[Cerek the Barbaric]

Well Bardan, I think you have definitely qualified today's "Over The Top" Response Award.

Charlie 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. Cloudy 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, Bardan. 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.