Michael Jackson committed suicide

[Not A Nice Person]

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

We had the same birthday, MJ and me. Weird. A lot of pieces of my childhood have made their Final Faring in recent weeks.

May he have found some peace from his demons at last.

~Boar

 

[The Green Monkey]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

 

[Wolfie]

May he have found some peace from his demons at last.

Unless you're Catholic...in which case he's pretty much screwed in your eyes.

 

[BlindedByScience]

May he have found some peace from his demons at last.

Unless you're Catholic...in which case he's pretty much screwed in your eyes.

Not sure what you are implying by the "Unless you're catholic" remark. I don't think I like it very much.

MJ was an extraordinarily talented man who's carreer will unfortunately be overshadowed by the fact that he was addicted to plastic surgery, chose to abuse prescription drugs, and was a pedophile.

Unfortunately, it really doesn't matter to most folks how good you can sing and shake your ass with the other "issues" that have been brought to the forefront.....

As they say, one man's opinion - B.B.S.

 

[NullSmurf]

Its not so much how we handle failure, its how we handle success.

 

[Wolfie]

Not sure what you are implying by the "Unless you're catholic" remark. I don't think I like it very much.

Regardless of any of his other overwhelmingly numerous issues, suicide is considered a mortal sin within the Catholic church. If you're Catholic, this obviously has very serious reprecussions on how you view his resolution with any demons he may have.

 

[Not A Nice Person]

May he have found some peace from his demons at last.

Unless you're Catholic...in which case he's pretty much screwed in your eyes.

Not sure what you are implying by the "Unless you're catholic" remark. I don't think I like it very much.

I believe Catholics consider suicide a mortal sin, and that suicides cannot even be buried on their "holy ground." I'm a . . . well, I don't really like to get into it here, but I follow the reconstructed folkways of the ancient Norse, my ancestral ethnocultural spirituality. We sometimes, like the Japanese, consider suicide an honorable ending.

And NOW, back to our regularly scheduled non-hot button conversation!

~Boar

 

[Wolfie]

And NOW, back to our regularly scheduled non-hot button conversation!

Probably a good idea. It wasn't my intention to raise any hackles and I apologize if I did. Being raised in a Catholic environment, I was simply trying to cover all grounds although in retrospect it seems obvious I should have thought better of it.

 

[Yeahthatsme]

I can't seem to find any articles stating he killed himself. Where did you read that?

 

[bfreebern]

Thought his music was great, but hated his personal life. Oh well.

 

[CigarStone]

May he have found some peace from his demons at last.

Unless you're Catholic...in which case he's pretty much screwed in your eyes.

Not sure what you are implying by the "Unless you're catholic" remark. I don't think I like it very much.

I believe Catholics consider suicide a mortal sin, and that suicides cannot even be buried on their "holy ground." I'm a . . . well, I don't really like to get into it here, but I follow the reconstructed folkways of the ancient Norse, my ancestral ethnocultural spirituality. We sometimes, like the Japanese, consider suicide an honorable ending.

And NOW, back to our regularly scheduled non-hot button conversation!

~Boar

Catholics consider many things a mortal sin, and then again there are mortal sins which they spend millions to harbor.....Catholicism isn't at issue here.

As far as MJ.....great performer, great entertainer, incredibly gifted family.....but all in all, the world would have been a better place without him.

 

[bfreebern]

I can't seem to find any articles stating he killed himself. Where did you read that?

It was an overdose, at least that's what TMZ is reporting.

 

[Gawl]

I had heard on Stern not to long ago that he was being forced to go on a tour with the Jackson 5 again. Something about him not being able to perform again unless he did another tour with them and they caught him performing somewhere. Maybe this was his way of giving his family the middle finger as everything I read showed he clearly didn't want anything to do with them anymore.

 

[amateuraficionado]

I can't seem to find any articles stating he killed himself. Where did you read that?

It was an overdose, at least that's what TMZ is reporting.

I just read that too. It looks like it was an overdose of an injection of Demerol. They reported yesterday that his physician was present at the time he lost consciousness. I wonder if he was the one who gave him the injection.

 

[dulaney22]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

 

[amateuraficionado]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

Which one Janet or Rebbie? Because I don't remember either one of them, or any of his other siblings for that matter, coming out and saying anything against him. If you're talking about LaToya who's been pretty much ousted from the entire family and will do anything for a buck and 15 more minutes of fame?....... I guess it was about as easy as it was to comprise the integrity of her family by stripping down for Playboy. And let's not forget that back when she did it, it wasn't fashionable like it is today.

