BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Ed.
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 06:04 PM

Rustic Rebel,

If you were male, your post would be enough to consider "worth investigating" by some.

I don't wish or intend to make any judgement by the above comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 06:45 PM

Well Ed, I don't understand the difference of being male or female here. And either do the kids I would imagine. There is nothing wrong with cuddling and loving your children! And certainly a big difference between loving them and molesting them, but I highly doubt MJ is molesting his kids. With my niece it has always been her choice. She was scared of sleeping in another room by herself, that started it, but it is purely innocent and loving.
If people see something wrong with cuddling with kids, not only do I feel sorry for them but the kids as well.
Peace. Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 10:42 PM

Well after seeing the ABC ( Walt Disney-owned ) Special broadcasting this UK-Granada Productions docume I must say "the" most disturbing thing that jumped out at me about this wackjob is the way he blythefully dismisses any need for his children to have a mother . Everything surogates , from conception to upbringing to God knows what when they go through their teenage years , and I half wonder if the Raelians are trying to contact Micheal to order a clone thorugh them.

Welcome to the 21st Century and the celebrity worshipping halfwits that make give the micheal Jackson's all the bubbleworld reinforcing adulation they need.
My God , just what is this world setting itself up for next ....
Anti-Christ Superstar ? ( A Marilyn mansonb album title )

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:26 PM

Right on, Sparrownoid. It's empty distraction. I regard the entertainment media and TV in general as far sicker and more destructive to the human race than Michael Jackson will ever be. They suck on him and anyone else that they can find to pull in viewers, just like some huge vampire sucking on its victim.

So they distributed TVs in Afghanistan, did they? How kind of them! And here I have been, in the heart of the affluent society, deliberately choosing not to have a TV for the past 15 years.

It's like Orwell's 1984, only more subtle. The brutality is a little less obvious. The poisons are coated with sugar. The Newspeak is so patently absurd that anything Bush says about Saddam could just as well be spoken by Saddam about Bush. Even more so, in fact, specially when it comes to weapons of mass destruction and warmongering.

It doesn't matter about Michael Jackson. He's just one incredibly lost soul with a lot of money. But it does matter that the media are brainwashing and sedating everyone on a daily basis and have been doing so for decades.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:27 PM

Oh please. He said there were plenty of women around and himself to take care of the kids. Sure the kids are going to grow up with a different lifestyle, but the question is who is making it that way for them? Press, public, fans. I am sure they are quite happy and content children when not in the eyes of the public.
I think this man Martin B. who did the interview came off looking like the asshole. He was troubled about MJ's facination with children. Give me a break! I found myself actually respecting MJ for what he is doing for kids.
If more people would do for kids like he does, showing them it's ok to have fun, it's ok to love and it's ok to pay attention to them, maybe this world would be a better place.
Peace. Rustic, who has a Peter Pan sticker on her guitar.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST,G T Wrisley
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:30 PM

Why do you watch this crap? The man is obviously a walking mental health diagnosis. He is a sociopath. He has no feelings for others. He is a narcissist. If you watch it, you support it. Do not give me any excuses. Ignore the bastard. Turn off the TV. It will damage you spiritually if you get involved in this. If any of you lives in his jurisdiction, file a complaint.That is a different matter. Other than that it does not help to watch him. It is similar to being a voyeur.

Besides, every one of you wackos could put the time to better use in practice or teaching or maintaining your instruments.

G T Wrisley

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 03 - 11:54 PM

Yeah, LH, a convoy of TVs going around Afghanistan. Saw it on the news. Village to village, getting the propaganda tools in place even before medical facilities were up and running.

Television...Super Sunday I watched about 10 minutes of the Super Bowl half-time show. One commercial for one of the on-line job-finders...Monster.com?...had an interesting piece of propaganda. At least, I recognized it as propaganda.

A large semi-trailer truck is careening down the road, out of control. Lots of sparks and collisions. Cut to someone at a computer typing in Monster.com. A moment later, the guy is in the driver's seat of the truck, rasslin' it back onto the road and all is well. Some lip-flap about finding the job that's right for you.

So I see that and I think about the trucking industry in the U.S. A year ago, union drivers were struggling to get by driving for thirty cents per mile, I think it was. Then, within the last year, the border with Mexico was absolutely destroyed, and now Mexican drivers are driving around our country, working for THREE cents per mile. My research on this is old and I'm working from memory, but I think that's the basics.

