humour thread get merged into a serious talk thread
*mumbles*
ReefSmoker
10-12-03, 02:19
This is for all of you who appeared to be saying that MJS is guilty before he had even been tried. Yes, that goes for those of you who vehemently declared that you'd never buy his music because he's a child molester, or words to imply such an effect.
This evening on the BBC Radio 4 news, it was announced that a document that was originally kept secret by the prosecution has been presented for the case. This document is from the American equivalent of Social Services, and covered an interview with the boy who is alleged to have been molested by Michael Jackson while staying at the pop star's house. The interview covers questioning where the boy was asked repeatedly if he was molested by the pop star, and the boy said that he hadn't every time they rephrased the question. Now it looks like the case will be thrown out of court, because the prosecution withheld this evidence despite knowing about the document's existence all along.
Doesn't this sound like the previous case back in the 90s when Jordy Chandler was interviewed by a private investigator who had been hired, and repeatedly denied being molested or touched in an inappropriate manner ?
This was originally reported on American TV today, and is now rapidly going around every reliable news company around the globe at high speed, it looks like this time round the media moguls are willing to report upon the star's innocence instead of disgracing his name as they tried to do back in the 90s.
Yet again it looks like someone's using an innocent child to try to make a buck or two out of a famous name and disgrace that famous name, only this time there's an official government document from the social services department who interviewed the boy which has the boy stating multiple times that he was not molested or treated in any inappropriate manner.
Oh and further more, Michael Jackson's new album is currently at number 3 in the UK charts, his new single released a week before the allegations came out entered the UK charts at position 5, and is still in the top 40 at position 21 after all the commotion.
I have one thing to say - Michael - You're still the King of Pop !!!
Take care,
Reefie
PS I've yet to buy the new album or single, I didn't even realise they were out until it came on the news today and my partner asked me why I hadn't bought it yet !
EDIT : I will indeed be buying his new album and single having heard this news.
i dont think mj is guilty, but i still listen to r kelly...
Originally posted by ReefSmoker
Yet again it looks like someone's using an innocent child to try to make a buck or two out of a famous name and disgrace that famous name
Don't you just love greed in America? :rolleyes:
I'm allowed to say that, I'm American!
If there were any one thing that would make me ashamed to be an American, it's this type of shit. :mad:
Originally posted by ReefSmoker
Doesn't this sound like the previous case back in the 90s when Jordy Chandler was interviewed by a private investigator who had been hired, and repeatedly denied being molested or touched in an inappropriate manner ?
He hasn't been cleared at all. The memo says he was cleared months ago but the prosecution said that the Judge is already aware of that memo.
Or do you mean about the tape that is supposed to have appeared (heard only by CNN reporter) that says the mother and child cleared him? Neither side have said anything about that tape.
Also bare in mind that the orginal case Jackson was never cleared of the accusations in that. He just settled out of court, something he can't do with the new case due to a new law passed.
ReefSmoker
10-12-03, 16:20
Originally posted by Archeus
He hasn't been cleared at all. The memo says he was cleared months ago but the prosecution said that the Judge is already aware of that memo.
No you're right, he hasn't been cleared - yet. I'm going by what's been reported on news channels thus far, and the point being reported is that because the prosecution withheld this evidence, the case is likely to fall apart. As for the prosecution saying the Judge was already aware of the evidence, of course they're gonna say that - they don't want to loose the case because they concealed the evidence (which is what the news programmes on TV and radio are reporting). Much easier for the prosecution to blame the Judge's forgetfulness instead of loosing the case don't you think ?
If you'd said that the Judge / Jury admitted they'd known about the evidence all along then I might have been inclined to believe you. With what you've said going against everything that's been reported in the last 24 hours, I think you're just bitter that the case may fall apart.
Oh and the CNN tape thingy ? Not heard of it, I guess since most news companies are reputable they don't want to add that into their news bulletins until CNN prove that whatever they've got on tape is fact, not fiction ? Certainly something that has only been heard by one person / organisation isn't worth giving the slightest bit of consideration to. More hot air imo.
Take care,
ReefSmoker
EDIT : As for the original case involving Jordy Chandler, I already explained a few facts in the other MJ thread that was closed because it descended into flames. Namely that Jordy Chandler's real father (not his step father) had asked MJ for 12 million dollars to make a film, and MJ refused. Two weeks later the child molestation allegations came out - not from Jordy Chandler or his mother, but from his original father who had been seperated from the family a few years prior. Jordy's real father didn't even spend time with his kids, yet he was willing to make these allegations come out. He also refused to let his son and ex-wife testify in court, says something doesn't it ? At the end of that fiasco, MJ settled out of court. If you look up the photocopies of the court sessions and the cheque that were published in many newspapers (despite all the secrecy) you'll see that the settlement was for 12 million dollars, and it was the kids real father who got the cash, not the rest of the family. Wow, that's the shortest summary of that old case I've done - there's more facts but that covers the basics.
Originally posted by Archeus
Also bare in mind that the orginal case Jackson was never cleared of the accusations in that. He just settled out of court, something he can't do with the new case due to a new law passed. No, its an old law.
