Oh crap, that program is on with Michael Jackson. Not sure how much I can watch of this thing, his face is totally creeping me out. I wonder if anyone who is around him actually looks at him straight-on when they talk to him, I don't think I could. :confused:

Wooden nickels? I don't get it... :(

(Which is unfortunate cause I want one. ;) )

What network?

What network?</font>[/QUOTE]ABC, Barbara Walters has a special showing it.

Ah, wooden nickel is this ancient kind of lame-o joke I heard from my parents, who probably heard it from their parents LOL. Not sure where the saying came from "Don't take any wooden nickles!". Dunno, maybe people made wooden nickles and it was the first counterfeit money in history LOL,, who knows. It's a lame joke though I swear!! :D [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Talk to him ? What about Elvis Presly's daughter, she kissed him. Not on the nose though. :D

LOL Johnny, something tells me though that Jacko supplied her with a few happy pills to take that sharp edge off (no nose pun intended! I think! dohdoh! :D )

Link, it dosen't matter what good things you've done in life, if you mollest children as he has (alledgedly) you're scum. And you don't give an accuser 29 million dollars if you've got nothing to hide, if it was an ordinary man off the street he would have gone to prison.

I watched about 5 minutes but he looks so damn much like a cadaver I just couldn't do it...we turned off the tv ...ugh!

Well I've now seen the "baby feeding" part of the program. That had to be one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. I agree and see what a few people meant who posted in this thread earlier when they said it was hard to explain or describe really... It is just. Messed Up. Unfortunatly I can't say exactly what I feel about it here, as heavy cursing is not allowed. I feel a bit sick to my stomach, I swear that baby he was feeding had a frightened look in his eyes when he looked up at MJ. Plus the way MJ fed that child, the veil was stuffed in his mouth with the bottle nipple, and then he wrapped his head and eyes up so much the baby was completely blind, that just is F&^&%&&() up!!!! Not to mention the frikken spastic leg shaking going on by MJ while he was holding and "feeding" the baby, what kind of drugs was he on?! That baby was trying to feed from a bottle that was wrapped in a veil and he was shaken about as if he was some kind of martini mixer!

Again I just want to puke, I feel so incredibly sorry for those poor children living with him!! :( :(

Damn! I wish I'd thought of that. :D

You know what's the most ironic thing of all? Jackson's record sales have increased with 400% to 500% (!) in Britain after this interview... It is expected that something similar will happen in the US as well.

Of course, it doesn't say how many CD's he was selling before the interview... Selling 10 instead of 2 CD's is a relatively speaking huge increase, but it's not really that impressive as saying that sales have increased with 400% to 500%. ;)

[ 02-07-2003, 06:02 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

I'm not after arguments. Any person I suspect of child abuse will always and forever be an arsehole in my mind, irrespective of their talents or mental capabilities.

If I thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser....I'd call him an arsehole.

M.J in my mind doesn't only have a talent for music.....ahem..

P.S. I've seen children dressed in veils and babies hung over balconies....the unstable, dangerous practises of an arsehole imo.

P.P.S. Spot on LZ, and put in a nutshell.</font>[/QUOTE]Amen. Charlie! We all know if this was ANYONE else, they would be in jail for life.. It's these PARENTS that ALLOW this that are even sicker.. I bet he pays them to let them sleep over.. just guessing.

I don't own any of his music, and will NEVER play it on IW Radio, that's for sure..