 

[dulaney22]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

Which one Janet or Rebbie? Because I don't remember either one of them, or any of his other siblings for that matter, coming out and saying anything against him. If you're talking about LaToya who's been pretty much ousted from the entire family and will do anything for a buck and 15 more minutes of fame?....... I guess it was about as easy as it was to comprise the integrity of her family by stripping down for Playboy. And let's not forget that back when she did it, it wasn't fashionable like it is today.

Integrity and this family . . . are you serious? Was it "fashionable" for Janet Jackson to expose herself "accidentally?" Looking back, I imagine LaToya (still his sister, right?) is glad she's not associated with the inner clan of the Jackson family.

Sorry, but the regressed 10-year old and Peter Pan theories just don't fly with most folk.

 

[CigarStone]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

Which one Janet or Rebbie? Because I don't remember either one of them, or any of his other siblings for that matter, coming out and saying anything against him. If you're talking about LaToya who's been pretty much ousted from the entire family and will do anything for a buck and 15 more minutes of fame?....... I guess it was about as easy as it was to comprise the integrity of her family by stripping down for Playboy. And let's not forget that back when she did it, it wasn't fashionable like it is today.

Ever think that maybe LaToya was the sane one in that family of dysfunction? Maybe she was outcast because she wouldn't keep the secrets?.....because she wouldn't play the games?......because she didn't want to be daddy's bitch anymore?

 

[amateuraficionado]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

Which one Janet or Rebbie? Because I don't remember either one of them, or any of his other siblings for that matter, coming out and saying anything against him. If you're talking about LaToya who's been pretty much ousted from the entire family and will do anything for a buck and 15 more minutes of fame?....... I guess it was about as easy as it was to comprise the integrity of her family by stripping down for Playboy. And let's not forget that back when she did it, it wasn't fashionable like it is today.

Integrity and this family . . . are you serious? Was it "fashionable" for Janet Jackson to expose herself "accidentally?" Looking back, I imagine LaToya (still his sister, right?) is glad she's not associated with the inner clan of the Jackson family.

Sorry, but the regressed 10-year old and Peter Pan theories just don't fly with most folk.

Actually...... yes, it was fashionable at the time, and still is! Only it's now being taken from the level of public "slips" to full blown sextapes! And the Jackson family and integrity 20 years ago?(Which is the time when she first posed for Playboy) Absolutely! Twenty years ago we didn't know what we know now about the Jackson family and at that time they were music royalty.

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

Which one Janet or Rebbie? Because I don't remember either one of them, or any of his other siblings for that matter, coming out and saying anything against him. If you're talking about LaToya who's been pretty much ousted from the entire family and will do anything for a buck and 15 more minutes of fame?....... I guess it was about as easy as it was to comprise the integrity of her family by stripping down for Playboy. And let's not forget that back when she did it, it wasn't fashionable like it is today.

Ever think that maybe LaToya was the sane one in that family of dysfunction? Maybe she was outcast because she wouldn't keep the secrets?.....because she wouldn't play the games?......because she didn't want to be daddy's bitch anymore?

Nope, can't say I did. Being with a man that beats you into posing nude for a magazine doesn't sound very sane at all..... which is now the claim she makes about why she did it.

 

[tsmckenney]

Right on, Jon. I don't disagree that your gut-level, emotion-based reaction is invalid or without basis, just wanted to point out the other side of the coin and how important it is to try to keep the big picture rules of the game in mind, even when it's unsettling, unpopular, and difficult to do so. Child victims and witnesses are an extremely difficult beast to tame no matter what the circumstances--let alone the circus that was Michael Jackson's weird and complicated little slice of the world.

It's easy to view Michael Jackson and OJ both as celebrities who got off on a technicality through the morally gray expertise of trial consultants (which, in interest of full disclosure, is what I'm studying to become), but there is a vast gulf of difference between the facts, circumstances, and seemingly boneheaded juries in each case.

Just as a general observation regarding the rumors, accusations, civil suits, and arrests . . . if an unmarried fifty year old man in YOUR neighborhood built an amusement park in his back yard and invited neighborhood boys over for "sleepovers" . . . what would YOU think was up with that?

That's a bit of an oversimplification of the situation, don't you think?

It's frighteningly easy to get young kids to levy charges against people even without their parents deliberately putting them in the crosshairs or when there are millions of dollars to be had.

Just one example for you to consider. There are plenty more...

So, how difficult was it to coax his sister into calling him a pedophile?

It's simply amazing that folks will defend pretty much any action. Michael Jackson was morally debase . . . end of story. He is on trial, now (as he has been for the last 15 years), in the eyes of the public and he is overwhelmingly "guilty."

I don't see what's so amazing about it. That's the way people are. He was 51 years old. He had a great musical career. Then things went bad. People will remember what they want to.

Besides, who's 'defending' him in regard to the child abuse charges?