jarrylf

4 hours ago, Game For Now said:

Stop cheering.. shits not coming until November  

 

Nope, cause it's not like it's "November 2022"....like when cosmetic mogal Rihanna will probably consider another album

37 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

They are Delusional which is why no one should take facts from them seriously. Yes I’m bundling them all together

 

Isn't that in itself delusional though? It's saying "I'm wrong, and you're right, but I don't like this aspect of you so it doesn't matter".... Like last I checked, a fact is a fact until it's proven fiction or just a theory, but if it's a proven fact no matter who presents it, it's still a fact.

I would be SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO upset if a Gaga pregnancy threatened this massive momentum she has to slay right now 

But she's not so keeping the fuckin momentum going!!!! Keep the NuvaRing in or keep the fellas rappin it up pls!

I feel for her tho, beyond the "Gaga-ness", Stephanie do want that family....but she can wait....Keep the standards high girl!

If she wants to make it a big deal, during (in fact if during she opens with Scream....BIGGEST statement, and I'd cream my corn for that). If she doesn't want to be big news she'll likely keep it casual and to what she's always said over the years or along the tone.

9 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

Yes. It should be boycotted. Why would you want to support a child molester. I have now seen the document and I don't think I can ever enjoy MJ's music again after what I just saw and heard in the doc. Just like I don't want to watch Woody Allen's movies. MJ's musical legacy is forever ruined in my opinion.
 

I'm sure if his sister decides to defend him publicly again it will be the end of her career as well and the Vegas shows will be cancelled.

2

2

2

Welp, I'm glad your opinion is in the minority (even by those who imagine he's guilty too), so bump that whole 1st paragraph

However what you will not do is simply call the Queen "his sister" like she's a La Toya, Rebbie or Joh'Vonnie, or that her successes or failures depend on his. Off the bat no matter what she says UNLESS she comes out against him, the automatic assumption (like you assume that he's guilty) is/should be that she thinks he's innocent, sheeple with a problem with that have either already left her fanbase or are awaiting their refunds for their tickets. She is a Jackson, but she is Janet first, supporting her is supporting her, not any & every other Jackson no matter what you or anyone thinks of any of them. We call Janet Janet, we call the other 3 "his sister", otherwise it is assault and I will phone the authorities like I'm a white lady in a park looking at the colored folk have a barbecue

7 minutes ago, Bailey said:

Ohhhh noooooo this is bad   Aaron Carter just said he would fight Wade, ya'll know Aaron has had some drug issues. I wonder how two crack whores fight? I mean really can Oprah broadcast the fight? Where else on TV can you find two drug addict white dudes, one with one tooth and both with no jobs

The accuracy of it all.

If someone puts some cocaine out will they both stop and try to fight for it

10 minutes ago, bu. said:

Rihanna hasn’t performed for years. She’s a make up tutorial YouTuber now  

Remember back when Rihanna use to make music, where does the time go

6 hours ago, EphraimAdamz said:

They say it's not about money but they have been exposed for collecting "donations" on thier website. It's also now been exposed that the gifts they burned at the end of the film were already auctioned off in 2011! Julien's Auctions

But this wasn't a scripted "doc".......Nah they probably gotta hang on to the real stuff so they can sell it again. 

2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

As if there were just four

He’s a child molester... not a child pornographer. There’s a difference and if you don’t understand the difference, that’s cool.

He definitely didn’t do any molesting out in the open. All done behind his hotel rooms & his Amusement Park 

Again, It is nearly impossible to find evidence of child molestation. Again, what do you think a child molester would leave behind? 

I just watched Abducted In Plain Sight, another documentary about an adult male’s infatuation over a 8-15 girl in the 1970s... He was married, he manipulated & groomed the parents and snatched the girl thrice times. He obviously raped her but when the doctors checked, said he didn’t. He eventually brainwashed her and she didn’t official come forward with it until 2003... thirty years after losing contact 

I watch and read a lot of crime documentaries... court cases from current events (violent crimes.. not white collar). While there is no smoking gun (impossible) there is unreasonable doubt that he has molested children. Take his fame & name away and you Wackos would be singing a different tune (lol get it?)

