Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

michael jackson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • It may or may not be fact. That's why I used the word opinion. But there is a very big difference in forming an opinion without looking into what you are forming the opinion about, and an actual educated opinion. What I say may or may not be fact. I never said it was. I said it's my educated opinion. You once again are ignoring my words and putting other words into my mouth. So, once again, refer to my last posts and you will see what I called ignorant. That is forming an opinion and judging someone without any sort of information on them. This is not at all what I have done.

    Comment


    • please clearly define where I "put words into your mouth".
      Whatever doesn't kill me had better be able to run damn fast.

      "You are one of the most self-deluded immature idiots I've come across here for a time..." —Blooming T. Lotus

      Comment


      • Originally posted by plumflower_pm
        I'm ticked off at XJ because he was accusing people of being foolish because they base thier judgement on opinion, and not fact. He then spent 5 pages doing exactly the same thing and yet manages to fail to acknowledge that.
        Originally posted by plumflower_pm
        I did read your posts, and you do say the same thing over and over, that all this (your ideas about MJ's innocence, your ideas about Doc's motivation) is your opinion. Yet you continue to expect us to regard it as fact?
        In the first quote you say I base my judgment on opinion and not on fact. Although this is true, I have said I educated myself on what I was forming an opinion on before sharing it. And I have always said it's an opinion. I was not accusing people of being foolish for basing judgments on opinions, but on uneducated opinions. This is where you put into my mouth.

        In this second quote you are implying that my purpose here was not to share an opinion but to expect you to regard it as fact. If you read my posts but still believe this, you are putting words into my mouth again. If you are just asking like the question mark suggests, then you weren't exactly putting words into my mouth, but you were putting different meanings into my words before knowing. But you should know by simply reading my last posts where I've explained plenty of times.

        Comment


        • You concede that my first statement is true. Therefore I put no words in your mouth on that account. I used my language to describe what you said, I didn't quote you directly.

          I didn't qualify anyone's opinion on this thread as "educated", including my own, so therefore I don't qualify yours either.

          On the second quote, my implying something, again, is not putting words in your mouth. I asked you to confirm whether or not you expect us to weigh your opinion more seriously than any others on this thread.

          I have told you that I have followed the case, and where I get my information from. You did dismiss my sources as unreliable, but you didn't supply yours. You have not done that for us and yet you continue to argue that you are the one with the 'educated opinion'.

          By your own logic, how can I accept your statements?
          Whatever doesn't kill me had better be able to run damn fast.

          "You are one of the most self-deluded immature idiots I've come across here for a time..." —Blooming T. Lotus

          Comment


          • Actually I didn't say you put words into my mouth with what I said is true. You said I accused others of being foolish for basing their judgments on opinions and not truth. This is putting words into my mouth. I said they are foolish for basing judgments on opinions without learning first about what they are judging with their opinions. You did put words into my mouth. YOU IGNORED that part of the paragraph.

            On the second quote I said if you believe so, then you are putting the words into my mouth. If you are just asking, the answer is no, but you still put the different meaning into my words with your idea. YOU IGNORED my post where I said it's my opinion and never claimed any facts. (except for those proven in court at the MJ trial)

            I did actually supply my sources on the MJ trial. I said www.mjjsource.com. Once again, YOU IGNORED my post where I said so.

            All this IGNORING is the reason I used the word IGNORant in the first place...

            Comment


            • I didn't ignore that part of the paragraph, as you've said it a thousand times.

              I didn't ignore the second statement there either, point of fact it is the basis for my arguement with you and thanks for reinforcing it.

              I didn't ignore your site reference either, I went there, I looked around. mjjsource is a FAN SITE and is in no way unbiased. The news is decidedly slanted, the owner of the site writes the news articles. I realize major news organizations do that too, but they have culpability for the presentation of thier material. The owner of a fansite does not.

              The major news organizations have been reporting the same thing: There have been previous attempts by this family to bring molestation cases to court, the mother was very wierd and gave conflicting testimony when on the stand....

              Your site does not mention eyewitness accounts of Mr. Jackson in the shower with a boy, and a separate eye witness account of him kissing and fondling another boy at a different time.

              http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/07/jackson.trial/

              http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4414555.stm

              http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7395129/
              Whatever doesn't kill me had better be able to run damn fast.

              "You are one of the most self-deluded immature idiots I've come across here for a time..." —Blooming T. Lotus

              Comment


              • Reading it and noticing it but acting like it's not there is exactly ignoring it. You are still accusing me of something I just showed you is not true. What I said is true is the fact that I used opinions also. But what isn't true is that I say people are foolish for using opinions and then do it myself. This is ignoring part of what I said, changing it to put words in my mouth. I said people are foolish if they use opinions without any kind of information to base that opinion on, the opposite of what I've been doing. Again, don't IGNORE this because it throws out everything you just said about me.

                www.mjjsource.com is not a fan site, as in created by fans. It is MJ's official team that runs the site. You must be a member there to have access to their articles. That's why you didn't see anything there. I have read plenty of articles on there that were totally against MJ's credit. If they wanted to protect his image they wouldn't have such things written in an article and presented on their site. They are obviously giving everyone a fair view from both sides of the case. The choice is for the public to make.

                News sites like the ones you have shared have left out important parts of the case to make it seem really bad against MJ. If you read mjjsource's articles you see what they left out, things that weren't mentioned. Like they will say only something bad about MJ but not include the fact that it was proven physically impossible to have happened because of times.