While we're on the subject, here's another news article from the BBC:

<h3>Mother wants son to stay with Jackson</h3>
A mother says she will send her 10-year-old son to stay with Michael Jackson, despite his controversial television interview.
Jackson has been criticised after admitting that he still shared his bedroom with children.
But Gaynor Morgan, of Altrincham, Greater Manchester, said she was happy for her son Alex to visit the pop star's Neverland ranch.
Ms Morgan, 28, said she had been "impressed" with the way Jackson came across on the ITV documentary, Living With Michael Jackson.
She said she had spoken to her friend, the singer Johnny Mathis, who said Jackson "was a good, loving person".
The daughter of former Manchester United and Scotland footballer Willie Morgan added: "That was good enough for me. I am planning on taking my son there later in the year.
"I would not have a problem with Alex staying at Michael's ranch," she told the Daily Express.
"I was so outraged by people's immediate insinuations about children after the interview with Jackson, and so impressed by how he had come across that I said I would love to meet him."
Following the documentary, which was broadcast in the UK on Monday, Ms Morgan contacted Mr Mathis and asked him to arrange a trip to Neverland for her son.

Caused outrage
She said she had received a number of calls from children's charities she had worked with in the past, thanking her for speaking out in his favour.
She added: "It is all yet to be arranged but I'm hoping to go over later this year. Whenever Michael is free, I'm free."
Jackson, 44, caused outrage when he admitted a 12-year-old boy regularly stayed at his mansion and slept in his bed
He said: "It's very loving. What's wrong with sharing a love?"
The documentary is set to be shown in America on Thursday night.

Source: BBC

[ 02-07-2003, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Um, Grojlach, Grojilach, Groljach, Gorgelbak, Grojloar, Grolijjac, Groialj, Graham, Gorljhac, Grolsch, George Lake, Grollich, Bob, GrawLich, Groach, Growing Lich, Lester, Dave Grohl, Grobbel, Gorbachev, Grojilik, Gobbels <--- Tack that one on...
That's one of the most disturbing things I've ever seen. The other would be the removal of a human botfly from a 5 year old's eye.
Botfly Removal
^--- You've been warned, it is disturbing.

[ 02-07-2003, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

I don't see the big deal about hanging his kid over a balcony. When I was little my dad used to hang me over bridges over rivers for a laugh. And it was just that: a laugh. He would never let go and he was easily strong enough to hold me. Period. What's the big deal?
However, that's just for that issue. I had no interest in seeing the documentary, never liked MJ, never listened to his stuff, don't really give a damn about him, he does sound pretty crazy from accounts on here.

[ 02-07-2003, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: Vaskez ]

ROFLMAO! That list is getting better every day :D

I saw the interview here in the states last night. Some observations:

1. The baby-over-the-balcony thing is simply a goof. I wonder how many times when I was young my father or uncle tossed me a bit too high in the air and thought, for a brief moment "Oh, s**t, oops" I know I've done it with my little cousins.

2. Shawls and masks on the kids: at least they'll be left alone when they go out without him. I think it's an inventive attempt to protect them from the trappings of fame. It may not be a *good* attempt, but it's inventive.

3. He has a good voice. You may not like how he uses it, but he has a good voice.

4. He's very very weird - but that's not a crime. He's very very weird - but that's not a crime. He was beaten and molested as a kid and has never matured and knows nothing but the trappings of fame - none of which is a crime.

5. I really don't think he's molested any kids. Remember the burden of proof folks? Don't you think if there were a case to be made, some 15-minutes-wanting prosecutor would have done it by now? Mckulay Culkin (however you spell it) confirms his harmlessness, as do many others. Liking kids is not a crime. His childishness is goofy and silly and weird, but I really don't think he's done what's been alleged. As for the one lady who sued - hell, I could take any person who'd ever gone to that nut-bin called Neverland and get a few million alleging a bunch of BS. Know anyone who's been there? Send 'em my way. ;)

6. If any reporter followed you around for 9 months, I'm sure they could come up with 2 hours (less commercials) of bad footage.

7. The reporter pisses me off the most. All he had to say was bad, yet he showed very little evidence of it. If I were MJ, I'd use some of my $300 mil to make this guy disappear painfully and quietly.

8. Barabara Wa-wa pissed me off too. The way she couched the show at the beginning and at every mid-point was much too leading. Can't reporters just report.

