On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:43:32 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from zhanataya contains these words:

On 21 Feb 2003 17:47:54 -0800, (Lee Hall) wrote:

Perhaps I should preface my feeble attempts at humor with "THIS IS A JOKE".
I concur with Paghat, however, that he is anything but harmless.

Mebbe so. But I sure hope that thing I saw on ABC isn't what passes
for a typical documentary in the UK.

It was what we in the UK call an interview, Zhan. One of the
differences between a documentary and a voluntary face to face recorded
interview, is that the first can be made without the knowledge, consent
or active participation of its subject.An interview can only happen with
the full co-operation of its subject.

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

Such anger. I suppose you didn't see Jackson's camera view of what really was
said and took place during the formal interviews of the documentary. He allowed
this particular journalist to do it because he "thought" he was dealing with a
journalist, not a sensationalist who was writing for the tabloids...or in that
sensational style at the very least.

I see MJ as an eccentric, possibly mildly insane person, who has not been able
to walk outside his gates since he was 9 years old. I never saw him then, nor
do I see him now as a freak of nature, or child molester.

BTW, Prince Charles was cheating on Dianna from way back before they were
married.

zhanataya expounded:

Boy! He sure got fooled, huh?

I think that's exactly what he is. A naive, arrested development fool
with way too much money to live just as he wants to...unfortunately he
drags kids into his fantasy. I really don't think there's anything
sexual going on there.....he's too immature to want it, he just wants
to play.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

The message
from animaux contains these words:

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:43:32 GMT, Janet Baraclough

wrote:

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

Such anger.

Such incomprehension. Try reading it again.

I suppose you didn't see Jackson's camera view of what really was
said and took place during the formal interviews of the documentary.
He allowed
this particular journalist to do it because he "thought" he was
dealing with a
journalist, not a sensationalist who was writing for the tabloids...or
in that
sensational style at the very least.

Sigh. Bashir's sensation-causing interview with Diana was on TV, not
in a tabloid. MJ employs both security and PR staff so it just isn't
credible that he was unaware of the main item in Bashir's career
history.

BTW, Prince Charles was cheating on Dianna from way back before they were
married.

Next you'll be telling us she's going to die in a car crash.

Janet

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 01:13:17 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

Jackson's defenders might ask themselves why he deliberately chose to be
interviewed by a UK TV journalist who is most famous for his TV
interview with Princess Diana about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and
deliberately publicity-seeking.

Janet.

Such anger.

Such incomprehension. Try reading it again.

Read what again. You said "...Dianna about her adulterous failed marriage; in
which she too was excruciatingly self-revelatory, indiscreet and deliberately
publicity-seeking."

Again I will say, such anger. How do you know she was seeking anything? You
can't make such claims without knowing HER or at least something about
her...which I believe you do not.


I suppose you didn't see Jackson's camera view of what really was
said and took place during the formal interviews of the documentary.
He allowed
this particular journalist to do it because he "thought" he was
dealing with a
journalist, not a sensationalist who was writing for the tabloids...or
in that
sensational style at the very least.

Sigh. Bashir's sensation-causing interview with Diana was on TV, not
in a tabloid. MJ employs both security and PR staff so it just isn't
credible that he was unaware of the main item in Bashir's career
history.

Yes, MJ purposely allowed Bashir into his life for 8 months because of the
sympathetic interview he did with Princess Dianna. Obviously, this was a witch
hunt on MJ. I'm certainly not saying MJ is "all there" or his discretion is
sane, but I still and always will believe he is not a pedophile. He's
"A-sexual" if anything.

I also saw the MJ tapes where Bashir was gushing over MJ's relationship with his
children, and other statements made which are the complete opposite of what he
said during his own commentary after the "documentary" was over.

BTW, Prince Charles was cheating on Dianna from way back before they were
married.

Next you'll be telling us she's going to die in a car crash.

Janet

Oh brother, Janet. You really need to go drop a deuce. You'll feel better.

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.

The message
from animaux contains these words:

How do you know she was seeking anything? You
can't make such claims without knowing HER or at least something about
her...which I believe you do not.

