On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:51:13 -0700, (paghat) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:13:24 -0700, (paghat) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

On 18 Feb 2003 16:55:49 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:


Hey, there, Paghat, my fellow Raindog, long time no see!
Put me down in favor of pollination!
I say we send Michael Jackson after Saddam Hussein thereby solving two
problems at once.

Lee Hall
Zone 6B - Tennessee

You want to kill Michael Jackson for being a harmless eccentric? Wow.

Watching that coverage of the set-upon Michael was very strange. Sometimes
I felt really sorry for him -- but then he whines in a "please feel sorry
for me" manner out of his desire to be perceived as small & helpless & a
child, which he certainly is not. Most of the time watching the interview
& coverage, I had the same "chill" I get from a good horror film, but more
unsettling because there was a legit puzzle-ingredient that if only it
could be solved could not afterward be dismissed as merely a movie. The
moment the reporter in the special about the huge number of facial
surgeries juxtaposed Michael's weird face alongside the wide-eyed upturned
tiny button-nosed Disney version of Peter Pan then cuts to Michael
insisting rather maniacally, "i AM peter pan!" -- a real chill (as well as
an unattended parody of "i AM heathcliff!") because finally the surgeries
made sense -- he's actually trying to look like a two-dimensional cartoon
character which itself has no nose.

Or his insistance that it is harmless beneficial goodness & love to invite
underprivileged children to play in his private park, select "lucky" boys
from among them, & sleep with them in his bed "innocently" with monetarily
enriched parents' permission but no adult supervision other than himself,
though he claims not to be an adult -- another chill of horror. Seeing
that he didn't have a clue how to hold & feed his bought & paid for baby
Blanket (and never mind he named the poor thing his baby blanket) was
quite puzzling, & made it unbelievable even when he claims to be an
involved father. Just as hirelings fed his pet chimpanzee until it got big
& had to be sent away, so too the kids appear to be nothing but another
crew of baby chimpanzees that others take care of & which he never even
learned to hold properly.

Some things are obviously wrong in the public response -- showing his
"baby blanket" off the balcony was stupid but hardly endangering, for
instance. But much else condemns him from his own mouth.

That Michael is persistantly lying is made clear when he says of a face
that has had 40-plus surgeries to the point of destruction was "only two
surgeries," or that his purely Caucasian children are genetically his own
rather than outright purchases -- well, those we know are not true, & if
he'll lie even about the obvious, everything else he claims is up for
grabs. What he admits to is chilling enough. Add to it police & court
documents that are now a matter of public record with testimony that he
sexually molested at least one of the many boys he invited to his bed,
knkowing these remained "only" allegations because Jackson payed the
family millions to shut up thereby stymying the police investigation. One
police investigator described Jackson's bedroom as a lair designed to give
advance warning of anyone coming within twenty feet of the door, so that
even servants would not be able to catch him compromised as more than a 40
year old fellow child with at most a tickling match behind closed doors.

In the Bashir interview, the interviewer is obviously a judgemental
asshole & a mean guy, who did indeed betray Michael. It was not surprising
Barbara Walter's preface was a disclaimer because she personally would
never have shown the same attitude of disdainfulness while hustling for
trust. That Bashir was a manipulative jerk didn't make him likeable, but
what he got Michael to admit to was appalling because of who Michael
really is -- a liar, a manipulator who wishes to be perceived as weak &
helpless, & someone who behaves inappropriately (by his own admission) &
perhaps criminally (by court documentation) when left alone with children.

But kill him for it? Hardly. But I won't feel quite so awfully sorry for
him when his child-baiting empire falls. If the only thing he'd ever done
was destroy his face he'd've merely been a sad-case. That he absolutely
INSISTS on being left alone his bedroom with little boys so as to play
"innocently" in bed makes him a legitimate 21st Century Monster -- the
complete opposite of a harmless eccentric.

-paghat

Hmmm, have you ever written or thought of these many words of hate and
judgement
about anything you've done? Ever think your own appearance may be that of a
horror film? That you are paste and greasy looking? Your hair straggled and
unkempt? That you are an obnoxious flame bait enterprise who loves to
hold the
title of being the most hateful, come back queen of an individual on Usenet?
Did it ever occur to you, you don't know everything about everything, as you
would have everyone believe? You, my dear, are a big fat bore and have no
business making a judgement of anyone unless you are perfect, which
clearly you
are not. Neither am I. I do, however, reserve my judgement for making
myself a
better person, not slamming the shit of any other person I don't know, never
met, never will meet.