So I sit there and watch this ad, which is a cute ad, but it DIVERTS the viewer's attention from the fact that American trucking is dead. And any viewer who saw that ad probably thinks he or she can ALWAYS get a job as a trucker, because that's what the ad implied.

And the Bush junta has started paying Hollywood to insert this kind of idea into television spots. Like 'product placement' of Coke and Pepsi, the government is now actually budgetting money to go to Hollywood to insert messages in scripts. Things like Torture is good, Constitution is bad, Concentration camps are needed, etc. Seriously. They call it 'idea placement'.

Television is making lemmings of you, people. It will lead you off a cliff someday. In 1947 the U.S. govt brought the Nazi death-camp doctors to this country to carry on their psychological 'research', and you're seeing the result of it now every time you turn on the tube, whether you know it or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST,Jim Clark..London.England
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:09 AM

Yes Micheal Jackson has to be one of the strangest people on the planet,but he does rather bring to mind earlier mad artistic types like Shelley,Byron,William Blake and numerous other poeticaly or artisticaly inclined types who were truly eccentric extremely odd,but brilliantly creative people...None of us know if he is being totaly truthful(of course it just shouldnt be happening) that the children who sleep over at his homes do so as he says in an entirely innocent childlike cocooned enviroment..crazy as it may seem...I think he may be being truthful on this matter,even if he doesnt qiute hit the full tone of truth about his possible encounters with the plastic surgeons knife...Seeing him with his motherless dispossesed children walking about wearing masks and the baby dangling and baby feeding episode through a a fishnet mask was qiute unforgetably disturbing to my mind...surely other celebrity parents manage to raise their children without such excruciatingly extreme measures to conceal their identities...
As for Martin Bashir...what a truly dark macheaveleon character he comes across as...I think a show about him possibly called "Living with Martin Bashir"(possibly Louis Theroux could be the interviewer)would be an equaly dark and depressing foray into television voyeurism...

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: jimlad
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 05:20 AM

Lets leave the poor bugger alone right,sure he is a sad,sad,human being....but "there but for fortune go you or I"

Now what I say is that it's the parents of the litle kids sharing his bedroom who need a 'RIGHT GOOD SLAPPING'
They have a personal agenda that defies understanding by any caring parent(or Grand-Parent in my case.)

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 12:02 PM

Martin Bashir was certainly manipulative, but isn't that what he's supposed to be? Heck, I grew up with Mike Wallace being (snickeringly) accused of "setting up" his victims. People were outraged (wink wink nudge nudge) but they SURE loved the info that he squeezed out of Corporate crooks et al. Apparently Barbara Walters was able to do the same thing, but I could never bear to watch her long enough to find out.

Michael did an absolutely astounding "softball" interview with Oprah Winfrey a few years ago, and I'm sure a great many folks came away from it wanting to wash their TV screens.

So..the bottom line (for me) is, yes, Martin Bashir used his skill and his deviousness to get Michael to be (I gather) reasonably honest...and naturally, the results are ugly.

I'm afraid we live in times where the spotlight is always on....whaddya gonna do.

In the past, the sheer amount of wealth an eccentric person had, could guarantee their privacy. Not any more. Michael, Anna Nicole Smith, Michael's buddy(!!) who married Liza Minelli, etc, etc, etc, are out there for us to watch, just like the animals in Michael's zoo.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 02:10 PM

I can't say that I liked Martin Bashir very much.

A short time after watching the thing, I suddenly flashed on something. "Rosebud."

Anybody seen Citizen Kane? If you note the parallels in the possible deep-seated, unconscious motivations behind the actions and behavior of Michael Jackson and those of the fictional Kane, I think it becomes pretty clear. He's trying to buy back the childhood that was stolen from him.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST,Taliesn
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 03:55 PM

From Rustic Rebel:
(quote)
"Oh please. He said there were plenty of women around and himself to take care of the kids."

Oh, puh-lease your own self. Yeah plenty of women "for hire"
surrounding them , but not a one that has that "connection"
and the day will come when they will question their Wacko sperm-doner of a father about whomtheir motrher is/was.
One can only imagine telling them some fantasy story of how they miraculously came as a gift to him and then show them the "Non-disclosure Contract".
I guess Rustic subscribes to the "It takes a *hired* village to raise a child pychology ". Hiring & firing of surogate mums should prove interesting.
Yeah, then add in the wealth-fed "bubbleland" and the constant wearing of masks in public and you're really got the makings of some maladjusted lives mishapen by the wealth-fed self-indulgences and fantasies of a disturbed Peter Pan-manbo fixated upon his own image. Ferdinand Marcos comes to mind.
Yeah I guess money "does" buy everything...including credability as a parent.
This is just the type of wealth-prey that the Raelians prey upon
promising a perect clone so you can life forever.
Give me an 'f-ing" break.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST,Jeep Man
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:26 PM

I saw the first half and my stomach became upset so I turned to Animal Planet. Much more credible.