I saw her interview with Bashir, which was broadcast on the night of
one of her husband's biggest public engagements. She appeared on
primetime TV to give a detailed account of his adultery and her own. She
said she wanted to tell her version of what had gone on in their
marriage, and she then told it to as many complete strangers as
possible. That sounds like a definition of seeking maximum publicity to
me.

I'm certainly not saying MJ is "all there" or his discretion is
sane, but I still and always will believe he is not a pedophile. He's
"A-sexual" if anything.

From your comments above, should we assume your opinion is based on
personal intimacy with MJ ? Or have you had yet another accident in the
logic department?

Janet

The message
from animaux contains these words:

How do you know she was seeking anything? You
can't make such claims without knowing HER or at least something about
her...which I believe you do not.

I saw her interview with Bashir, which was broadcast on the night of
one of her husband's biggest public engagements. She appeared on
primetime TV to give a detailed account of his adultery and her own. She
said she wanted to tell her version of what had gone on in their
marriage, and she then told it to as many complete strangers as
possible. That sounds like a definition of seeking maximum publicity to
me.

I'm certainly not saying MJ is "all there" or his discretion is
sane, but I still and always will believe he is not a pedophile. He's
"A-sexual" if anything.

From your comments above, should we assume your opinion is based on
personal intimacy with MJ ? Or have you had yet another accident in the
logic department?

Janet

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 21:32:38 GMT, Janet Baraclough
wrote:


I saw her interview with Bashir, which was broadcast on the night of
one of her husband's biggest public engagements. She appeared on
primetime TV to give a detailed account of his adultery and her own. She
said she wanted to tell her version of what had gone on in their
marriage, and she then told it to as many complete strangers as
possible. That sounds like a definition of seeking maximum publicity to
me.

Sorry, Janet. It was not a live broadcast in the U.K. or elsewhere. When they
decided to broadcast it was up to the BBC. After all the completely disgusting
account of Dianna's life, given by some of the most vile, turds on the planet
(the tabloid press who killed her), I find it strange you'd give credence to
anything ANY press has to say about anything. But, I'm not here to convince
you, otherwise. I simply don't believe Dianna did what you assumed she did, as
I don't believe everything I read or hear about much of what MJ has been accused
of. If there was evidence, the State of California would have prosecuted him,
hands down. Not a shred. Not a shred of credibility from the allegedly abused
child's parents.

From your comments above, should we assume your opinion is based on
personal intimacy with MJ ? Or have you had yet another accident in the
logic department?

Janet

I said "I believe..." I didn't say it was factual, as you did when making
judgements about Princess Dianna.

Go dump the deuce. It really will help you out.

In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from animaux contains these words:

How do you know she was seeking anything? You
can't make such claims without knowing HER or at least something about
her...which I believe you do not.

I saw her interview with Bashir, which was broadcast on the night of
one of her husband's biggest public engagements. She appeared on
primetime TV to give a detailed account of his adultery and her own. She
said she wanted to tell her version of what had gone on in their
marriage, and she then told it to as many complete strangers as
possible. That sounds like a definition of seeking maximum publicity to
me.

I'm certainly not saying MJ is "all there" or his discretion is
sane, but I still and always will believe he is not a pedophile. He's
"A-sexual" if anything.

From your comments above, should we assume your opinion is based on
personal intimacy with MJ ? Or have you had yet another accident in the
logic department?

Janet

First, Jackson is AT LEAST a pedophile, the only question is whether he's
also a pedarast who acts on his pedophilia. We have sworn court testimony
he is also a pedarast.

I have no trouble admitting that Bashir manipulated Jackson by pretending
to admire him & drawing him out by playing to Jackson's ego. Only in the
last of the series of interviews was Bashir totally honest admitting he
was troubled by Jackson's relationships with children. Bashir might from
the start have just said outright, "Your locking yourself alone in a room
with little boys & playing with them in your bed makes you a menace to
these children, even IF there MIGHT be a DISTANT but rather improbable
chance that you do nothjing more than lock yourself in a room with them to
play in your bed". But in that case, instead of revealing his unwholesome
worldview about the excellence & propriety of sleeping with other peoples'
little boys, he'd've instead just told Bashir to leave, & we wouldn't have
heard in Jackson's own voice that his behavior is AT BEST inappropriate, &
his idea of 'love' includes purchasing bedroom privileges with young boys.