In fact, the original MJ case is what CAUSED the law to be created. Talk about irony. :)
The problem was that MJ was up for a civil and criminal suit. MJ settled the civil suit in an out of court settlement, and then afterwards the accuser simply refused to cooperate anymore in the criminal suit, so it had to be dropped.
The law prevents people from doing that any more.
Originally posted by ReefSmoker
As for the prosecution saying the Judge was already aware of the evidence, of course they're gonna say that - they don't want to loose the case because they concealed the evidence (which is what the news programmes on TV and radio are reporting). Much easier for the prosecution to blame the Judge's forgetfulness instead of loosing the case don't you think ?
Blaming stuff on the judge is the quickest way to get the judge to pissed off. All reports I have seen said that the Judge already knows about that report, only voice of America seems to put the spin that he has been cleared.
If you'd said that the Judge / Jury admitted they'd known about the evidence all along then I might have been inclined to believe you.
At this stage a jury would not of been picked yet I would of thought.
Oh and the CNN tape thingy ? Not heard of it,
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/11/27/jackson.case/
not from Jordy Chandler or his mother, but from his original father who had been seperated from the family a few years prior.
thesmokinggun.com has the actual statement from the kid. Certainly looked legit enough. Also statements from security guards who witnessed other stuff. Also if he was innocent why bother settling? He could of just dragged them through the courts.
Personally when I saw his hidden bed room with two way mirrors in the kids play room he started to sound a bit suspect (and this was long before the first court case).
BlackPrince
10-12-03, 22:54
Reef, you said his album sales are up 1400%?
I'm sure thats possible when the sales from his last album were so low he attempted to sue Sony saying they didn't promote his work because he "was black". Michael Jackson had the balls to try to play the race card. Anyways, whats 1400% of 5 anyway?
Whether or not he's innocent, or found innocent by a jury, in the minds of the public he'll be guilty. The guy is so weird he makes Howard Hughes look like Beaver Cleaver. People don't like what they consider 'strange', and MJ is just that, 'strange'. HE's done too many odd things to ever be accepted by the public, holding your child by an arm off a balcony being one.
The guy is going to be persecuted no matter what. If he's innocent, it's a shame. It really is, because he will then be left open for more lawsuits and will probably never get a moments rest. He does a lot for cancer patients and other unfortunate children. To punish someone who is truely doing these things from the kindness of his heart sounds to me more like a modern Rigoletto.
If, on the other hand, he really did do it, well being hung from a tree and lit on fire is too good for people who would dare steal innocence from a child.
ReefSmoker
10-12-03, 23:21
Originally posted by BlackPrince
Reef, you said his album sales are up 1400%?
I'm sure thats possible when the sales from his last album were so low he attempted to sue Sony saying they didn't promote his work because he "was black". Michael Jackson had the balls to try to play the race card. Anyways, whats 1400% of 5 anyway?
His sales jumped by 1400% after the interview by Martin Bashir, as I said in that post I'm not sure how they're doing now in light of the allegations, but considering his new album entered the UK charts at number 2 (currently number 3) and his single entered the UK charts at 5 (few weeks later it's now at 21, which is still respectable) I think it's safe to say that he's still doing well on the sales front. The 1400% was a figure that was published by Sony roughly 2 weeks after the Martin Bashir interview.
Like I already said in this thread, if he's guilty, it's no more cash going his way from myself. As you've rightly pointed out BlackPrince, he does provide a lot of support for disadvantaged children. I do find it hard to believe that someone who has put so much towards helping children throughout his life would then go to the other end of the spectrum and destroy a child's life with such obscene behaviour. I also have to accept that I am slightly biased, but since the majority of posters in this thread are extremely biased to the point of saying he's guilty before the case has even really began, I feel a voice of support is necessary.
No denying he's a strange person - while it can be attributed to his life being dominated by stardom, I think there's more to it than that... However weird doesn't always mean evil ;) My friends call me weird, but they're often affectionate with such a statement :lol: Then again there are those who hardly know me, and call me weird hoping to antagonise me by calling me just that !
Archeus, you'll have to excuse me for not being entirely familiar with how things work in American courts - the Scottish have very little to do with America as a whole, though I do appreciate you might know more about their legal system due to the amount of support various American organisations provide political institutions from Ireland, so I'm more than happy to accept your corrections on how the legal system operates over there.
You'll also have to excuse me Archeus for not being a believer of articles published on thesmokinggun - well known for posting a lot of BS in the past just to get their traffic up - and also CNN are well known for getting their facts wrong and / or publishing false information in order to increase their own circulation. I take what I read from the CNN website with a pinch of salt ;) Smokinggun, well I've yet to see any media company reiterate material published on that site !!
Take care,
Reefie
BlackPrince
11-12-03, 00:36
Originally posted by ReefSmoker
.
though I do appreciate you might know more about their legal system due to the amount of support various American organisations provide political institutions from Ireland, so I'm more than happy to accept your corrections on how the legal system operates over there.
Yeah, Boston is rather popular with some political institutions, just don't try to list them as a tax right off or Tom Ridge and his Gestapo will be knocking on your door.
I'll remain neutral until I see or hear all the evidence. On the one hand as a performer jackson was amazing in his prime, on the other hand, I have very strong convictions about some things and if he is found guilty...well it's too bad he's being tried in California and not some state that actually punishes criminals.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.