9. God, I hate reporters. Did I mention that? They're the lowest of the low - and that's coming from a lawyer. ;)

10. I'm reminded of his song "Just Leave Me Alone" - I kinda liked that one.

Timber, do you have any clients that would pay $29 million to get rid of a lawsuit for something you were innocent of?

Timber - yep I agree reporters and lawyers can both be lowest of the low :D

<font color="plum">I didn't watch the interview and have no desire to see it. Nor do I have adequate time to fully explain my personal feelings about Michael Jackson - so I'll just hit the highlights.

I agree that Michael Jackson had a terribly traumatic childhood. He was mentally and physically abused and has been in the "public eye" since the age of 5. Does that explain or excuse his current actions? No, it does not. His brothers and sisters lived in the same abusive household, but none of them behave in the manner that Michael does - so the childhood trauma doesn't adequately explain his behavior. The others appear to have overcome thier upbringing, but Michael (who was by far more successful than all the others combined) has regressed to a "child-like" frame of mind.

He probably doesn't see anything wrong with his actions. But just because he can't see it doesn't mean his behavior isn't wrong.

The fact is that any "average" citizen that engaged in this same type of behavior would have been the subject of a police investigation and it makes the general public angry and jealous that Michael Jackson can "get away with his behavior". That is why the media focuses on the negative aspects of his actions - they are just giving the public what it wants to see.

In the mid-80's, when he was the self-declared "King of Pop" - you couldn't have gotten Barbara Walters to make a negative comment about him at gunpoint. In most cases, the media just "parrots" what they think the common man or woman wants to hear. There is no such thing as "objective reporting" anymore (but that's a whole different thread ;) ).</font>

Unfortunately, no. But, stars do this often because of the fact their reputation and press releases
are intertwined with their business -which is their name and fame in the trade.

I do know folks who would pay 6% of their net worth ($18 million settlement - the number I heard - out of his $300 million low-estimate net worth) to do away with a lawsuit that would put their name in the nation's newspapers and television sets as a "molester." And, they're not even famous.

Look, 95% of lawsuits in the civil system settle. This is NOT because 95% of the people out there think they are wrong. It's because you can usually come up with an agreement both parties dislike equally. It is not only legally impermissible, but also illogical, to infer liability/guilt in any way whatsoever based on a settlement agreement.

MOST of my clients settle - for more than they want to pay or less than they want to get. Sometimes, it is to keep their names out of the newspaper. Just like the Judge's reduction of the award in the infamous McDonald's case, any positive outcome for Michael Jackson on the lawsuit would have been back-page news, whereas "child molester" would sit on page 1 for months.

Cerek, what "actions?" I have seen no evidence. And no, the rest of us would not have been hung out to dry for acting like he does - heck, no one would have even noticed. One finger-pointer does not make one guilty.

If all you guys are right, I need to get busy reporting all the relatives who let me sleep in a bed with them when I was young.

[ 02-07-2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

<font color="plum">The "actions" I refer to is his penchant for having a steady stream of young children sleeping in his bedroom and his bed. Children that are NOT relatives. I had plenty of "sleep-overs" as a child. I even had one good friend whose mom had grown up with my mom. One summer, we ended up having several "extended sleep-overs" at each other's houses. But I never got in bed with his parents and he never got in bed with mine. That goes beyond just being "wierd".

You cannot honostly tell me that an average 45 year old man could have all the kids in the neighborhood stay at his house overnight (sometimes for several days or longer) without raising at least some suspicion - especially if he freely admitted that he was letting the kids sleep in his bed and that he sometimes slept in the bed with them.

When you can provide a documented case of any other "non-famous" 45 year old male doing this without arousing any suspicions or suffering incriminations, I will retract my statement.</font>

I'm with <font color=plum>Cerek</font>. These days you have to be careful how much attention you pay to other people's children, even as to eye contact. When you walk into a school, (as I did, once, to attend a committee meeting), people pop up all over the place, asking, "Can I help you?" with the look and tone of voice that really mean, "Why the hell are you here?"