That the parents may find Jackson graciously friendly with his largess
over all this makes those parents panderers. This kind of child pandering
is very common. Parents are given money as no-strings "gifts" by the
"family friend" who is then -- no connection to having been paid, of
coruse -- give over their child for all-nighters with the "friend." These
sorts of under developed pedarasts always start with "innocent" wrestling
matches, arm wrestling, "see how hard you can hit my chest," "let's take a
shower together" & other activities that encourage mutual nakedness & bed
bouncing, & it escalates only if the child is suitably pliable & the
parents sufficiently self-blindered by the money to be made. Everyone
involved pretends the inappropriate sale of bedroom privileges with the
child is appropriate & innocent -- because to admit otherwise shuts off
the money fountain.

In the long run the parents are worse than Jackson. His excuse is he's
miswired; theirs is that they're greedy & willing to play at being unaware
for the profit of it. He's manifestly enough of a risk that parents really
concerned for their childrens' welfare would at least err on the side of
safety -- & would obviously would not permit a middleaged man with
childish propensities to sleep with their sons -- that is, if it weren't
so damned profitable to pretend they're not pandering their young. And
Jackson in his own words makes it clear that his privilege of taking these
boys into his bedroom alone at night is NOT something he's willing ever to
give up -- because having the wonderful child-trap of a personal zoo &
carnival rides was never something that happened organically without
ulterior motive.

****er for the parents of little girls who can't make the same profitable
bargain.

And remember, the author of Michael's coopted self-imaged Peter Pan
himself left a trail of emotionally damaged children, & the living
prototypes for his "Lost Boys" truly were tragic in the aftermath of
Barrie's sinister attention. As critic & literary fantasist Brigid
Brophy has written of Barrie's classic: "his theme being incest,
castration and homosexuality, Peter Pan is an aesthetic massacre of the
innocents." And when one goes back to the original novel, we see that
Peter Pan is a somewhat self-hating, a dark figure really harmful in his
promises, as well as himself doomed by his incurable condition. Like
Michael Jackson, Peter feels sorry for himself, & practically begs to be
pitied, claiming weakness & childishness as his excuse for what amounts to
criminality, in the same way that Michael bursts into tears (as the court
testimony claims he did when a boy expressed his dislike of being
french-kissed in bed, or when Bashir was finally honest in the final
interview).

Sir James Barrie was an all-out pedophile who never consummated his
belated marriage to Mary Ansell (who divorced him, never having had the
option of sharing her life with him), yet he had no problems expressing
all his passionate feelings toward the sons of Sylvia & Arthur Davies.
It's hardly subliminal that Peter is also named for the erotic god Pan, &
the tradition of casting boyish women in the roll of Peter on the stage
very likely arose from the completely inappropriate nature of ever showing
on stage grown men carrying on in this manner with boys. And no wonder
Mark Twain assessed the play as "sordid."

Barrie's arrested sexual development has been traced to his mother's
response to the death of his older brother David -- not because he grieved
that David Barrie died at age 13, but because James saw his mother's
extravagant grief, & began to wear David's clothes, whistle in the manner
of David, & sneak into his mother's room at night pretending to be David.
Whether this really marks the origin of James' pedarasty I wouldn't hazard
as strongly as do some literary historians, but it's interesting he was
always a weirdo. Like Michael Jackson after him, James, when in his 30s,
began to arrange fairy tale adventures for boys he had crushes on,
arranging repeatedly to be left alone with them. Such family friendships
might sometimes be possible with all innocent intent, BUT NOT WHEN LIKE
JACKO & BARRIE, THEY ABSOLUTELY INSIST ON BEING LEFT ALONE NIGHTS WITH
THEIR CHOSEN FAVORITES. Arthur Davies knew, & complained, that something
odd was up with James' obsession for the boys, & one of the actual "lost
boys" whose name was indeed Peter is on record stating planely that Barrie
"brought more sorrow than happiness into our family," & his life ended in
suicide by leaping under a tram (another of Barrie's five Lost Boys is
believed to have commited suicide at age 21, though there's an off chance
it was an accidental drowning).