Thing about Michael Jackson is -Why Do We Give A Damn?   Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Feb 03 - 08:56 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 01:42 PM

Psssssssst .... wanna see just how nurturing Michael Jackson can be?
click here

:-) daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rosebrook
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 04:34 PM

From Rustic Rebel:
(quote)

(referring to her neice)"She is now fourteen years old and she still wants to sleep with me when she visits. We cuddle and talk and and talk and talk...(kid won't shut-up and go to sleep!) But does that make me a pervert or a lesbian? No way."

I take umbrage at the use of the word "lesbian" as thrown into this scenario. It suggests the lesbian-baiting stereotype of women "recruiting" younger females "into the lifestyle". Or it is used interchangeably with the word "pervert". What was the intention behind the use of this word here?
Rose

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: The Shambles
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:06 PM

I think the interviewer was trying very hard not to make his subject a cause for concern. It was also pretty obvious that his subject was a cause for concern who was not able to relate to others, his own children or the real world at all.

The excuse is made that with his background and childhood, this is not surprising. No it is not surprising but those who make this excuse feed the dangerous idea that this has created a special human being, to whom special rules apply. I saw Elizabeth Taylor introduce him on his recorded 30th anniversary show which was also screened this week, as the next best thing to the Messiah.

He is talented but this talent does not overide or excuse his basic shortcomings and the problems that less talented people do not exhibit.

He is rich but this should not be able to blind those who do get close, to the care and guidance he should be receiving fom them. Rather than their unquestioning adulation added to that which fanatical strangers need to show and which Michael Jackson is so used to feeding off, like some vampire or junkie.

He plainly thinks he is Peter Pan and will live forever, and this is generally seen as mildly amusing and not a barrier to raising his own children. Who he abuses, as plainly as his father abused him in exactly the same way (less the belt - so far). The masks?

With other visiting children he plainly becomes one of them but does not see that they do see him as a child like them or that this pretence is an abdication of responsibilty that aldulthood places upon all adults.

An identical individual behaving like this, less the wealth and private fairground, would be viewed with much suspicion by these same children and with even more by their parents.

When it came to the 'cured' child, the hand holding and the adoring head on Michaels shoulder, the interviewer was still trying not to be concerned. He was forced to become concerned when the children were placed at real risk during the tour of Germany, which Michael seemed to see as a triumphant palm waving entrance to Jerusalem. Where every concern seemed to be secondary to obtaining a fix of adulation.

The most revealing aspect of the bed sharing was that Michael Jackson, even after his wealth and his lawyers had previously saved him, was totally unaware of the implications or of the dangerous position he was openly placing himself it.

At the end, I had the impression that the interviewer was like an angler who had caught so many big fish, with so little effort, he was embarrassingly trying to push them back in the water

Michael needs help, I doubt if he will get it. I trust that his children will......

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From:
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:11 PM

Call me stupid but I thought that bit was easy - she's a woman dope head!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From:
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:16 PM

ie - she would be a pervert to sleep with someone in her family or underage and does the fact that she sleeps with another female cuddling etc. make her a lesbian!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Feb 03 - 05:16 PM

Cut'n splice maybe?

;-) daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: jimlad
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 10:49 AM

Well said Shambles

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rustic Rebel
Date: 09 Feb 03 - 11:25 PM

Rosebrook- No offense intended to lesbians. I was using those examples based on the names MJ is called, for letting boys sleep in his bed. I suppose I could have used the term paedophile also. I was making a point. Just because he has slept with children, it does not prove he is, what he has been labeled.

Taliesn- Guess what- there are many children raised by 'women for hire'. Call them babysitters, call them day care, call them nannies. What ever you call them those three Jackson kids aren't the only ones.

Daylia- No need for cut and splice if you were referring to my posts, I can handle it!
Peace, Rustic

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Feb 03 - 10:26 AM

Rustic I was responding to 'GUESTsomeonewhowon'tleavetheiraddy'. I thought s/he was referring to the silly picture of Michael with boobs that I posted above. My mistake?

