Michael Jackson......

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

18-06-2005, 05:46 AM
Angster

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pulchritudinous

What?! I never 'implied that he was guilty.

I followed on to say...he did invite boys to sleep in the same bed as him.
I just don't understand how that show's I think he's guilty, the court said he's innocent, so he must be.
I was simply saying, it is strange for a grown man to sleep in the same bed as a young boy.

P.S. I'm not 5 years old, you don't need to call me dear.

I never said he didn't invite boys into his bed, so the fact that you had to label that as "proof" is how you implied that he was guilty. Besides, think about it - what's your proof going towards? THE FACT THAT HE'S GUILTY. That's what "implying" means..

Use common sense the next time you try to contradict me..
23-06-2005, 01:58 AM
ttranquility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angster

So because you hate him, he's guilty? You don't even know the guy enough to hate him. You just know from what you've heard on TV. This isn't a game. They aren't going to put someone who they feel is innocent in jail. That's not how it works. And before you decide to reply to this and make an even bigger fool of yourself, I suggest you read this: http://www.habboxforum.com/showpost....46&postcount=9

And for the rest of the people with similar views: Because someone isn't normal, or because someone doesn't look normal, or act normal, that doesn't make them guilty of something as serious as child molestation. If that's how the system works, then our world would be even more messed up than it already is. Your personal opinion of someone doesn't reflect on whether they are guilty or innocent. As I said before, it all comes down to proof - which there was none at all.

I know it comes down to proof but i didnt say "he should be guilty because i hate him." No i think he should be guilty because there is PROOF. But not alot to put him behind bars. Im not stupid like you said to me in my rep ( which you are being very immature when you dont just say it in the post. ) And i wasnt saying that because he is "abnormal" i hate him :S I was saying that many people KNOW he is guilty and that alot of people were MAD at the fact that he SHOULD be guilty. So YOU should think about what you are saying BEFORE you say it. PLUS why are you trusting a FORUM to tell you the EXACT truth. Look on the news.
23-06-2005, 02:46 AM
Angster

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerdxox1

I know it comes down to proof but i didnt say "he should be guilty because i hate him." No i think he should be guilty because there is PROOF. But not alot to put him behind bars. Im not stupid like you said to me in my rep ( which you are being very immature when you dont just say it in the post. ) And i wasnt saying that because he is "abnormal" i hate him :S I was saying that many people KNOW he is guilty and that alot of people were MAD at the fact that he SHOULD be guilty. So YOU should think about what you are saying BEFORE you say it. PLUS why are you trusting a FORUM to tell you the EXACT truth. Look on the news.

Okay, before I get into this, I'd like to say that I did not send you a rep. If I did, I would have left my name like I always do - Good or bad. So until you know for sure it was me, then don't accuse me of such things.

Now, your post isn't making much sense.. There's proof that he's guilty, but not enough to put him behind bars? Surely, there was even proof that he's guilty, he wouldn't have been innocent on ALL counts. He would have at least served a little bit of time.

Let's take a look-see at your post:

Quote:

omgg he should be guilty hes so ARG i hate him so much and i hate the verdict for saying that he is NOT GUILTY!

Basically, you're saying that you hate him, how he should be guilty, etc. So what you're telling me right now is that you hate the verdict - not him. Which is reasonable. You shouldn't hate him. You know nothing about him other than the stuff you hear on TV, which may not even be true.

So, I'm still not sure I understand. First you say you hate him, now you say you hate the verdict. Maybe you should make up your mind?

And I do look at the news. Maybe you should be watching it a little more, enough to all tell you HE'S INNOCENT. And whatever you think, say, or do is not going to change that. Sorry.
23-06-2005, 03:04 AM
Mentor

I hate him, becuse he got away with what he did.

There was alot of evidnace, and some thats complety irefutable for some of the lesser charges, and as he was found inccent of them all, even the ones he was deffitly guilty off, i think that means the rest of the verdists were also fake.
25-06-2005, 08:34 PM
ttranquility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mentor

I hate him, becuse he got away with what he did.

There was alot of evidnace, and some thats complety irefutable for some of the lesser charges, and as he was found inccent of them all, even the ones he was deffitly guilty off, i think that means the rest of the verdists were also fake.

Thats what i was trying to say.
25-06-2005, 08:35 PM
ttranquility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angster

Okay, before I get into this, I'd like to say that I did not send you a rep. If I did, I would have left my name like I always do - Good or bad. So until you know for sure it was me, then don't accuse me of such things.

Now, your post isn't making much sense.. There's proof that he's guilty, but not enough to put him behind bars? Surely, there was even proof that he's guilty, he wouldn't have been innocent on ALL counts. He would have at least served a little bit of time.

Let's take a look-see at your post:

Basically, you're saying that you hate him, how he should be guilty, etc. So what you're telling me right now is that you hate the verdict - not him. Which is reasonable. You shouldn't hate him. You know nothing about him other than the stuff you hear on TV, which may not even be true.

So, I'm still not sure I understand. First you say you hate him, now you say you hate the verdict. Maybe you should make up your mind?

And I do look at the news. Maybe you should be watching it a little more, enough to all tell you HE'S INNOCENT. And whatever you think, say, or do is not going to change that. Sorry.

:\ I wasnt saying that YOU gave me the rep. I was saying it to you yes, because who ever DID send me the rep I was telling them so i didnt have to double post.
25-06-2005, 08:37 PM
ttranquility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angster

I never said he didn't invite boys into his bed, so the fact that you had to label that as "proof" is how you implied that he was guilty. Besides, think about it - what's your proof going towards? THE FACT THAT HE'S GUILTY. That's what "implying" means..

Use common sense the next time you try to contradict me..

Why do you think your so much "superiour" Then everyone else.. Obivously your not, you keep on going on and on. I think people get the point now.
25-06-2005, 08:47 PM
=Sean...

Well, I always thought he was innocent, but sleeping in the same bed with a child is wrong.
26-06-2005, 08:38 AM
Angster

Quote:

Originally Posted by nerdxox1

Why do you think your so much "superiour" Then everyone else.. Obivously your not, you keep on going on and on. I think people get the point now.

I don't. Besides, you're picking out irrelevant points. What does me thinking I'm superior to everyone else have to do with Michael Jackson? Nothing. You triple post, and STILL don't make a point. He did get away with what he did. Good for him. As I said before, are you planning any visits to Neverland Ranch anytime soon? Doubt it, and I bet no one else is anymore because of this trial. And the reason I'm going on and on is because I try to make a point, and idiots like you keep making stupid comments in return. Maybe if you didn't reply with moronic comments, I wouldn't keep replying.

And nice cover up, but I have a good impression that you were talking to me about the reputation point. You quoted me and added this bit to your post;

Quote:

Im not stupid like you said to me in my rep ( which you are being very immature when you dont just say it in the post.)

Doesn't really look like you are directing that comment to the entire thread, more so towards me - which I know you were.

Maybe you're right - I should stop posting here. Why am I bothering to explain that he's innocent over and over again when idiots like you can't comprehend that. So, for the next person who comes along with a stupid reply;

He's innocent.
He's innocent.
He's innocent.
He's innocent.

Goodbye, lovelies.
26-06-2005, 08:43 AM
Roboevil

He's bound to have been guilty, Did you not know how each of the Jury were payed like $10,000,000 for that? That's rediculous! I suppose Micheal would have payed a substantial contribution ;). Why would anyone want to lock him away anyway, apart from he's a paedopile, that guy from "Home alone," said that "As far as he knows, I was not molested by Micheal at any time." As far as he knows? Not something that passes you by mate! He's probably hiding something.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page