Really?Jordie, Gavin, Wade & James who else? or is this just what you imagine 

Not every molester is a pornographer, but most have porn of what they're attracted to "and barely legal Womens" isn't pre-teen boys.

Allegedly, more people say that didn't happen than the 4 who did but change their stories (that's the thing too, he specifically goes after kids that exhibit memory issues or something now :lmao:

And also that crime, like murder, like raping was easier to commit in the 70s, there wasn't child porn on the web

Problem is you said "there's unreasonable doubt".....yet he's been on trial if there was unreasonable doubt he would've gotten at LEAST 1 of those charges, so that's your opinion. I'm also someone who watches this doc's as a hobby I can break down what went wrong & right in so many cases, and in this one everything went right, there was never any reasonable doubt on the books, every assumption you have and you have come to a jury had to look at and consider it all.....and he got off, the FBI had to look through...nothing. Reasonable doubt literally is about the assumptions you & others have exhibited.....and they ruled no if there was reasonable doubt he would've at LEAST got something. Wade & James both have nothing to contribute to this beyond the assumptions some already.

2 hours ago, Illi said:

Assumption=/=Truth

I don't think anything will ever fully vindicate MJ, but implying something because of something is a slippery slope. No one can reasonable prove that it is impossible for his relationship with those children to be plutonic.

4

YAS

And yup, it's proudly ignorant honestly. ESPECIALLY when you have a ton of credible names of kids who were those kids and defending his actions and his character.

36 minutes ago, Illi said:

Do you know what platonic means?

 #gather

The gag is #'s 9&10........over Diana muthafuckin 50yr career tons of hits ROSS?!?!....that's rude, but if Janet weren't in the top 3 the list would be a disaster, but she is so a fuck up here & there is OK

9 hours ago, BlueEyedSpirit34 said:

If it wasn't molestation, then what was it? Age appropriate behaviour? What the hell was he doing with all those pre-teen boys, holding hands with them, sleeping in the same rooms and beds with them, taking them on trips overseas. Smh. Imagine some other 20-50 year old man doing that and the parents allowing it. What would we call it. Just because he was a star and a great musician doesn't take away the fact that something was very wrong with him.

I think it was a chance to take a break from his career and family and life stresses to be connected with people who look at the world in a safe scope that most adults lose, that's not at all far fetched to me given his background. Yet again, your entire point is assumption & "imagine", that doesn't equate to rape or molestation. If we have to assume that he's molested every kid who's hand he held, you're insinuating it's not appropriate for any adult to ever do any of those things with a kid ever or they're molesting them. Truth is we already do that shit when teachers/coaches/mentors take kids on out of state trips with their parents consent, to assume what you are we have to assume they're all molesting too, and truth is more of the boys and girls who spent time with Michael defended & defend the time they spent with him & his character in their presence than the 4 that condemn or criticize it, if otherwise, you'd have a point. There was alot wrong with Michael Jackson, but not 1 of them points to for sure being a sexual predator, that's your assumption, that's your imagination, and that's your projection.

8 hours ago, Game For Now said:

I’m not familiar with the Robert Kelly case but he didn’t really hide his infatuation...but he just chose an already marginalized group (black women). Whereas MJ carefully chose his victims

It is nearly impossible to find evidence of child molestation. Again, what do you think a child molester would leave behind? 

Youre right! 

 

Except judging off of the inconsistencies of the total 4 accusers, he "choose" kids who couldn't stick to a story? The fact that 3 of the 4 accusers were white and male is why guilty is so easily assumed, yet on the other hand, I think it's why the police worked so much harder to look for any hair out of place that can get a guilty verdict.  

Michael had so much porn but nothing traceable to pedophilia, someone so nieve (again if the drug use was the topic, that wasn't that hidden that was being reported for years, alot of what he was doing in what he thought was private was revealed and searched) yet something so massive and so major he's this "neat" on yet according to 3 of his accusers he's so bold to do such terrible things so openly and sloppily? I agree in general it's a tough spot and it's hard to prove, but it's why if you're accusing your word needs to be credible about your accusations, and since that doesn't exist with ANYONE who's accused him, to believe them or to believe he did anything, takes a level of disbelief I can't condone because there's nothing credible to prove it.