                Those sites leave things out to make them look bad... this is about exactly what you have done to me in your last posts. You left things out and ignored them and put my words in a way that makes it look bad. Stop ignoring. Leave everything in. Unless of course you don't like it when you're proven to be arguing just because you like to be a jerk and you have no real argument. Then that's a reason to keep ignoring my words like you have been.

                Comment


                • [expressionless monotone]

                  I can no longer argue with you. you clearly have the superior position. thank you for elucidating me. good luck in your future endeavors. I hereby gladly forfeit my right to speak to you about this matter.

                  [/expressionless monotone]

                  Whatever doesn't kill me had better be able to run damn fast.

                  "You are one of the most self-deluded immature idiots I've come across here for a time..." —Blooming T. Lotus

                  Comment


                  • http://www.hitler.org
                    created by the "Hitler Historical Museum".

                    Which clearly makes the following claim:
                    The museum, while acknowledging the tragedy that over 50 million people died during World War 2, retains its non-biased status by refraining from making political judgments of any sort. Neither does it make the standard, uninformative, and cliched historical judgement that the victor of the war was "good" and that the loser of the war was "bad."
                    Yes, as you say, and without a doubt, MJ's website, authored by his people, is purely unbiased, and all these various and different news sites, which can easily be sued for libel, are.

                    I'm not only a bad Buddhist, I'm a moron. How could I possibly not believe these things that I find on the web....
                    Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                    "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                    (more comments in my User Profile)
                    russbo.com


                    Comment


                    • Yes, plumflower.. I wouldn't have guessed that if you were to stop arguing with me, you would say it in a way that makes you seem like you still know it all but choose to no longer argue with me cuz I'm not getting it. You just have no case whatsoever. You say I don't base my judgments in truth but in opinion. Well, no sh!t. I've said it's only my opinion throughout the whole thread. It was never my point to make you believe my opinions were truth. So, what point are you actually trying to make with this? The other thing is, while my opinions are just opinions, I have read up enough on the topic before I formed the opinion, unlike others who just want to argue with me and call me names because it feels good and because they can. You simply have no case. I would stop too.

                      Doc, if a website run by someone's official team would print out articles that are clearly against his whole credit, is this biased? Unless it's biased against themselves, which doesn't make sense, I don't see how it is. If it only shared the good news and none of the bad, this would be a biased website. No biased website would have articles with contents totally against themselves. You may believe or disbelieve whatever you like. But if everything that was discussed inside the courtroom for any given day of court was presented in an article, this is truth. Truth is truth. Not mentioning important details, shortening, or simply leaving things out is biased. If everything that happened in the courtroom is presented, be it good or bad, this is unbiased. Because it is simply the truth of what happened being presented. Not the truth of what happened in the case but what was discussed in the courtroom. Every word spoken was presented. This is what unbiased reports look like.

                      By the way, those "bad Buddhist" remarks are your own words. Remember that.

                      Comment


                      • XJ, how old are you? Just curious.
                        Experienced Community organizer. Yeah, let's choose him to run the free world. It will be historic. What could possibly go wrong...

                        "You're just a jaded cynical mother****er...." Jeffpeg

                        (more comments in my User Profile)
                        russbo.com


                        Comment


                        • You want to ask my age not because you want to know, but because you think I am inexperienced too much to know that nothing is unbiased. But this is an idea you've had going into the whole thing. So of course, nothing will be unbiased to you. Lose your ideas and just read the articles. Person A asks Person B this: and Person B answers this: If the article is laid out like this and everything said in the courtroom is written down, this can't be biased because it's simply sharing what went down in the courtroom.

                          Comment


                          • xing_jian108

                            Just answer the question. How old are you?

                            My guess is under 17.

                            Your IQ is probably around the same number.

                            Also I think your a punk. Every time I read a thread it is you not so respectfully arguing some point.

                            Show some respect little boy before you get spanked! lolo

                            Comment


                            • Anotherone bites the dust....

                              Back to the topic at hand....



                              wacko jacko fires an another attorney.
                              practice wu de

                              Comment


                              • This week should be interesting...

                                Directly From the AFP:



                                Tuesday, 26 April , 2005, 16:44California: Jurors are to hear on Tuesday from the woman who allegedly arranged for one-way tickets to Brazil for Michael Jackson's teen accuser and his family, prosecutors said.

                                Jackson's personal videographer is also to take the stand on Tuesday in the pop icon's child sex trial, but the defense is poised to pounce on the prosecution witnesses in a bid to show they have their own problems with the singer.

                                Hamid Moslehi, who filmed the future accuser and his family praising Jackson, never gave the film to the pop star because his invoices had not been paid in a year and a half, leaked legal documents show.



                                And Jackson is currently suing Cynthia Montgomery, his former travel coordinator, over her alleged involvement in secretly filming him on the day of his arrest in November 2003.

                                Prosecutors aiming to put a strong finish on their nine-week case against the faded "King of Pop" won a victory Monday when Judge Rodney Melville ruled that Jackson's former wife Debbie Rowe will be allowed to take the stand.

                                But Melville said he would seek ways to limit the scope of evidence she presents after the defense warned that it would open "a huge can of worms" including the bitter custody battle underway between the pop star and his ex. Rowe, a former nurse for Jackson's dermatologist, married the pop star in 1996 and bore him a son and a daughter. He had a third child with another woman in 2002. When they divorced in 1999, Rowe swore not to talk about Jackson's purported drug use, "sexual behavior" and whether or how he fathered their children, in return for a multi-million-dollar settlement, leaked legal documents show.
                                Whatever doesn't kill me had better be able to run damn fast.

                                "You are one of the most self-deluded immature idiots I've come across here for a time..." —Blooming T. Lotus

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X