|
Post by The Thread Barbi on Apr 5, 2019 4:30:09 GMT -5
They won't check your link. In their mind they already have accepted the narrative and refuse to see anything other than clickbait articles, Oprah, and tabloid sites. Actually I did check the link. It's weird how the question asker never had the time or interest to peruse that 7 partial pages but wants us to watch hours of youtubes of Jackson apologists and excuse makers. Their was so little in those seven pages that I imagine you hoped it would prove your point that the found so little. The link I posted contains 7 parts, with several pages per part if you click into it. Some parts comprise of a couple of hundred pages each. So no, I don't have the time nor interest to go through hundreds of pages of legitimate investigation. And I tried to keep my posts relevant to the documentary. You started reeling off facts not relevant to the documentary, so I responded with a knowledge base of facts. I have also not posted any YouTube videos of Jackson apologists but of news teams, reviewers and f***ing Russo discussing the documentary and posing challenging questions to Dan Reed. None of them comprise of hours. However, I have watched a one sided 4 hour documentary, longer than the sum of all YouTube videos I posted. Is it so, so very wrong to look at alternative views of something presented in a one-sided way and discussing them on a discussion forum without being called out on what feels to me like thinly veiled personal insults because porn was found in Jackson's house? I will probably get told off by a mod, and I do love this forum, and respect its rules. Any more I say on this topic is a violation of that so let's leave it here.
|
|
|
Post by brown bricks on Apr 5, 2019 10:41:06 GMT -5
Actually I did check the link. It's weird how the question asker never had the time or interest to peruse that 7 partial pages but wants us to watch hours of youtubes of Jackson apologists and excuse makers. Their was so little in those seven pages that I imagine you hoped it would prove your point that the found so little. The link I posted contains 7 parts, with several pages per part if you click into it. Some parts comprise of a couple of hundred pages each. So no, I don't have the time nor interest to go through hundreds of pages of legitimate investigation. And I tried to keep my posts relevant to the documentary. You started reeling off facts not relevant to the documentary, so I responded with a knowledge base of facts. I have also not posted any YouTube videos of Jackson apologists but of news teams, reviewers and f***ing Russo discussing the documentary and posing challenging questions to Dan Reed. None of them comprise of hours. However, I have watched a one sided 4 hour documentary, longer than the sum of all YouTube videos I posted. Is it so, so very wrong to look at alternative views of something presented in a one-sided way and discussing them on a discussion forum without being called out on what feels to me like thinly veiled personal insults because porn was found in Jackson's house? I will probably get told off by a mod, and I do love this forum, and respect its rules. Any more I say on this topic is a violation of that so let's leave it here. I think the biggest issue with the porn found in his house is that a lot of it was themed around young boys.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 5, 2019 10:57:40 GMT -5
Pretty much. Ya know who doesn't have lots of pictures of naked young boys? People that don't have at least an interest in naked young boys.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Apr 5, 2019 12:00:22 GMT -5
Actually I did check the link. It's weird how the question asker never had the time or interest to peruse that 7 partial pages but wants us to watch hours of youtubes of Jackson apologists and excuse makers. Their was so little in those seven pages that I imagine you hoped it would prove your point that the found so little. The link I posted contains 7 parts, with several pages per part if you click into it. Some parts comprise of a couple of hundred pages each. So no, I don't have the time nor interest to go through hundreds of pages of legitimate investigation. And I tried to keep my posts relevant to the documentary. You started reeling off facts not relevant to the documentary, so I responded with a knowledge base of facts. I have also not posted any YouTube videos of Jackson apologists but of news teams, reviewers and f***ing Russo discussing the documentary and posing challenging questions to Dan Reed. None of them comprise of hours. However, I have watched a one sided 4 hour documentary, longer than the sum of all YouTube videos I posted. Is it so, so very wrong to look at alternative views of something presented in a one-sided way and discussing them on a discussion forum without being called out on what feels to me like thinly veiled personal insults because porn was found in Jackson's house? I will probably get told off by a mod, and I do love this forum, and respect its rules. Any more I say on this topic is a violation of that so let's leave it here. Here's what I mean about double standards: it's ok to bring up the documentarians past, the victims past, but the facts about the actual accused are not relevant. It's ok to accuse newsteams, reviewers, and whatever investigating him from a guilty stance as having an agenda, but the ones who do it from an innocent bias aren't apologists? It's ok to bring up the fact that the FBI didn't prosecute or that he was never found guilty previously but the actual evidence found isn't relevant anymore. It's not wrong to look at alternative views, but it becomes questionable when it comes to victim blaming and shaming. There is no defense for the stuff we DO know about. Not one of his doctors could come up with a diagnosis that said he had a mental condition that caused him to need a specific type of boy next to him for sleep. Not once did any prosecutor or investigator come forward and say they were wrong and were given orders from someone with an agenda. I would have seriously reconsidered his guilt if any of those documents from Behavioral Analysis said he had no traits of a pedophile, however it said the opposite. He was such a textbook case the agent thought it was worthy to move upstairs, despite the unlikelihood of his bosses overstepping the state to take the case. And comeon it wasn't that it was porn found in his house, it was porn found where he was sleeping with young boys. In a giant mansion with it's own freaking zoo and theme park there was no other place to keep it? It was porn found with books on child sexuality. It was porn found in a bag with keepsakes from a child. And unless someone is ok with this in general and not just because it's a celebrity that comes off as apologist. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's exactly what we've seen with other scandals that get covered up and why victims end up waiting so long or not coming forward. We as a society have given leeway to eccentrics with power and money that we don't to average weirdos.
|
|