So absolutely, I accept that James Barrie/Peter Pan is the PERFECT emblem
for Michael Jackson, & not surprised he identifies with Peter Pan, because
I also do not believe believe Jackson is unaware that Peter Pan is a
symbol of nambla, & Barrie one of the appalling "pedophile movement's"
leading icons whose novel & play are repeatedly cited as "evidence" that
pedarasty is good.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:18:10 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:


(an exhausting amount of words snipped)

Paghat you may have well written the most compelling oration ever, I
don't know, but if you could be a bit more succinct you'r have a
better chance of more people reading it.

zhan

On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 16:18:10 -0700,
(paghat) wrote:

snip

-paghat the ratgirl


SO don't hold yourself back, tell us how you REALLY feel about Michael
the pervert Jackson?

Actually you did a very nice job of pointing out why I too think he is
a disgusting menace to children.

Dave Fouchey

(A Dad who would have turned Mr. Jackson into compost had he laid a
hand on one of MY kids..)

Sir James Barrie was an all-out pedophile who never consummated his
belated marriage to Mary Ansell (who divorced him, never having had the
option of sharing her life with him), yet he had no problems expressing
all his passionate feelings toward the sons of Sylvia & Arthur Davies.
It's hardly subliminal that Peter is also named for the erotic god Pan, &
the tradition of casting boyish women in the roll of Peter on the stage
very likely arose from the completely inappropriate nature of ever showing
on stage grown men carrying on in this manner with boys. And no wonder
Mark Twain assessed the play as "sordid."

Actually the business of using women arose from the fact that there
were severe restrictions on the use of child actors in Edwardian
Theatres. Peter Pan was not supposed to be a grown man, but a child -
high voice - no beard etc.

Barrie's arrested sexual development has been traced to his mother's
response to the death of his older brother David -- not because he grieved
that David Barrie died at age 13, but because James saw his mother's
extravagant grief, & began to wear David's clothes, whistle in the manner
of David, & sneak into his mother's room at night pretending to be David.
Whether this really marks the origin of James' pedarasty I wouldn't hazard
as strongly as do some literary historians, but it's interesting he was
always a weirdo. Like Michael Jackson after him, James, when in his 30s,
began to arrange fairy tale adventures for boys he had crushes on,
arranging repeatedly to be left alone with them. Such family friendships
might sometimes be possible with all innocent intent, BUT NOT WHEN LIKE
JACKO & BARRIE, THEY ABSOLUTELY INSIST ON BEING LEFT ALONE NIGHTS WITH
THEIR CHOSEN FAVORITES. Arthur Davies knew, & complained, that something
odd was up with James' obsession for the boys, & one of the actual "lost
boys" whose name was indeed Peter is on record stating planely that Barrie
"brought more sorrow than happiness into our family," & his life ended in
suicide by leaping under a tram (another of Barrie's five Lost Boys is
believed to have commited suicide at age 21, though there's an off chance
it was an accidental drowning).

I think it must be pointed out that Peter Davies is being misquoted
above. If you read Andrew Birkin's J.M. Barrie and the Lost Boys,
1979 (to be reprinted in July 2003), you will see that Peter said no
such thing. As Peter's niece, Laura Duguid repeated in an interview
in the Daily Telegraph in Dec. 2001:

"Peter said the reverse of that in a way. He said that this family,
which JMB loved so much and got so involved with, must in the end have
brought him more misery than happiness"

This comment by Peter got misquoted in a newspaper article and has
since appeared misquoted in various places on the web.

Mrs. Duguid's father Nicholas (or Nico), the youngest of the Davies
brothers and the only one to live into old age helped Birkin with the
above named book.