4 hours ago, Bailey said:

I think they forget this is MJ we talking about, this is not someone who operated (in his mind) as a "normal" person. He did things that others wouldnt think to do, but they were his things, tree climbing horsing around, pranks that sorta thing. I have a very hard time believing MJ was abusing a bunch of boys and no one has anything to proof it and the rest of us that are skeptical are supposed to just take their word for it.

That comparison shit is so weird to me, he had problems no other "normal" person could fathom, there was darkness in his life, look at his family, there's so much disfunction there on the parent level alone that those 9 kids were raised under, none of em really had a chance at "normal" they had to find it in their own ways, if or when they could, and I don't think they ever truly had an understanding. My personal theory in his relationship with kids based on what those kids say (the bulk majority) is that they think his time with them was a mix of 2 things, living vicariously through them, giving his inner child that kind of attention that he always wanted. Also the way he talks and always has talked about how badly he wanted to be a parent and help be a guide for kids. That's not based off of assumption, that's based on the number of people who've testified to that vs. the amount that allege it to be something else

In general I've never been a "no kid should be around, alone with, close to, in bed with an adult they aren't related to" because I don't know every kid's & every families relationship to every 1 of those adults who aren't family, and that energy implies if the kid is related to the adult nothing dangerous or sexual will happen or is less likely to happen, when in reality and from what I've grown up seeing and hearing, some family members are more likely to take advantage of that trust & those positions than some strangers & family friends. So mass assumptions & judgments just aren't my thing, many things and relationships in life are Case Sensitive.

Yea and I can't with people who think assumptions are as good as facts, evidence & investigations but here we are. Again, if the porn magazines were an issue it would've counted. "That doesn't look right" and, "I think" aren't enough to make someone guilty or innocent, they're an opinion based on appearance. Everything "guilty" he did in public, you have to assume to come up with a conclusion that it directly equals molestation. 

OK everyone who got the censored CD/DVD combo of All For you should recognize this club song for what the janet . era dancers auditioned to. I don't know if I'm the only 1 who always wanted to hear that song and always felt like the female vocal throughout the song was Janet. Well I recently found the song again, and it was my 1st time hearing the song in HQ & all the way through, and yes I think it's Janet. But beyond that, I have a love for this song because I always felt like The Best Things In Life Are Free was like the final goodbye to RN and a lil hint of janet. to come, vs. I feel like "The New Style" is the intro to the janet. era with a lil hint of RN & control too. But that's just how I feel about it, how do you guys like it?

(if club songs with no verses/chorus aren't your thing you probably won't like this, literally Janets vocal I'm talking about is the same "Aaaaahhh ahh ahhh" played throught the song and over the beat, I dig it but others may not)

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

I believe the Facts

FACT: the FBI/police didn’t find any evidence 

Counterpoint: duh... what evidence would they find? It is nearly impossible to find evidence of child molestation. That does not mean it didn’t happen 

Fact: Both parties have lied; Wade multiple times

Countpoint: Manipulation of children is easy

—

I want to note that rings, cars, houses aren’t gifts people say no to. If [insert celebrity ] offered to buy you [insert something you can’t afford], no questions asked.. you would say “no thanks?” Bull shit

Evidence that the FBI & The cops are trained to find (especially with excessive force), and find proof, find all that they did for R. Kelly.

Fact about your counterpoint, sharing the truth with the world isn't easy, but being inconsistent in what you say is your truth with the world watching, it's damning, and it is people who take advantage of the guise of being a survivor a victim or someone who overcame and found the strength to come forward. Fact: It is easy to take advantage when you can lie but your lies not be challenged.

That's not everyone, that wasn't the case for R. Kelly's victims, if Sparkle didn't come out about her niece on that tape with him, he was working on making her a star, he was keeping her pockets full, and she turned him and all his advances away for justice, some people have that moral compose that are bigger than others, some people can't be bought that way

3 hours ago, Illi said:

It shows that people don't really care about the truth but rather to grind their ax if possible.

Basically, the message for believing he's a pedophile is "if I can assume it that means he did it"

3 hours ago, bu. said:

It sounds like someone that has common sense and reasoning. And if you want to talk justice system - Michael would never have never have benefited from it since he was a black man. 

No it is not. But keep deflecting - that’s what you’re best at. 