From http://entertainment.msn.com/news/ar...px?news=114235
From what I've seen, the parents get to stay at Neverland, too, fellas.

Look, I agree it's sketchy at best. But, after watching the freak-show myself, I feel it's due to some very serious mental/maturity issues Michael has, and is not sexual. I didn't say I'd let my kid stay there, did I?

But, if I let my kid go to Cerek's house, and he/she got namby-pamby in the middle of the night and crawled into bed with Cerek and wife (sorry if I just gave you a wife you don't have, Cerek), there'd be NO ISSUE. You say it's okay if it's a relative - but what if it's a close friend of the family that's no different from a relative?

I'm afraid I agree with Cerek, Attalus and several others here. If any 40+ year old man or woman in my neighborhood started having kids sleep over in his/her room with them, I'd call the child welfare hotline in a flash! Why is Jackson allowed to do it, advertise he's doing it and keep ON doing it without repercussion?

You might say, well, the guy's famous and it gives the kids something to talk about but hey, just going to his ranch is PLENTY! The whole bed/bedroom thing is beyond normal or acceptable, in my opinion.

This may be out of context (I just couldn't bring myself to watch that show- five minutes made my skin crawl), but Groj's quote above makes me wonder just exactly WHAT is 'sharing love' to M Jackson? Can't taking the kids through his midway amusement park or zoo or theater be 'loving'? Why the bed sharing? I infer he means cuddling or other intimate acts from that comment. Albeit, Jackson seems so much in a childlike state of mind, himself that he may very well think such things are perfectly 'loving' and wonderful and normal, I don't know. ugh...I'm sure a lot of pedophiles would love that phrase "what's wrong with sharing a love?" with a 10 year old...ugh... I'm sorry, it makes me angry and queasy to think about it.

And yes, I know, he's never been convicted...but has he even been investigated past the last 'buy off'? For all we know he's been buying alot of parents off all along.

Ugh...
Normal Diatribe by most folk:
Why do lawyers want to muck up everything and stick their noses into everyone's life, scrutinizing and nit-picking every detail.

Diatribe when Those Folks have their own personal prejudices sparked:
How dare they let a man get away with doing perfectly legal things with children at the permission of the parents.

He has not been investigated, or convicted. He had allegations made, a lawsuit was not filed, and rather than fight it out in the Enquirer, he settled the case.

Remeber, folks, one call from one parent of one of these kids gets a dozen stocky men with guns turning his home and life upside down. If his actions are so inappropriate, why has this not happened?

For one thing, money, and another thing, fame and the prerequisites that it grants. I do note that you say you wouldn't let your child stay there.

Get the pitchforks and torches! Let's Burn Neverland to the ground!!!!

Okay, Attalus, and since you're a doctor I think I'll assume you get favors normal folk don't, okay? And, that is the general assumption, no? How will you like having that extra hurdle if the spotlight ever comes on you?

It's amazing how all you folks know more about the appropriateness of what goes on in his house than the people who have been there and spent weeks and months there. I will note the reporter who spent 9 MONTHS with him admits he never saw inappropriate or sexual behavior - right before he sold him down the river, of course.

Hell, let's just have the government stand over us in our homes from the day our kids are born, okay? What about you same folks always touting freedom - the PARENTS ALLOW IT!!!

But, I defer to your infinite wisdom, and I shut my trap.

Hell, I don't even like the man or his music, so I have no dog in this fight. Just trying to seek some fairness. But, "Moo moo" let me join the herd mentality.

[on a frivolous note] Post Number 69 - wo - hoooooo!!!!

[ 02-07-2003, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

You make a very good and strong point here. I feel exactly the same way, I'd trust my old dad 100%.