As is quoted in The Scotsman Dec. 27, 1994:
"He assured Birkin that if Barrie had been a paedophile, he or his
brothers would have known, and when Barrie was dubbed "a closet
paedophile" by a critic, Nico wrote to the Observer: "Paedophile
literally means lover of children which Barrie certainly was _ but _
anyone using the not too attractive expression would be stress ing the
sex angle _ Of all the men I have met, JM Barrie was the least
interested in sex."

Again in 2001, his daughter said:

"Over the years, there has been some speculation about the
"healthiness" of Barrie's interest in the boys, but Laura says that
her father and her uncles never saw so much as a glimmer of
inappropriate behaviour. "My father lived with Barrie until 1926, the
year my father got married, and he always said if there had been any
sort of paedophilia - any intent in that way - he would have known.
And I do believe that."

"My father said that of all the people he ever met, Barrie was the
least interested in sex. He didn't know what it was all about. He was
a complete innocent in a way I shouldn't think anybody could be
nowadays."

Of course the truth is always hard to know, but apparently nobody ever
heard any of the Davies brothers (who were informally adopted by
Barrie after their parent's early deaths) suggest that Barrie's
interest in them was improper.

I have been toying with the idea of setting up a small hive because:
#1 I need help in pollination--sometimes that paint brush requires more time
than I care to spend. (Sure we get wind storms all the time, but never when
you need them!)
#2 I use bees wax for painting my eggs
#3 I LOVE HONEY and use it in so many of my beauty products
Do you have any helps or an honest place to go for a small beginners hive
kit? I like the look of the natural skep's (I think that's what they are
called) and understand these may not be a lasting or a good option. I simply
mentioned them for the asthetics as we get many visitors to our Gardens.

I have over 100 acres but just want to start with the bare minimum of hives
for a healthy colony (I don't want to take care of all the acres till I know
what I am doing. Right now my understanding of bee keeping is
bee=honey---lol) I have read many books from the library though. In the
winter months here I could easily move the hive to the barn.

I have checked around local and well, most of the bee keepers don't want you
doing it, they simply want you to lease their hives and keep all their honey
and charge you---LOL

Bee's sting, but we will never rid the world of them so accept them. True
people are allergic to them and people die from them, but the last time I
checked the air we breath near processing plants kills more people than bees
and we will never rid the world of them. How about the number of people
drunks kill? In a perfect world we would all live with no disease or
illness and never age----till that day, take the good with the bad and drive
on!

Wasps I hate, but I find placing a small shrimp into a wasp catcher works
great by day two that shrimp smells and attracts them.

I purchased one year a wasp killing kit and the buggers made their comb in
it----I left them alone and laughed the whole season every time I walked
near it.

Timber
www.timberslodge.net
....a Step Through Time


"Ian" wrote in message
om...
"Removing all bees from the city will not make the city a safe place for
that allergic
person. They are still at risk from wasps and wild bees that don't know
how to read city
ordinances."

Funny thing is that 9 times out of 10 it is a wasp that has stung
someone, not a bee. Bee's usually don't sting unless they are
panniced or they are defending their colony. Bees are a social insect
instinctually flea from danger, where a wasp is an independent insect
instinctually attacking danger. I'm a beekeeper and am sick and
tiered of people always blaming bees for there sting. Wasps are the
aggressors, and if people actually payed attention, they could very
easily tell what stung them. A bee leaves her barbed stinger venom
sack, a wasp leaves only a welt b/c she has no barb. It seems the
hives that tend to bother people are the ones that aren't hidden from
sight.
Anyhow, another extremly efficient pollinating non stinging insect is
the Orchard Bee. They are very easy to keep and just about as good at
pollinating as the honey bee.

Timber wrote:

I have been toying with the idea of setting up a small hive because:
[several good reasons]

... I like the look of the natural skep's (I think that's what they are
called) and understand these may not be a lasting or a good option. I simply
mentioned them for the asthetics as we get many visitors to our Gardens.