There is nothing #MeToo about this except an obvious attempt to take advantage of the much needed movement. White people always do that - see feminism. If you can’t admit that questioning credibility is important then tbh I hope you never make it onto jury service or ever get accused of a crime because your personality and background would be against you. 

Propofol is not illicit. We already know he was addicted to drugs. There’s no relevance to this though.

#Preach

He really is 

Got me gagging at "see feminism", gather a bit Bu, gather a bit

To be fair...it's literally all he has and all he can factually hate Michael for based on facts & evidence the rest all assumption  #Hecoulda

3 hours ago, Bailey said:

objection your honor scope...... that's out of context, if what you're saying is the truth, and I do not deny white privilege as a gay Black man then we can shut all this down right now because yes being white and rich is favored. Now what the hell that has to do with two inconsistent accusers and MJ is another court case

Exactly, which again according to police & witness reports, his raids and his monitoring were over-policed.......something that the police have a thing for doing when they expect someone to be guilty or in general they have of doing with someone black

3 hours ago, bu. said:

His posts are inconsistent and hypocritical to what he’s done and said over the years. Much like the two guys he believes. 

OOP BU GATHERED AGAIN!!!

2 hours ago, bu. said:

Oh he had the money to win a court case even though he was allegedly broke all those years? Make your mind up or keep on with the Trumpism

 

YUSSSSSSSS COME ON THRU!

2 hours ago, bu. said:

It’s what she deserves for still being friends with Harvey

2 hours ago, bu. said:

She hasn't been a journalist for years. Journalism is dead. 

2 hours ago, bu. said:

*allegedly 

2 hours ago, Bailey said:

That's not allowed, don't you know Bailey that it's impossible to be given gifts and say "No thanks"? Everybody knows when you're given a gift you HAVE to accept it or else you'll be put to death. Just like everybody knows if you do drugs you're also a pedophile. And that facts and the truth are never as important as blind belief.

3 hours ago, Game For Now said:

I don’t believe every accuser but the only people that knows what happened behind close doors is Michael, Wade, and/or James and the other boys Michael touched behind closed doors 

2

But you certainly don't believe the facts  In general, this whole quote here......your bias is showing dear, because of the 3 names  you listed 2 of them have been inconsistent on this topic and this is not the topic to be inconsistent on, thus you're saying you'll believe anything they say....so rational.....

6 hours ago, jarrylf said:

I'm not the one dodging facts, that's your stance. I'm the one bringing them to the table, while you try to do any and everything but prove them wrong, worst, you're trying to deny and cover.

 

Everybody notice that hasn't changed right?....all the deflections, why no answers..

4 hours ago, bu. said:

This says it best:

“I watched the documentary - and while it's emotional, compelling, and powerful, it does not bring any new evidence to light. All we have is the word of these two men. In an ideological world we could trust someone's word 100%, but the justice system does not work that way. If person X accuses person Y of racism, does it automatically mean person Y is a racist? No. If person X accuses person Y of a hate crime, does it automatically mean said hate crime happened? No. The justice system is built upon a fair trial of even testimonials both sides. Equally such, an accusation without evidence beyond reasonable doubt remains just that... an accusation. Let's flip this round, if you were falsely accused of a sex crime by somebody with financial motives or seeking revenge, and you were thrown in prison based upon the testimony of somebody with absolutely zilch evidence... would you deem that fair? Or just? I'm sure the answer is no. It is vital to our justice system that it remains fair and balanced, because for every 100 sex offenders thrown in prison (where they belong), I'm sure there are a small contingency of people who are wrongly accused. We cannot start a witch hunt on every single person who is accused of sex crimes without reasonable evidence. People need to look beyond the smokescreen of 'Leaving Neverland'. Of course you're going to leave the film thinking everything is true, but you need to understand that the film was made with the sole intention of painting MJ out to be a sexual predator. It's biased and one-sided. Moreso, if you're able to look beyond the movie and research it, you'll see that there are gaping loop holes in some of these stories. The question remains, are these loopholes the product of emotionally disturbed men who are victims of a sexual predator? Or are they the product of an elaborate lie?”