Always liked Michael Jackson - he's a creative phenomena. And a lot of the world's greatest artists were more than just a little 'unique'. (Sounds better than 'strange'). And that makes them 'bait' for the mud-slingers and the money-hungry instigators of civil suits. IMO anyway.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: fox4zero
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 01:20 AM

Rick

I can understand sleeping with the cats, but sleeping with heather....
It isn't a native CT plant. Where do you pick it?

In the "old Borsht-Belt days", the only one that slept with cats was Mrs. Katz!

Larry

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:34 AM

Oi vay!

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Bagpuss
Date: 11 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM

The main thing that disturbed me was that Jackson seemed to be suffering under the delusion that as long as he didn't let his children suffer in the way he suffered, then they couldn't come to any harm. Thus in his mind, as long as their faces were covered and they couldn't therefore be recognised, then he was doing fine. Even if he dangles a baby over a balcony to show to his adoring fans, or exposes his other children to a media scrum in which they were almost trampled underfoot.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 10:29 PM

Lordy Lordy Lordy, did I go off half-cocked!!

I shot my mouth off without seeing the documentary.....but now I HAVE seen it.

Bashir set him up big time over the whole film. Michael is not a huge intellect, and I think he got raked unfairly about a number of things.

Look, yes, he's seriously weird, but I didn't get the feeling that he was dangerous (to kids or anyone). The whole "Peter Pan Child thing" IS legit...it really IS how he sees himself, and I really think he DOESN'T understand that he's had all the plastic surgery.....but I also got a picture of a very disturbed, but kind creature, and I shouldn't have been giving opinions til I'd at least seen the damn film.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Feb 03 - 11:00 PM

Glad you got to watch it Rick. I've never been a MJ fan (though I did like Billy Jean), had read about some of his strangeness and when Pip said to me "this is on the tv", I couldn't resist watching a little of it to see how obnoxious he really was...

My reaction to the program was one I never could have predicted.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: The Shambles
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 12:43 AM

Look, yes, he's seriously weird, but I didn't get the feeling that he was dangerous (to kids or anyone). The whole "Peter Pan Child thing" IS legit...it really IS how he sees himself,-

From just watching the show, I don't get the feeling that he is dangerous either, but he was using the same langauge that dangerous people use. And these people would also have you believe that they were not dangerous and they come across as very plausable too.

This idea that they, (the adult) are subject to the wishes of the children is interesting. In MJ's case this was that it was the children who wished to sleep in his bed, in other cases many serious abuses are justisfied by the perpetrator in exactly the same way.....

I am not in any way defending this industry or the damage that is caused by producing the images, but in the current climate where thoudsands of people are being charged for simply looking at these images of children on the net, many of those charged also being famous, we have to ask if our feeelings here and the actions of authorities are right..? Is it a double standard?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 11:32 AM

You're absolutely right Roger, about "using the same language that dangerous people use..."

Unfortunately I couldn't see between the lines enough to exonerate the guy in that area....I'm just not sure. BUT....the way he talked about his obvious cosmetic surgery (he says he's done absolutely "NOTHING", just a couple of things with the nose to "help him breathe better and hit high notes(!!)

Awww shit. I simply don't know WHAT I think.....BUT....Bashir set him up again and again. That's a fact. AND..I was criticizing him (with my usual "jokey" approach) when I hadn't seen the film.

So Jon, what DID ya think?

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 02:39 PM

Well Rick I've already given most of my thoughts in previous posts to this thread. In biref, I thought more of Michael Jackson than I thought I would and ended up with a strong dislike of Martin Bashir.

If you are meaning "do I think he's dangerous?" I can't KNOW any more than anyone else here. Michael Jackson's life is strange but the overall impression I got was that he is genuine in his "Peter Pan world" and has no sinister motive in his relationship with children.

Jon

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: wysiwyg
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 03:11 PM

Now that we have seen the rise and fall of so many superstars, it's easy (from our view) to see the sickness the Jackson entourage enables and exploits.... from inside Neverland, all that seems to sick and perverse to us seems (by now) totally normal. Can't go on forever, eh?

