--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote:
> > This posting topic started because I made a joke about > > Michael's death. And when Richard accused me of being > > prejudiced for making it, you piled on, defending both > > Richard and Michael. > > Ooops, now you're just flat-out lying. Me: > Nice to see you pile on instead of taking Richard to task > for his twisted accusation. Judy Defending Richard I suspect he was commenting on your hypocrisy, as am I. Me: You do know that we all have access to the precious posts don't you Judy? Below is the part where you defend poor Michael "redoing" but in no way "regaining" his lost youth. (critical distinction I'm sure except to the many boys who shared his bed.) <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I've heard is that he was a case of > > > arrested development. He never had a real childhood, > > > and he remained very immature emotionally. It was > > > easier for him to relate to children than to adults > > > (especially given his superstar status, where all the > > > adults he knew wanted a piece of him), so he > > > surrounded himself with children, who at least > > > wouldn't try to take advantage of him. At the same > > > time, he could model the loving father he never had. > > > He was essentially redoing his own childhood. > > > > You know where this came from? Michael Jackson describing > > why his desire to sleep with young boys (never young girls) > > was not a case of homosexual pedophilia, but instead was > > ...you know...an innocent 'ting. I have heard interviews > > with physiologists tearing this nonsense apart. > > Physiologists?? > > > Having a working showbiz childhood doesn't make it > > necessary to sleep in the bed with only boys of a very > > specific age. > > "Make it necessary" is a straw man; nobody's saying it > was *necessary*. He *wanted* to do it, had the means > and the opportunity to do it, didn't see any reason > not to do it. > > I think you must have missed the part where I said it > was sick, and that Jackson was deeply psychologically > damaged. > > > There is another name for this behavior. And how > > exactly is sleeping with young boys regaining his > > lost youth? > > Never said he was. I said he was *redoing his > childhood*. > > Words have meanings, Curtis. > > > Boys don't sleep with each other. They don't make out with > > each other and Michael has been seen making out with > > dozens of young boys by his staff, by stewardesses on > > planes, by parents who realized they had made a big > > mistake to trust him. And you don't need pictures of > > naked young boys to reclaim lost youth either and hundreds > > of pictures were seized at Neverland. And exactly how > > many decades of being a child does it take, 5 of them? No > > pity party for superstar millionaire Michael. And people > > who have done business with him know him as a ruthless, > > super ambitious business man, (without the girlie voice > > act, he doesn't usually negotiate with that voice.) > > I have to say I think you have a striking lack of > understanding as to the extent of the complexities > of human nature. > > <snip more of same> > > <snip> > > At least now I have a better understanding of why he got > > away with it all those years. The fact that you would > > even repeat his own excuse as if it is a legitimate > > psychological thoery amazes me. > > I don't believe I made any claims for it other > than it was the best explanation *I* had heard. > Hmm, you seem to have snipped that part of my post. > > Isn't it funny how you can't seem to write a > rebuttal without putting words in my mouth? > > > The hit piece on Sneddon was lame and had nothing substantial > > to do with this case. > > Oh, my. > > > Trying to demonize a prosecutor as being "obsessed" when > > he was trying to bring a molester of children to justice > > after the first case's victim was paid off in millions > > is the lamest kind of ad hominem attempt. > > Can you rebut any of the documented claims about how > that obsession created a situation that was manifestly > unfair to Jackson? Nothing wrong with simply being > obsessed as long as it doesn't lead you off the straight > and narrow. > > <snip> > > Me:> Michael Jackson was a child molester > > > > Judy: "Quite sure of that, are you? Have some insider info?" > > > > me: (I name a book written by the molested child's uncle.) > > > > Judy from another post: > > Just thought it was pretty funny that immediately > > after you (mistakenly) dismissed the two detailed > > Wikipedia articles as "put up by fans," you'd tout > > a book about the case written by a close family > > member of the accuser." > > > > Me: > > So insider information is requested and then when it is > > provided, > > It's my understanding that Ray Chandler had no or > very little contact with his brother. > > In any case, when I asked if you had insider information, > I meant (as I suspect you know) legitimate evidence that > hasn't yet been revealed. I did not mean the account of > somebody on the "inside" of one of the two factions. It > would never occur to me to cite a book by one of the > Jacksons as determinative with regard to Michael being > innocent. > > <snip> > > Fans and a person with a front row seat on this tragedy > > have nothing in common. > > Fans? What fans are involved here? > > I'll say again, *I don't know* whether Jackson > molested children. There was just too much > ambiguity and contradictory testimony and strange > behavior on both sides for me to be confident > either way. > > <snip> > > This posting topic started because I made a joke about > > Michael's death. And when Richard accused me of being > > prejudiced for making it, you piled on, defending both > > Richard and Michael. > > Ooops, now you're just flat-out lying. >