 

and thats by someone that didnt even like Michael. And if you still don’t get it then it’s a simple case of you don’t actually care and you want MJ to be a pedo which is disgusting in itself. And using #MeToo to try and shame me and jarryl is also a pathetic attempt of deflecting when both of us absolutely abhor R Kelly. Don’t deflect and project your own close mindedness onto us. 

PREACH, that's the entire point, again it's lazy as hell to sum his defense as blind love when we're the ones looking at the full picture, not just 1 documentary, that by all accounts is just an interview, a documentary is investigative journalism, there was no investigation here, it was a story being told to camera's, a story they can't even stick to...

All of that, that's what it boils down to, these facts are getting ignored because he doesn't want them to be right in this case. And the fact that there are so many contradictions to that stance only shows his lack of attention to it as a whole. R. Kelly uses to be a fave of mine for a moment of time, yet even when he was it was abundantly clear, he was a pedophile. There wasn't any "That doesn't look right", "that doesn't look normal", he married a 15-year-old, and there were tapes of him having sex with teenagers...that changes who the man is for me, but it doesn't change what his music means to me. There is no blind fandom for me, or for any artist or actor or comedian I like, but it takes more than words and accusations to change how I look at ANYONE because that's their human right. Michael's relationship with kids that people find disturbing is assumption & opinion. R. Kellys was/is disturbing based on evidence and accusors who's story remained air tight.

8 hours ago, Game For Now said:

No one’s watching that documentary  a thousand views on YouTube. Like Mariah says.. GTFO  

I’m watching Oprah and they had a expert on child abuse in the audience. Maybe you should listen to him 

Dr. Howard D. Fradkin 

Ah, so the number of views make it wrong, or just simply are you trying to ignore facts to stick to your narrative?

So you're admitting you're going to continue to choose fiction over facts...cute. 

8 hours ago, Game For Now said:

He was all over the place bc of his drug use

Seriak killers and child molesters are two different things 

I’m comparing one person: a sexual child abuser AND an illicit drug user 

Please be aware of what is being compared

The #MeToo movement was birth bc people wouldn’t listen to the abused. Women AND men are afraid to come forward bc of your rhetoric. The same rhetoric used by lawyers: assassinate characters; kill credibility. It’s the same exact thing and it’s really a sad sad way to approach this topic. Your instinct is to defend a person you don’t even know.. your second is to assassinate the characters.

Pathetic. Take a step back. Look at his not only abnormal but disgusting behaviors. You won’t even ADMIT to his illicit drug use

You don’t know Michael Jackson... you know his music. Don’t forget that.

Child molesters and drug abusers are 2 different things but you're going to keep comparing them...

Who was the child molester tho? R. Kelly? I mean Mike was proven to be an addict, but that's it...so I wonder what proven child abuser you're talking about.

Yea except This situation is not what #Metoo was originally about, this is what it's become. The issue of what its become now is "believe all accusations" gives many people with suspect motives and intentions (like Wade & James) the easy opportunity & access to do exactly what you're claiming Michael did, take advantage of naive & easily persuadable people to have them on their side blindly. That is an insult to due process. My instinct is not to rush to judgment when it comes to anything until I see the facts laid out  Vs. Your instinct is to condemn someone you don't know because someone else you don't has a story that you believe literally at all cost & face value, and the fact that the story keeps changing doesn't bother you say more to your blind faith than my fandom or my reliance on facts & credibility. Point exactly where I denied his drug use ever, I'm not the one dodging facts, that's your stance. I'm the one bringing them to the table, while you try to do any and everything but prove them wrong, worst, you're trying to deny and cover. That's pathetic & it's unreasonable, it's lazy and it's truly Trumplike. And instead of encouraging me to step back, I encourage you to step the fuck up and stop ignoring facts for blind belief.

You don't know Wade Robson or James Safechuck, you just agree with what they say in 1 documentary about someone else you don't know, yet manage to have gone out of your way to display nothing less than an unrealistic & unreasonable hatred for no matter what topic. You don't know him or them anymore than I do but my attention to every available fact gives me more credibility on this specific topic with these specific people than you. Take your seat, put your head back in the sand of belief while I'm looking at all the facts, and don't come out until you have something concrete to dispute them with.