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: fat B****rd
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 04:16 PM

A lot of people put up with MJ's eccentricities etc until the Jotdy Chandler situation. After that the whole question of child molestation has hung over him like the proverbial sword. Last week a couple of lads , The Baldy Brothers on Century Radio UK North East, raised the question of Chandler's parents and the huge pay off. I don't know if Americans are different but as Gary Baldy (yes, I know) pointed out, if anybody harmed or molested in any way the child(ren) of normal people in this country NO amount of money would compensate and the suspected molester would be on the recieving end of great violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: gnu
Date: 15 Feb 03 - 05:44 PM

I haven't read this thread. I wanted to see the show for myself first. I watched the MJ interviews this afternoon. I have the same take on this as I had when the "scandal" about him fucking young boys broke out. If MJ wanted to fuck young boys, he would have spent some of his over a billion dollars to go do it discreetly. Perhaps he is childish, even childlike, but I cannot believe he is stupid. And to make the jump to perverted is, to me, perverted. Only people who want to believe that he is a pervert will see him as a pervert.

Overall, I must admit that his fantasy lifestyle is a bit outside what I would do if I had that kind of money, but, then again, I don't have that kind of money.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:41 AM

Leaving out the strangest stuff.....

Wouldn't most people love to have a Tree to climb whenever you wanted to,...their own TRAIN....a recording studio en suite.....

everything but Liz Taylor and Liza's new hubby showing up for dinner??!!

Rick Pan

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 11:13 AM

Thread creep
"Your version of 'Neverland' might make a good thread subject.

Not the adult stuff - we've probably all heard enough of other people's sexual fantasies to the point where they're boring. I'm thinking about the childlike indulgences.

Rick would probably do the Indiana 'Mojo' Jones and the Search for the Holy Grail of Guitars thing: build a nice castle (with no wallpaper) with rooms like "The Really Good Japanese Knock-Off Room," "Magnificent Marvelous Martins," "Gibsons That Don't Suck," "Perfectly Playable Plastic Things," and who knows what else.

Me, I'd buy a house over a giant pit. It would have trap-door floors to make cleaning easier.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Kaleea
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 12:38 PM

Michael who . . .?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 05:45 PM

For those in the US with cable, the interview is on VH1 at 8 tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: catspaw49
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 06:15 PM

Also, Michael has his rebuttle show airing this Thursday on Fox. It usws the outtakes to show that he was portrayed badly.........I think he is naive, very childlike himself and a hundred other things, but I also do NOT think he's a pedophile. Confused and deep into the Peter Pan syndrome for sure, but I really don't think he's dangerous in the classic sense.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 06:58 PM

Wouldn't most people love to have a Tree to climb whenever you wanted to,...their own TRAIN....a recording studio en suite.....

Rick, please could I have a tree house in the tree? And can I have one of those old fairground organs, and I want an old steam powered Merry-Go-Round (carousel) with the most fantastic horses you have ever seen, trains - I want "Oliver Cromwell" I remember standing in awe looking at that one at Bressingham when I was about 10) and "The Flying Scotsman" of course (I don't remember but I'm told Pip once picked me up to allow me to touch that one)...

I'd like to think that somewhere we all do still have the child in us,

Jon Pan

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: The Shambles
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:04 PM

Is possible for a 40 year-old man to pretend to be a child, to believe he will live forever and still maintain to be a responsible single parent to three children?

If you have enough money, the answer would appear to be yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:19 PM

Shambles, I don't know that the key is money, even if he certainly can afford fancier toys. Maybe there are many other adults stuck in childhood fantasies, but they aren't famous and so their lives aren't fodder for our voyeuristic tendencies.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: harpgirl
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 07:30 PM

hmmmm...I have to disagree with those of you that believe he is not a pedophile. I believe he is. My opinion is that Mr. Jackson should not he be allowed to have any unsupervised contact with children under eighteen.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Feb 03 - 10:26 PM

My impression was that most of the interview wasn't that weird, but the interviewer sure tried hard to make it seem that way. The commentary added post-interview sounded like sensationalism. It didn't match what I saw: Jackson's behavior supposedly becoming more and more 'bizarre' - huh? He was walking down a street, waving at people! 'Complete humiliation' because Jackson missed a cue? Oh come on! Complete humiliation is when your trousers fall off. It was also quite obvious that last interview was the 'kill'. Did his damndest to get some sort of emotional reaction out of Jackson.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: The Shambles
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 02:10 AM

It is not the nature of his fancy toys, unless you include other peoples children as that.