For reasons I probably couldn't describe properly in type, I still have issues with MJ doing it. I think is this child "really really" his? If I wanted to look at my own deeper innermost thoughts I'd begin to wonder if this child/baby is so unimportant to him, it's just a tool, a toy. He's so wrapped up in his personal euphoria, nothing else matters. I'm MJ, if this one goes bandy....I'll get another.

Until he read the press.
I can't help but think that he's so wrapped up in his own success and (self believed) plausability, that he thought he'd use this interview as a damage limitation exercise.

How terribly wrong he was...

Just my 2 pennethworth.

Well, Timber, at the end of the day, you are right, I have Never set foot in Neverland, nor met Michael Jackson. But, as a physician, I know that people are equipped with sexual drives, and I cannot see having an unrelated 12 yer old boy sleeping in the bed of an unmarried adult who seems incapable of forming a relationship with an adult woman without something developing. But, then, I am not called upon to give judgement as to anything but my opinion.

I'm not after arguments. Any person I suspect of child abuse will always and forever be an arsehole in my mind, irrespective of their talents or mental capabilities.

If I thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser....I'd call him an arsehole.

M.J in my mind doesn't only have a talent for music.....ahem..

P.S. I've seen children dressed in veils and babies hung over balconies....the unstable, dangerous practises of an arsehole imo.

P.P.S. Spot on LZ, and put in a nutshell.</font>[/QUOTE]Any person you suspect of child abuse? So suspicion is all it takes for judgement in today's just society, is it? All we ened to do to ostracise someone is say - oh, look. he's not within my definition of normal, he says he likes kids, I suspect he is a criminal, ergo he is an arsehole.

A small reminder - peoples' suspicions can be wrong. And people are too suspicious nowadays, and too quick to implicitly believe their own judgement.

Yes, he is very very mentally ill. Yes, he has serious issues in many areas. Yes, he says he likes kids and even has them for sleepovers.

Obviously this is activity that is disgusting! How *dare* a grown man like kids? Or ever sleep near one! Disgraceful! He's obviously a child molester.

Hold on, a few times when i've been watching TV with my nephew/niece on my knee, we've fallen asleep! *I* must be a paedophile! I mean, I'm an introvert. I'ma grown man who likes kids! I'm obviously suspected of being a criminal, and all we need is suspicion nowadays, apparently.

Oh, wait a minute, I remember when I was little i used to sleep in my parents' bed when I was ill. Obviously they are criminals too! How dare they! There is *no* way that any adult could even sleep near a child without it being suspicious, *ever*! After all, if you thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser, that's obviously enough for you to form an instant opinion of him, whether or not your suspicions are correct. Let's not even bother with proof, shall we? It's obviously overrated.

Come on guys, he is obviously very very ill. He needs psychotherapy. He does not, however, beat his children. He doesn't neglect them in favour of a rampant drink/drug habit.

He puts veils over their faces! *GASP* he's obviously drawing them into his world of self-delusion and fantasy! He's a dangerous man who must be stopped! I suspect he is causign mental harm to his kids.

Oh, hang on, he could be doing it for their benefit, just so the press won't know what they look like and can't hound them 24/7. Hmm ... naw, he obviously is doing it for some sinister reason. After all, he's Michael Jackson, and everyone has definitve and absolute supposition that he's a child-abuser.

If it was ever taken to court and he was *proven* beyond reasonable doubt that he is a child-abuser and a danger to children, I'll then join in with everyone who demands he be locked away forever. Until then I'll respect the man's inalienable, constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty, and simply define him as a very very very strange and mentally ill man.

Just a little eye-opener - a british woman was recently released and vindicated when she was jailed for killing her kids. The evidence was flawed, she was completely innocent, and had 3 years of her life stolen from her. I bet when she was jailed, she had screaming mobs ranting about her being a child murderer and baying at her. They were wrong. Your suspicions may be wrong.

I'm not after arguments. Any person I suspect of child abuse will always and forever be an arsehole in my mind, irrespective of their talents or mental capabilities.

If I thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser....I'd call him an arsehole.