8 minutes ago, Voodoo said:

Ok made the mistake of watching that Martin Bashir interview again...Mike was so cringy and obviously on drugs. When he dangled Blanket over the balcony, he was high on something 

RIGHT, what's chilling about that doc is how some subjects would snap him right out of that for a min, but with him being him he was all over the place.

THIS is the doc to check out, they break everything down including that doc too.

46 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Comparing murder to child abuse and using the same metrics to measure it and determine it is how the #MeToo started. It’s why rape and sexual assault goes unreported or unsolved. 

Like when MJ lied to His doctors or when he lied on camera about his surgeries. An MJ fan discussing someone’s Credibility while defending someone who obtained medical drugs to deal with his demons  

 

Murder & Molestation are better comparisons than comparing being a drug addict to being a molester....so lets not on comparisons

So lying about your appearance and your own issues, is the same as lying as lying about being molested?....that's a 1st, but again these comparisons... Another issue with the comparisons you make about his drug use & plastic surgery, Im not saying  "if you lie at all you can't be telling the truth about anything", I'm saying if you're getting caught in a lie about the allegations against someone you make, you're not credible, there's a difference there like facts & "belief"

44 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Where did I say “I didn’t know Janet was a JW?”

I’ll wait

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Game For Now said:

Weird. Janet and the other siblings weren’t Jehovah Witnesses   

 

Right there, no long wait

47 minutes ago, Dal said:

I don’t believe every word both men said but I do have a hard time believing that they made up everything...and I don’t feel good saying that... most of you by now probably understand how big of an MJ fan I’ve been since I can remember...but I always thought it’s strange that a grown man shares his room/bed with kids who aren’t his. Like I wake up in the mornings with a boner almost every morning, most guys do. And if he’s not getting pussy or consensual gay sex with a another grown man then I don’t think it’s possible that he could be alone with a kid holding hands and basically having a normal dating relationship for as many days as he was and not feel some type of sexual urges and express them in some way. 

I don’t fully believe them but also I’m no longer convinced of MJ’s total innocence anymore either...but my gut tells me the TRUTH is somewhere in the middle and even THAT is too much for me to ever defend again  

 

ill still listen to the music though for damn sure

 

2

See I can respect that, mostly too because it's your opinion. I disagree, I know celibate people in their 40s not everyone's urges for everything are exactly the same. My thing is, when it comes to a subject like this or murder when telling "your truth" if you're lying about some things, you're liable to lie about everything and your credibility is shot....and these 2 lied about so much, so much they didn't have to, and that's too telling for me in my opinion

15 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Like I said knew about Janet

He sexually abused children and was a drug abuser so excuse me if his religion has nothing to do with anything 

Yet you didn't know she was raised as one......hmm

He sexually abused children? WHEN? what facts do you have? Also the drugs didn't come into play until his scalp burns and they didn't become a problem until 94 years after leaving the religion, that's a cute try tho. Is the new "belief is that everyone who's done drugs molested kids?

14 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Anyone else want to explain why MJ didn’t have an adult [farce] relationship until well into his 30s? So far, we have one bs excuse about religion 

The excuse is more credible than your theories on what makes him a molester "Someone said it so it's true" 

34 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

So Michael was twenty when he started “dating” Stephanie Mills   I don’t know the Jacksons... I know Janet Jackson.. the only one that matters (Excluding Prince Eissa) 

So you’re going with “he was a devote religious man” as reason he didn’t date women until he turned 35-36  

Then you don't seem to know her well, she's been talking about this stuff her whole career, again research doll, it's all there.

Didn't you just say he was 20 when he started dating Stephanie? And yes by all accounts he believed every single thing they said, the fact that he didn't celebrate Christmas until he was 38, has a stupid disclaimer in the Thriller video, and being at the height of his fame would go door to door to preach to people when the church told him to....yup

16 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Weird. Janet and the other siblings weren’t Jehovah Witnesses   they never had premarital sex?  

So Jehovah Witnesses don’t have premarital sex now  

......you've never heard any of them (Janet) talk about this? That the kids were all raised JH and when they were 18 they were allowed to make their own choice about religions. By all accounts on the subject of Jehovah's Witnesses, Katherine, Rebbie, La Toya & Michael are the only ones who were strict with going to church and bible study and living ridiculously close to what they believe the word says in terms of dating, sex & relationships, Michael ONLY left the religion because they told him to publically denounce La Toya (who they kicked out) and never speak to her again......How is this news in anything Jackson related?