As far as I know, the skep style of beehive is "illegal", because you
can't inspect the hive for disease. If you buy a used beehive make sure
it has been sterilized. You may get comments from other beekeepers if
you use them.




I ...just want to start with the bare minimum of hives
for a healthy colony... In the
winter months here I could easily move the hive to the barn...

A beehive with sufficient honey can last through the winter outside
although it generally helps to provide some insulation since their heat
(around 90F in the hive) is generated by burning honey (metabolically).
They do need some reasonably warm days to fly outside to eliminate
waste.






I have checked around local and well, most of the bee keepers don't want you
doing it, they simply want you to lease their hives and keep all their honey
and charge you---LOL


Keep looking. You must have been talking to just the commercial
beekeepers. Many areas have beekeeper associations that include
amateurs. Check with your local extension service.

links from my bookmarks:

Univ. Florida Newsletter: http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/

http://www.pollinator.com/ A site with information, links, and
advertising. You might be able to find used equipment here and/or buy
bees. (Bees can be sent through the mail).





Bees sting, but we will never rid the world of them so accept them...

Hey, without them we wouldn't be here. Their pollination is essential to
many crops. We should do much more than just put up with them. Encourage
them in every possible way.

http://www.pollinator.com/theysting.htm


Good luck

I'm not trying to pick on any single person, so please ignore the fact
that I have to single out one person to reply to.

Christ, you guys. This is the GARDENING newsgroup. If we want to
discuss what a frigging pederast Jackson is, we can do it ANYWHERE.

Subject: Bees in your Garden?

Jesus. Really. When I want to discuss sushi I go to afs. Mexican
cooking, afmc. Gardening, rg. I'm not trying to be a nazi, but
really. This is not only a hijack of this thread, but of the whole
board. Yeah, OT happens, but jesus christ.

Sorry. Sort of.

Jeffrey


(paghat) wrote in message ...
In article , Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message
from animaux contains these words:

How do you know she was seeking anything? You
can't make such claims without knowing HER or at least something about
her...which I believe you do not.

I saw her interview with Bashir, which was broadcast on the night of
one of her husband's biggest public engagements. She appeared on
primetime TV to give a detailed account of his adultery and her own. She
said she wanted to tell her version of what had gone on in their
marriage, and she then told it to as many complete strangers as
possible. That sounds like a definition of seeking maximum publicity to
me.

I'm certainly not saying MJ is "all there" or his discretion is
sane, but I still and always will believe he is not a pedophile. He's
"A-sexual" if anything.

From your comments above, should we assume your opinion is based on
personal intimacy with MJ ? Or have you had yet another accident in the
logic department?

Janet

First, Jackson is AT LEAST a pedophile, the only question is whether he's
also a pedarast who acts on his pedophilia. We have sworn court testimony
he is also a pedarast.

I have no trouble admitting that Bashir manipulated Jackson by pretending
to admire him & drawing him out by playing to Jackson's ego. Only in the
last of the series of interviews was Bashir totally honest admitting he
was troubled by Jackson's relationships with children. Bashir might from
the start have just said outright, "Your locking yourself alone in a room
with little boys & playing with them in your bed makes you a menace to
these children, even IF there MIGHT be a DISTANT but rather improbable
chance that you do nothjing more than lock yourself in a room with them to
play in your bed". But in that case, instead of revealing his unwholesome
worldview about the excellence & propriety of sleeping with other peoples'
little boys, he'd've instead just told Bashir to leave, & we wouldn't have
heard in Jackson's own voice that his behavior is AT BEST inappropriate, &
his idea of 'love' includes purchasing bedroom privileges with young boys.


That the parents may find Jackson graciously friendly with his largess
over all this makes those parents panderers. This kind of child pandering
is very common. Parents are given money as no-strings "gifts" by the
"family friend" who is then -- no connection to having been paid, of
coruse -- give over their child for all-nighters with the "friend." These
sorts of under developed pedarasts always start with "innocent" wrestling
matches, arm wrestling, "see how hard you can hit my chest," "let's take a
shower together" & other activities that encourage mutual nakedness & bed
bouncing, & it escalates only if the child is suitably pliable & the
parents sufficiently self-blindered by the money to be made. Everyone
involved pretends the inappropriate sale of bedroom privileges with the
child is appropriate & innocent -- because to admit otherwise shuts off
the money fountain.