It is MJ's fame, his need to feed on this and complete isolation from the constraints placed upon most of us, that permits this totally bizrre individual's activities, some of them very suspect, to be to be viewed as not only acceptable but as a even role model by some. This is dangerous in itself, as I sadly think we will find out, if at least his own children do mot receive some outside help.

That he may not, or not have appeared to be in this show, to be as strange as the worst publications would have us beleive, is hardly the point.

No favours are being done to anyone at real risk, by us turning on the makers of the show. And for what, doing their job, and feeding us? This is a dirty job and we are led to beleive, mainly by those that do it, that someone has to do it?

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:35 AM

It's his fame that permits his activities to be viewed - period. It is my opinion that if it's the job of the makers of the show to create a sensational story, to include their comments as truth, it certainly is a dirty job. It would have been a strange enough story without the creative commentary.

If it weren't for his fame and wealth, I doubt he would have ended up so weird in the first place. It seems to me he's trying to remain in a childhood he never had. Maybe I'm wrong, but my opinion of molesters is that they're usually into the power thing, the control. They don't see themselves as one of the kids but the one in charge. One of the things that struck me was that the only people who treated Jackson like a person were the kids. Fans acting wacky, paparazzi acting wacky, interviewer acting insincerely respectful simply to gain trust (IMO) and employees, but the kids just acted like normal kids around him.

As far as who's in danger, let's face it, our opinions are based mostly on gossip, rumors, and television interview programs which augment the facts with opinions designed to get ratings. I wouldn't trust any of these things. "No favors are being done anyone at real risk" - from whom? From child molester or a mob? Who decides where the risk lies? The best thing that could happen for anyone at real risk would be if an attempt were made to portray truth as imparially as possible, and that did NOT happen.

Maybe it's because I read this thread before I watched the show, but there was a very obvious gap between what I was observing and the assumptions and conclusions the interviewer voiced. Frankly, I don't trust anyone who tries to not-so-subtly guide my feelings about what I'm seeing. Maybe it's just me. I don't like Jerry Springer either.

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 11:55 AM

Ya know, I've watched it twice now...and I clicked into "minute detail mode" both times. I looked for reactions, body language, evidence of re-takes, facial expressions.....and I simply don't know (about him being dangerous).

I've watched interviews where I was amazed at the sheer skill of the subject to lie convincingly (Bill Clinton). I've seen interviews, where the subject looked absolutely terrified (George Bush jr.) I watched a pretty good interview with Paula Jones (after having made fun of this poor creature for a couple of years) and suddenly realized that (despite being manipulated by the Republicans) she was telling the truth...completely.

I simply don't think Michael is smart enough to be "That good". So....is he a paedophile? I don't think so......BUT....would I leave MY kids with him? No, No, No.

Ya gotta admit, it was a fascinating program.

Cheers

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Feb 03 - 12:19 PM

I thought the interview was a load of aul shite. The guy did just as Jeri suggests, he tries to lead us to a conclusion that ain't so. Is Michael goofy? Yep. Does he appear to have some emotional problems? yep. Did I see anything that suggests he is a pedophile? Nope. I was molested by a scout leader as a child, so I have a jaundiced view of folks that try to get close to all kids. I watch them for signs very carefully. I didn't see that.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:08 PM

I dunno Mick. The graphic physical descriptions provided to the police, resulted in Michael's being photographed in detail. They were apparently totally accurate, and immediately afterwards, Michael's 'people' went for the multi-million dollar settlement. That whole thing may be terribly ugly, but it's all available on the net now.

My question now....is HOW experienced was the kid? Was there a 'set up' going on?

It gets sadder and sadder, but I'm starting to see some stuff I didn't before.

Rick

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Jackson-UK TV interview
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Feb 03 - 06:42 PM

you know...MJ was about all you could watch last night..ABC and NBC both had 2 hrs or more...NBC ran a documentary about his life that was in many ways scarier than the 'interview'..(I switched back & forth)...

I have NO idea whether he had ever actually molested any kids (though one claimed so 10 years ago, and the detective who worked the case was NOT happy it got settled out of court)...but anyone who can lie so blatently about how much plastic surgery he has had, just 'might' strech the truth about other things..they had 2 or 3 plastic surgeons who said that the man has had so muck (much, but I kinda like that typo) work done that he is in real danger!...And no matter that his father & others made him so sensitive about his appearance, he has a serious problem with what his mind has done to his body.

It makes me sorta sad...and if he weren't so damn rich, it would be even sadder!

(anyone want to discuss his 'taste' in vases?)