Let's read what you think of yourself, the only real thing you could possibly
know. Nobody knows Michael Jackson based on that interview.

I saw a completely eccentric man who said "IN MY HEART I am Peter Pan." He
corrected himself, or should I say explained himself after his first statement
of "I AM Peter Pan. He didn't mean he was the Disney character. He meant he
won't grow up.

To be honest, it's none of our business how many surgeries he's had. I found
the plastic surgeons who came on to point that out Jackson's surgeries to be
woefully inappropriate, particularly the surgeon who shares a practice with
Jackson's physician. It's simply none of your or my business. It definitely
was not professional for those surgeons to say what they did.

As for your accusations regarding his inappropriate (in your mind)
behavior with
boys; there has not been a prosecution, but if there was one shred of evidence
regardless whether he paid off the boy in question or not, the State of
California would have prosecuted him. There wasn't a shred of physical
evidence
sans the boy's testimony.

I mostly feel sad for you, that your parents didn't teach you Buddhist ways.
Sad, really.

Tch. You need to look in a mirror every time you talk about your personal
perceptions of hate & failure at basic buddhism, because when you take
your thrice-weekly wacks at me with your simpleminded flames & your
unprovoked slurs, & I no longer even bother to flame you in return,
haven't bothered for months in fact, though you never do let up. I discuss
topics, you flame.

Oh, like the topic of calling Zhan a honkey? Oh, yes, I forgot. How
informative.

I used to treat you as you treat me & other of your
betters, but I got bored with it. I quit responding to you in kind out of
no respect for you of course, as I have not even a little; it's partly
that pity really did begin to outweigh the fun of picking up the gauntlet
every time you throw it. I've overlooked your last thirty or so pointless,
empty, nasty flames & will continue to overlook them, because I've come to
love the overall group too much to bother treating you in the manner by
which you treat others, despite that you have in no wise merited even that
small degree of tolerance. And what I think of you was said long ago &
needs no repeating.

ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


I read the court documents which are published at the Smoking Gun website.
I've never said I believe them utterly but I suspect much or all of these
legal documents quoting the victim's allegations are indeed true & only
money-gained power has kept Michael out of jail -- the police said
categorically his buying the victim's silence is the only reason they did
not take him to court. You can call that & much else that doesn't even
approach hatred "hate" but as inevitably in your reasoning, you're
patently incorrect. It's looking realistically at a rich & powerful man's
access to children for dubious purposes, while pretending to himself be a
small child, locking out adults in order to play with little boys in
private -- that much he admits he does, but calls it innocent. Since
you've posted in the past about your father molesting minors, & you've
posted about caring for him even so toward the end, I can see that any
condemnation of molestation might strike you as condemnation of you or
yours, & so be misperceived as hate. But Michael Jackson is not Peter Pan
OR your father, so get over it.

My father molested minors?

People not suffering from your emotional problems may be able to handlet
he topic without having paranoid delusions about me. Michael Jackson at
the time distributed his own whining video asking everyone to not condemn
him until we saw what was proven in court, that he was innocent, & then
proceded with his money to insure that nothing would reach the court.

Hmmm, continued discussion of me and not you. You still didn't answer why you
never talk about your own faults as well as your own physical presence.


"While we were in bed, Michael Jackson put his hand underneath my
underpants. On one occasion when Michael Jackson and I were in bed
together Michael Jackson grabbed my buttock and kissed me while he put his
tongue in my ear. I told him I didn't like that. Michael Jackson started
to cry." ANd so on. I might've cost several thousand dollars if it had
been all for blackmail as Jackson claims. But he paid $20-million to
silence the family & made them sign a secrecy agreement. Anyone can visit
smokinggun.com to read the SWORN court testimony complete & uncensored. I
went into those documents hoping to come out with a sense that Michael
Jackson was a set-upon eccentric & not a monster. Alas, no such luck.

The California police consider the case still open.

-paghat

Hmmmm, still nothing about your own self. Funny, that.