Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Michael Jackon has Cancer

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:58 AM
link   
I'm sorry if this upset's anyone but the man is a paedophile who has bought his way out of justice....or has he!

Karma-phala??

May it be long, slow and painful.




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Yazman
 
Y'know it would have been easier to admit you got it wrong the first time. Rewriting your original post is just laughable (and dishonest?)...a word maybe...but adding and deleting sentences is suggestive of the species Muppet Muppetus, admitting we're wrong sometimes is Homo Sapien.




What the hell are you talking about? I didn't rewrite any posts and I didn't "add and delete sentences" either. I saw somebody else's post that I didn't notice the first time so rather than make two separate posts I just combined them.

But nothing was "rewritten" and I didn't "add and delete sentences." WTF are you talking about? Could you be any more of a troll?


I'm sorry if this upset's anyone but the man is a paedophile who has bought his way out of justice....or has he!

Karma-phala??

May it be long, slow and painful.


I'd like to know where the hell you get "the man is a paedophile" from.. because he was proven innocent in court, and the accusers family sued by the government for extortion of not only Michael Jackson but Jay Leno, and other celebrities too.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Rather than amalgamating my posts and getting accused of being "laughable", a liar, and a muppet for doing so, I'll just double post and clog up the thread to satisfy Kandinsky.


Originally posted by _Phoenix_

Originally posted by zazzafrazz


All those years of bleaching his skin have caught up with him. He will never come out from behind the mask now (probably not a bad thing)



I always tought Micheal Jackson had a skin disease called vitiligo? I thought he used makeup at the start to cover it up, but as it got worse, the makeup had to get lighter too.

images.google.co.uk...

[edit on 19-5-2009 by _Phoenix_]


Yes that is correct. Vitiligo is a pretty difficult disease for anybody to go through, and causes very blotchy skin. He does use makeup to even his skin tone because in the late 80s he was diagonised with lupus as well. A lot of people that get vitiligo simply end up undergoing a procedure to even out their skin tone in combination with the makeup, because appearing in public looking like a "zebra" can be pretty psychologically damaging, and we know how judgmental society can be today!

In the 19th century people with vitiligo were put on display in "freak shows."



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yazman

I'd like to know where the hell you get "the man is a paedophile" from.. because he was proven innocent in court, and the accusers family sued by the government for extortion of not only Michael Jackson but Jay Leno, and other celebrities too.


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Just one quick point of clarification since I've seen this assertion more than once in this thread. No one is ever "proven innocent". In a criminal case, if it's demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt you did what you're accused of, you're found guilty. The opposite of that is "not guilty", which means only that 12 people agreed there was insufficient evidence. That doesn't mean you're proven not guilty. The burden of proof is on guilty, failure to meet it results in not guilty. It has nothing to do with the objective truth and everything to do with what can be proven within a very strict set of rules. No one is ever found "innocent" in court.

There is another court called the Court of Public Opinion. Of course there's no such thing as a unanimous decision in that court, but there are certainly a significant number of people (including me) who believe Michael Jackson is most likely a pedophile.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
If he really does have cancer, then I say it couldn't have happened to a nicer person. A lot of people have screwed up childhoods and he had plenty of money to get proper therapy. Instead he went the crazy route and I am one of the people that believes he does molest children. A grown man doesn't hold hands with a young boy and share a bed with him because he is "child" himself. He does it because he is sick in the head.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by yeahright
 


I hate 'I agree posts' but.....

Couldn't have put it better myself!



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Yazman
 



Rather than amalgamating my posts and getting accused of being "laughable", a liar, and a muppet for doing so, I'll just double post and clog up the thread to satisfy Kandinsky.


I only suggested that admitting a mistake is human (homo sapien),but denying and concealing one is for muppets
Just today, at work, I'll be admitting to an error of judgment that will embarrass me for some time. It's a way bigger clanger than projecting my love of Jackson onto a thread, misreading posts and editing replies.