M.J in my mind doesn't only have a talent for music.....ahem..

P.S. I've seen children dressed in veils and babies hung over balconies....the unstable, dangerous practises of an arsehole imo.

P.P.S. Spot on LZ, and put in a nutshell.</font>[/QUOTE]Any person you suspect of child abuse? So suspicion is all it takes for judgement in today's just society, is it? All we ened to do to ostracise someone is say - oh, look. he's not within my definition of normal, he says he likes kids, I suspect he is a criminal, ergo he is an arsehole.

A small reminder - peoples' suspicions can be wrong. And people are too suspicious nowadays, and too quick to implicitly believe their own judgement.

Yes, he is very very mentally ill. Yes, he has serious issues in many areas. Yes, he says he likes kids and even has them for sleepovers.

Obviously this is activity that is disgusting! How *dare* a grown man like kids? Or ever sleep near one! Disgraceful! He's obviously a child molester.

Hold on, a few times when i've been watching TV with my nephew/niece on my knee, we've fallen asleep! *I* must be a paedophile! I mean, I'm an introvert. I'ma grown man who likes kids! I'm obviously suspected of being a criminal, and all we need is suspicion nowadays, apparently.

Oh, wait a minute, I remember when I was little i used to sleep in my parents' bed when I was ill. Obviously they are criminals too! How dare they! There is *no* way that any adult could even sleep near a child without it being suspicious, *ever*! After all, if you thought Stephen Hawking a child abuser, that's obviously enough for you to form an instant opinion of him, whether or not your suspicions are correct. Let's not even bother with proof, shall we? It's obviously overrated.

Come on guys, he is obviously very very ill. He needs psychotherapy. He does not, however, beat his children. He doesn't neglect them in favour of a rampant drink/drug habit.

He puts veils over their faces! *GASP* he's obviously drawing them into his world of self-delusion and fantasy! He's a dangerous man who must be stopped! I suspect he is causign mental harm to his kids.

Oh, hang on, he could be doing it for their benefit, just so the press won't know what they look like and can't hound them 24/7. Hmm ... naw, he obviously is doing it for some sinister reason. After all, he's Michael Jackson, and everyone has definitve and absolute supposition that he's a child-abuser.

If it was ever taken to court and he was *proven* beyond reasonable doubt that he is a child-abuser and a danger to children, I'll then join in with everyone who demands he be locked away forever. Until then I'll respect the man's inalienable, constitutional right to be innocent until proven guilty, and simply define him as a very very very strange and mentally ill man.

Just a little eye-opener - a british woman was recently released and vindicated when she was jailed for killing her kids. The evidence was flawed, she was completely innocent, and had 3 years of her life stolen from her. I bet when she was jailed, she had screaming mobs ranting about her being a child murderer and baying at her. They were wrong. Your suspicions may be wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]I never made it to the end of your post....sorry.

I will suspect any man that will not stand up in a court of law and face the music. MJ fits this category.

I will suspect any man that will pay collosal amounts of money so as not to face open questioning regarding a child abuse case. MJ fits this category.

The average man I feel would be knocking on the court doors to speak his innocence on an allegation of child abuse. Sadly....MJ does not fit this category.

This leads me to think he's an arsehole.

Hmm ... but this man is mentally ill. People are quick anough to shout that he is running away into fantasy land away from harsh reality. However, he is *then* judged by normal standards when it comes to his actions in the paedophile accusation.

Does it not seem logical that a man who has spent years leading his escapist life pays off an accuser (with an amount he can well afford), rather than have the case go to court and be forced to deal with in in Real Life, whether or not he is innocent?

No, it would seem far more logical to pay off the worlds best lawyers (with an amount he can well afford), and deal with the issues.

How can ANY MAN know that someone else somewhere, might even harbour the most minute thought that he could be a paedophile???? How could you sleep with yourself thinking that someone else thinks that of you??? F**k that. Any non paedophile would have to scotch and squash that rumour straight off....period!!!!