Who said that? The ones who are strict usually don't because they're afraid of being banished from the religion & all in it. Anything else? Michael also didn't celebrate Christmas until 1993.

6 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

He had children sleeping next to him. Multiple 

I never called him gay or celibate. Just strange that an attractive man didn’t have a [fake] serious relationship/girlfriend until AFTER his first molestation chargers  

Murderers/serial killers have a different MO vs rapists and child molesters 

But then that opens the door to incinuating that everyone that ever has had kids sleeping next to them molested those kids....that's not a good enough excuse to merit the accusation. If that wasn't enough for the FBI over 10yrs or the courts....

You didn't, I used those as examples (see below for the rest)

Point remains, people do dirt and people live clean no matter what their relationship status is.

1 minute ago, Game For Now said:

Stephanie Mills said, From her lips, that she never had sex with Michael Jackson despite “dating” for over a year 

So again, no one finds it strange that an attractive black man never dated anyone “seriously” until 1994

So you find it strange that a by the book STRICT Jehovah's witness (which he was till 89) didn't have premarital sex......the same man who almost canned the entire Thriller album & video because he thought it might offend his religion, the same man who during his entire touring career up to 89 made a stop in every Kindom Hall in whatever city they were in to go to church? Yea anyone who finds it strange can chop that up to that strange over the top religion he was in that discouraged dating unless it was to be on the path to marriage.  This is Jackson family 101 stuff here, but again it has nothing to do with anything in this discussion

I don't get the "who would lie about", "who does this", "who does that", "who would do that". If you catch me saying anything on those lines it's rhetorical because personally, I don't put people coming up with stupid stuff for less than nothing in return past everyone, some people are those "who would", there are tons of true crime docs and real stories about those people.

And in all that, when there's money involved, huge money, alot of people would do alot of lying and cheating and stealing and killing that many would go "who does that" in response to.

21 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

... the poor and minority have an unfair advantage vs the rich and powerful. 

 There will be no smoking gun. 

 

Yet the documentary I posted shows that his raid was over police and they did extra work, the police did above and beyond to point to guilty....such an advantage he had

Then there's nothing that proves he was and so much that proves he wasn't, including inconsistencies in the liars who say he was . Believing everyone who accuses everyone (they've known) of everything without fact checking is unjust and barbaric. 

18 minutes ago, Illi said:

Did he date Stephanie Mills in the 70s?

Yup, Stephanie & La Toya confirm, bloop. But I don't get what dating has to do with anything, John Wayne Gacy was married while he was abducting, rapping, and murdering teens and burying them under the house he & his family lived in. If Michael was single and celibate & gay his whole life it wouldn't be a point or a minus to this conversation 

30 minutes ago, Dal said:

Why would both men be ok with allowing their mothers to look like the worst parents in history if what they’re saying is 100% make believe?

Both mom's admitted to being stage moms, that's something else in Wade's case that the doc purposely downplayed, back when he was telling the truth his mom bragged about how aggressive of a stage mom she was, she did this on trial and she did this in interviews, it wasn't JUST about Michael, Wade's mom was pushing him to do everything. Judging by how easy some of the lies they said out their mouth, I don't take selling out their mothers to be a big deal for them, maybe that hatred is genuine for both of them. Hell maybe Wades giving his mom a piece of the donations he's getting (where the minimum is $250)

11 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

 

While that was an elaborate hoax, these men actually spent time with MJ in his hotel rooms and/or multiple homes.. MULTIPLE times.. was at their homes MULTIPLE TIMES.. bought them jewelry... that’s just a fact.

I’m not accepting their story because it’s “sad”. I believe the victims and not the manipulative abuser 

MJ manipulated these families, his doctors and nurses.. he’ll... even his own family. 

What's funny is Michael did that shit for so many people period there more than likely were many cases where he didn't know the person & for what reason, he took care of everybody in his life to the extreme, period, including people he didn't know but knew people he knew, where's the blind faith in that?

And not believing the facts  #BeliefOverEvidence

Can you prove he molested anyone ever? Or is that just the blind belief speaking?