I don't know if Jackson was ever more than just 'inappropriate' in his relationships with male children. I don't have the information. It should be pointed out that just because he made great music years ago doesn't prove anything about character. In a court of law your collection of Jackson memorabilia and music will not be admissible as part of the defense....

DA: "...but your honor...listen to this. (Thriller plays in the courtroom), obviously the accused couldn't sing and dance like that and be attracted to children. Look at that man moonwalk and tell me he's a pervert...he's clearly an innocent man."

Judge: "Remove that person and their box of limited edition Jackson records from my courtroom."



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Just one quick point of clarification since I've seen this assertion more than once in this thread. No one is ever "proven innocent". In a criminal case, if it's demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt you did what you're accused of, you're found guilty. The opposite of that is "not guilty", which means only that 12 people agreed there was insufficient evidence. That doesn't mean you're proven not guilty. The burden of proof is on guilty, failure to meet it results in not guilty. It has nothing to do with the objective truth and everything to do with what can be proven within a very strict set of rules. No one is ever found "innocent" in court.


See, the thing is though, is that the claims of the accusers WERE proven false. Not only that but there's never been any hard evidence that the man has actually done anything of the sort, and all those who have launched suits failed in court and have been conclusively shown to be fraudsters and extortionists.

This is also not to mention that we have this thing called... the assumption of innocence! We are all innocent until proven guilty - and Jackson has never been proven guilty - furthermore, the accusers have all been proven to be extortionists.


There is another court called the Court of Public Opinion. Of course there's no such thing as a unanimous decision in that court, but there are certainly a significant number of people (including me) who believe Michael Jackson is most likely a pedophile.


This is what I take issue with. You believe whatever the tabloids will tell you - anybody can make a claim about a mega popular celeb and the meda wll jump all over it and publicise the hell out of it, and people like you believe it without ever actually doing any research. I understand that maybe you don't care enough to research it, but in that case you don't have a right to judge the person (whoever it is) because you haven't got an informed opinion.



posted on May, 21 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Yazman
 


anybody can make a claim about a mega popular celeb and the meda wll jump all over it and publicise the hell out of it, and people like you believe it without ever actually doing any research. I understand that maybe you don't care enough to research it, but in that case you don't have a right to judge the person (whoever it is) because you haven't got an informed opinion.


You are right, the tabloid press are often too quick to turn a small thing into hype. Even when the facts of a story are correct, the extent and pitch of the story is often unbelievable. I disagree with your assertion that he or she doesn't have the right to judge....they do. You do to and have shown it by 'judging' Jackson to be innocent of all accusations. Unless you know him personally, your opinion is as informed and reliable as anyone else.

Out of idle interest...
If you had two pre-adolescent sons and an unmarried, childless man over 30 invited them over for a sleepover...what would you do? If they later said they shared a bed, how would you feel? If you were a boy of that age, would you want to sleep with a man of that age? If you are a man over 30, would you want to sleep with children (I mean this non-sexually)?

(Your earlier reply was banned before I could read it. I hope it was a blast. I'm not sure what element of my post annoyed you. It was just good humored and had me laughing when I wrote it. C'mon, the 'Moonwalk defense' must've raised a little smile?
)



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Yazman
 


anybody can make a claim about a mega popular celeb and the meda wll jump all over it and publicise the hell out of it, and people like you believe it without ever actually doing any research. I understand that maybe you don't care enough to research it, but in that case you don't have a right to judge the person (whoever it is) because you haven't got an informed opinion.


You are right, the tabloid press are often too quick to turn a small thing into hype. Even when the facts of a story are correct, the extent and pitch of the story is often unbelievable. I disagree with your assertion that he or she doesn't have the right to judge....they do. You do to and have shown it by 'judging' Jackson to be innocent of all accusations. Unless you know him personally, your opinion is as informed and reliable as anyone else.