No, it would seem far more logical to pay off the worlds best lawyers (with an amount he can well afford), and deal with the issues.

How can ANY MAN know that someone else somewhere, might even harbour the most minute thought that he could be a paedophile???? How could you sleep with yourself thinking that someone else thinks that of you??? F**k that. Any non paedophile would have to scotch and squash that rumour straight off....period!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]I disagree. If that man were sane, then yes - undoubtedly he would persue the case until he was vindicated. You would. I would. MJ didn't - are we to take that as irrefutable proof of his guilt, because his actions do not conform to *your* idea of the way a normal person whould act?

He is clearly not normal. Actually, I think he's a fruitcake. I do not, however, think that his avoiding a court case (just as he is avoiding every other bit of responsibility in his life) is due cause to condemn him as guilty.

How else should we then judge him?

He's clearly not normal I'd agree. He is however highly intelligent.

I really do feel that you are clutching at straws regarding some of your arguments. (Said kindly [img]smile.gif[/img] )

<font color="plum">Well <font color="red">Bardan</font>, I think you have definitely qualified today's "Over The Top" Response Award.

<font color="coral">Charlie</font> was a bit "over the top" himself in saying that anybody he suspects of being a child molestor is an arse-hole...but you're response blew his completely out of the water.

It also overlooked, ignored, or exaggerated several points that have been made.

1) NOBODY has accused Michael Jackson of abusing his children. Several have voiced their suspicions that he has molested children. One isn't better than the other, but they are two separate issues.

2) NOBODY is calling for Michael Jackson to be "locked away". Several people just feel it is unwise for him to be around young children that aren't related to him. Most people also feel that sleeping in the same room (and especially the same bed) with these same children is more than just wierd or eccentric. <font color="lavender">Cloudy</font> pointed out the specific comment by Michael Jackson where he said his relationship was very "loving" and asked "What's wrong with sharing a love?" with a 12 yr old. I'm sorry, but that simply is not "normal behavior" for a 44 year old man. My coworker told me that this same 12 yr old was sitting next to Michael and holding his hand during parts of the interview. Again, this goes beyond just being "odd".

3) NOBODY has suggested anything amiss with sleeping with your own children (whether biological or adopted). That IS normal. Sleeping with the child of a stranger is NOT! The same goes for your niece and nephew. Falling asleep in front of the TV is completely normal. If you both got up and went to sleep in the same bed, I might find that a bit more odd...but it still isn't on the same scale of sleeping in the same room (or bed) with other peoples children on a regular basis.

4) NOBODY claimed that Michael Jackson had any "sinister purpose" for making his children wear masks and veils in public. You claim that he "may just be trying to protect them from the media". The only way he will be able to do that is to keep them in the house all the time. Whenever Michael Jackson leaves NeverLand, it is a media event. It's just a fact of life because of who he is. Dressing his children in feathered masks is only adding to the media's frenzy - not taking away from.

Which brings me to a point that hasn't been mentioned yet. I think it's very ironic that - in trying to "protect" his children (by making them wear masks and cover themselves from head to toe) - Michael Jackson is also "stealing their childhood" just as his was stolen from him. You say that "maybe he doesn't want the media to know what they look like". Fair enough. Maybe he doesn't. But my question is "What's the purpose of hiding thier identity?" Is it so that they could go out in public un-molested? That isn't going to happen...because he never lets them go out without the obligatory mask and body garments. He isn't "hiding them" from the media at all. If anything, they are more recognizable, not less.

I understand the primary point of your post, <font color="red">Bardan</font>. NOBODY has anything more substantial than suspicions to base any of their child-molestation accusations on. And accusations and suspicions do not meet the "burden of proof" that the law requires. I was just surprised to see you take one statement you disagreed with and get completely carried away with it - using it to extrapolate statements and opinions into accusations that hadn't been made.</font>