In the long run the parents are worse than Jackson. His excuse is he's
miswired; theirs is that they're greedy & willing to play at being unaware
for the profit of it. He's manifestly enough of a risk that parents really
concerned for their childrens' welfare would at least err on the side of
safety -- & would obviously would not permit a middleaged man with
childish propensities to sleep with their sons -- that is, if it weren't
so damned profitable to pretend they're not pandering their young. And
Jackson in his own words makes it clear that his privilege of taking these
boys into his bedroom alone at night is NOT something he's willing ever to
give up -- because having the wonderful child-trap of a personal zoo &
carnival rides was never something that happened organically without
ulterior motive.

****er for the parents of little girls who can't make the same profitable
bargain.

And remember, the author of Michael's coopted self-imaged Peter Pan
himself left a trail of emotionally damaged children, & the living
prototypes for his "Lost Boys" truly were tragic in the aftermath of
Barrie's sinister attention. As critic & literary fantasist Brigid
Brophy has written of Barrie's classic: "his theme being incest,
castration and homosexuality, Peter Pan is an aesthetic massacre of the
innocents." And when one goes back to the original novel, we see that
Peter Pan is a somewhat self-hating, a dark figure really harmful in his
promises, as well as himself doomed by his incurable condition. Like
Michael Jackson, Peter feels sorry for himself, & practically begs to be
pitied, claiming weakness & childishness as his excuse for what amounts to
criminality, in the same way that Michael bursts into tears (as the court
testimony claims he did when a boy expressed his dislike of being
french-kissed in bed, or when Bashir was finally honest in the final
interview).

Sir James Barrie was an all-out pedophile who never consummated his
belated marriage to Mary Ansell (who divorced him, never having had the
option of sharing her life with him), yet he had no problems expressing
all his passionate feelings toward the sons of Sylvia & Arthur Davies.
It's hardly subliminal that Peter is also named for the erotic god Pan, &
the tradition of casting boyish women in the roll of Peter on the stage
very likely arose from the completely inappropriate nature of ever showing
on stage grown men carrying on in this manner with boys. And no wonder
Mark Twain assessed the play as "sordid."

Barrie's arrested sexual development has been traced to his mother's
response to the death of his older brother David -- not because he grieved
that David Barrie died at age 13, but because James saw his mother's
extravagant grief, & began to wear David's clothes, whistle in the manner
of David, & sneak into his mother's room at night pretending to be David.
Whether this really marks the origin of James' pedarasty I wouldn't hazard
as strongly as do some literary historians, but it's interesting he was
always a weirdo. Like Michael Jackson after him, James, when in his 30s,
began to arrange fairy tale adventures for boys he had crushes on,
arranging repeatedly to be left alone with them. Such family friendships
might sometimes be possible with all innocent intent, BUT NOT WHEN LIKE
JACKO & BARRIE, THEY ABSOLUTELY INSIST ON BEING LEFT ALONE NIGHTS WITH
THEIR CHOSEN FAVORITES. Arthur Davies knew, & complained, that something
odd was up with James' obsession for the boys, & one of the actual "lost
boys" whose name was indeed Peter is on record stating planely that Barrie
"brought more sorrow than happiness into our family," & his life ended in
suicide by leaping under a tram (another of Barrie's five Lost Boys is
believed to have commited suicide at age 21, though there's an off chance
it was an accidental drowning).

So absolutely, I accept that James Barrie/Peter Pan is the PERFECT emblem
for Michael Jackson, & not surprised he identifies with Peter Pan, because
I also do not believe believe Jackson is unaware that Peter Pan is a
symbol of nambla, & Barrie one of the appalling "pedophile movement's"
leading icons whose novel & play are repeatedly cited as "evidence" that
pedarasty is good.

-paghat the ratgirl