Out of idle interest...
If you had two pre-adolescent sons and an unmarried, childless man over 30 invited them over for a sleepover...what would you do? If they later said they shared a bed, how would you feel? If you were a boy of that age, would you want to sleep with a man of that age? If you are a man over 30, would you want to sleep with children (I mean this non-sexually)?


In the country I live adults sleep in the same beds as children all the time. It isn't uncommon at all, so no, I wouldn't care about it and it doesn't really mean anything. In fact, we routinely sleep with children whose home is across the street every night.

That you seem to think sharing a bed with somebody is inherently sexual, reflects poorly on you I think, or maybe just a hypersexualised culture that you live in where people are bombarded with sexuality every day in just about every avenue. That you can't seem to think outside of this social conditioning, particularly as a poster on a forum like this, is quite bizarre.

Let us also not forget that your analogy is exceedingly silly, simply for the fact that we're not talking about some random dude. We're talking about a person who is arguably the most famous man on the planet, who holds citizenship in what is arguably the most litigious culture on the planet. In a country where a woman can sue tobacco companies and be awarded over $100 billion dollars because she "didn't know smoking would give her cancer", where famous people and companies routinely get sued via frivolous lawsuits that are routinely thrown out and the accusers fined (and sometimes even thrown in jail) for extortion and fraud, it is of course extremely common for such accusations to be launched and often completely made up.



(Your earlier reply was banned before I could read it. I hope it was a blast. I'm not sure what element of my post annoyed you. It was just good humored and had me laughing when I wrote it. C'mon, the 'Moonwalk defense' must've raised a little smile?
)


To sum up that earlier post: You have been extremely condescending towards me in every one of your replies, not to mention you have made character judgments and and assumed things about me that are neither true nor even relevant. Finally, you haven't really posted anything constructive up until now, instead choosing to insult, antagonise, and flamebait me.


*edit*


I disagree with your assertion that he or she doesn't have the right to judge....they do. You do to and have shown it by 'judging' Jackson to be innocent of all accusations. Unless you know him personally, your opinion is as informed and reliable as anyone else.


You do not need to know somebody personally in order to know the facts, particularly when they have already been laid out by countless people who know the accusers, as well as Jackson himself. In the age of digitised libraries, google street view, forums, free media and the internet it is both ignorant and naive to assume that one needs personal, intimate knowledge of a topic to be able to make a correct judgment. Maybe if this was 1950 I would agree with you. But its not.

The difference between "he or she" and myself is that I have actually done the research, and when I haven't done research on something then I simply don't make a judgment and form an opinion on it. Because nobody has the right to do this when they quite simply have no idea what the hell they're talking about.

If you haven't done the research on a topic, regardless of whether its michael jackson, life on mars, what cause the famine in the ukraine, or who shot JFK, you don't have the right to make a judgment on it until you do the research. Otherwise everything you say is just wild speculation based on nothing of substance.

[edit on 22/5/09 by Yazman]



posted on May, 22 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Yazman
 



That you seem to think sharing a bed with somebody is inherently sexual, reflects poorly on you I think, or maybe just a hypersexualised culture that you live in where people are bombarded with sexuality every day in just about every avenue. That you can't seem to think outside of this social conditioning, particularly as a poster on a forum like this, is quite bizarre.

Do you even read your posts before editing them? YOU were the first to mention molestation. Nobody else. I clearly wrote 'I mean this non-sexually' and you'll notice no edits on any of my posts


In actual fact, you've made more references to sex and sexuality than any other member on this thread. My only mention of sex was to write 'non-sexually.' Now run along and edit your post before responding


I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode where they get trapped in a deep hole and Homer says, "I know! We'll dig ourselves out!"


My original quote...



If you had two pre-adolescent sons and an unmarried, childless man over 30 invited them over for a sleepover...what would you do? If they later said they shared a bed, how would you feel? If you were a boy of that age, would you want to sleep with a man of that age? If you are a man over 30, would you want to sleep with children (I mean this non-sexually)?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Yazman
 



That you seem to think sharing a bed with somebody is inherently sexual, reflects poorly on you I think, or maybe just a hypersexualised culture that you live in where people are bombarded with sexuality every day in just about every avenue. That you can't seem to think outside of this social conditioning, particularly as a poster on a forum like this, is quite bizarre.

Do you even read your posts before editing them? YOU were the first to mention molestation. Nobody else. I clearly wrote 'I mean this non-sexually' and you'll notice no edits on any of my posts


In actual fact, you've made more references to sex and sexuality than any other member on this thread. My only mention of sex was to write 'non-sexually.' Now run along and edit your post before responding


I'm reminded of that Simpsons episode where they get trapped in a deep hole and Homer says, "I know! We'll dig ourselves out!"


My original quote...



If you had two pre-adolescent sons and an unmarried, childless man over 30 invited them over for a sleepover...what would you do? If they later said they shared a bed, how would you feel? If you were a boy of that age, would you want to sleep with a man of that age? If you are a man over 30, would you want to sleep with children (I mean this non-sexually)?


It's funny how every single time rather than posting anything worthy or constructive you choose to just slander and insult me instead. What the hell?



posted on May, 23 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Yazman
 



It's funny how every single time rather than posting anything worthy or constructive you choose to just slander and insult me instead. What the hell?

Well, you did turn up on the thread and make some heavy comments that were unlikely to go unanswered. Nevertheless, enough is enough. Thread bickerings are a bit pointless. I rarely indulge in them. How about we agree to disagree and call a friendly truce? We can forget about our disagreement and if we meet on another thread it will remain forever unmentioned


Take it easy.

K



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Yazman
 



It's funny how every single time rather than posting anything worthy or constructive you choose to just slander and insult me instead. What the hell?

Well, you did turn up on the thread and make some heavy comments that were unlikely to go unanswered. Nevertheless, enough is enough. Thread bickerings are a bit pointless. I rarely indulge in them. How about we agree to disagree and call a friendly truce? We can forget about our disagreement and if we meet on another thread it will remain forever unmentioned


Take it easy.

K



I think I'll just put you on ignore instead. It is bleedingly obvious that you are nothing but a troll and aren't here to contribute anything but insults.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Yazman
 
Suit yourself...it was a genuine (as stated) offer of a handshake. So declined, no hard feelings. I haven't received my 'ignore' u2u, so I'm sure you can read this


Out of interest for Zazz, I found the latest update on Jacko's condition...


Michael Jackson must wait a week to find out if he needs radiation therapy to treat his alleged skin cancer. The 'Thriller' singer reportedly had cancerous growths removed from his nose and chest in a shave biopsy operation in Beverly Hills yesterday (21.05.09). Jackson, 50, now faces an agonising wait to find out if the surgery was effective.
source

It's worth reading the link because there is controversy about whether he is actually ill or not. I don't wish ill even on politicians or terrorists, so hope he gets his wacky ass back to health.



posted on May, 24 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Thanks Kdinks. We all ll have our 1 bickerfest
like u I stopped responding.

If he is sick well he's sick, so are so many others, part of being a human and not a superstar....but as I said in before, it could be publicity to drive tkt sales, or he' panicking to get back out there. Bless the intrusive british press!

Zazz



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
I'm sorry if this upset's anyone but the man is a paedophile who has bought his way out of justice....or has he!

Karma-phala??

May it be long, slow and painful.



Here is 2012 and has you know he was acquitted , however money talks sad as this world is, just like it did with OJ and Casy anthony. Sad money excels over love and one's own children.

However he will/did get punished



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Turns out he's got a case of dead. That trumps cancer and charges of pedophilia every time.



posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Wow. I thought we had a case of a celebrity showing back up after thier demise. Sheesh.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def