jarrylf

33 minutes ago, Aquaria said:

This documentary doesn’t really change anything. These allegations have been around for many years and there’s no way to prove anything at this point. So if you were ok with MJ before, you should be ok with MJ now. *shrug*

What this fine thing said here^^^

In general, the whole "mute" thing for entertainment is weird, do we not mute Weinstein's movies....when he was raping actresses behind the scenes? It's a personal thing, if YOU don't want to hear/play someone's art, that's you or your company maybe but I think it's asking alot to censor what's already available and mixed so heavily in all aspects of culture. Like I applaud R. Kelly's label for dropping him, I support no new moves to further his career, maybe limit his resources to make money, but it's asking alot to take away what's already out there & successful & apart of history. 

Again, like Roc said too, if it's just allegations too, it shouldn't be a question until it's proven factual or not.

WHAT IN THE ACTUAL HELL  I think you just said "there can be truth and there can be words that aren't proven to be truthful at all=lies", What are you doing?   I'll remain taking the side of provable facts from years of investigation

If you believe that I have a feeling you'd be incredibly surprised at the length people will go through for money & relevance. You keep summing up my side to be about "loyalty to MJ" yet...that's LITERALLY your side, blind loyalty, again, WHAT ARE YOU DOING, you can't be taken seriously, because you're trying to flip it...but in doing so you're ridiculing your own stance. THAT DOESN'T WORK  in this entire discussion/debate, there's the side with evidence, and there's the side of blind "faith"....and you're the "faithful".

Ah and unlike me, my stance has been consistent with the evidence. Wade's used to be until he ran out of money...... Ah so now you're claiming you have to have been abused to know if someone/anyone is lying about abuse or telling the truth or for evidence to exist.

Your rhetoric is dangerous, proudly ignorant, proudly devoid of facts, and hilariously disturbingly sheeplike. Vs.................Factually prove me wrong, prove he was guilty with, prove what the police, FBI & trials missed. I'll wait  

You do know you're discrediting yourself from ever being able to cite anything as "factual" now because you're being dismissive about facts you don't agree with, and are defending the right for opinion to outweigh facts right?  

Again I know, that's alot but hey, like I said sometimes a lie is more simple & less work than how much work & reding the truth is. #Deal

1 hour ago, Game For Now said:

It’s your opinion. You are too involved. You don’t have a investigator investigate his or her own friend or family.

His fans combed through dozen of footage and receipts but has any of his fans actually sat down with MJ’s victims? No. Has any of MJ fans looked any of the dozen children (now adults) in their faces and asked what really happened? No. You can shift through hours of testimony and fan forums but you don’t know what happened between this man and those children

You may recuse yourself 

I believe the victims. You don’t put yourself through this scrutiny for views. You don’t put your family and children through this for attention. These men & women who come out of the dark are heros. You want them to hush up and sit down bc you have a favorable bias towards the abuser. You are apart of the problem bc you don’t believe victims. You are why the #MeToo movement and the #TimeUp movement is growing 

And before you claim credibility, these two kids were children when they were on trial. 22 (Wade) and what 10-12 on the grand jury?  And you don’t think Michael Jackson cohersed these boys to lie? You don’t think for a second that MJ didn’t pull this boys aside and say what he said to them to ensure he stays out of prison 0_o The same man who manipulated the healthcare system? The same man who changed his appearance and dressed up his white child and Blanket? 

Like Trump cohersed Cohen to lie to Congress, people of power use their wealth and that power to manipulate people. Proof that if you are loyal enough, you can shut up and sit at the table

 MJ was manipulative and he has no credibility in this at all 

There’s no “guilty” or “non guilty”.. this isn’t a trial. That’s for the court (which is obviously in favor of the rich) to determine that. And they have determine him to be not guilty thanks to Wade’s perjury. I just want you to realize that MJ is a pervert. You can still listen to his music and dance to his songs and celebrate his artistry

 

 

"Too Involved" vs. "pays no attention to anything that doesn't align with their set opinion"...I'll take too involved gladly. I'm thorough, and I like facts, and all the details from what investigators looked for at his houses for years are all available, I don't need to be 1 or be related 1 to read their work

Except, according to all the lack of evidence from all the work done there are no victims (so based on facts, nobody has sat down with any), plenty of courts and prosecutors and professionals sat down with the few accusers & the defenders to ask for their story, yet.......not guilty...again, and you don't know what happened with the man & those kids, that many more who were around say DIDNT, SEVERAL of them were abused by adults in their lives and have come out about it yet don't name Michael at all, naming names in the industry more powerful than Michael dead & alive yet, you take the word of 2 mind changers with no proof, I mean that's precious & all but I'm too grown/smart to do that. 

I believe the evidence (unless there is a specific reason not to), and find it stupid to blindly believe people (ESPECIALLY people you personally don't know with sketch paths of lying and pulling things like this for money) without facts or evidence but just go by off their "new" memories. It's really disturbing how you're contradicting yourself so hard with "you want them to sit down and shut up and be quiet and believe the star", yet I'm saying, link us, prove it, stop going for the money grab and step up and step out which neither of these accusers are doing. It's too ridiculous what you're doing to even offend me because it's like you're wrong, but you're proud of how wrong you are, and don't care that no evidence supports your side....and you're losing sight that you're accusing me (and anyone else on the side of facts) of not caring about evidence or victims.......when you're on the side that's saying it's perfectly fine to accuse anyone of anything with no proof and they must be believed. I'm just too smart for that. 

WAIT  WAIT 20s is a child now?!?!??! IN WHAT.WORLD?!?!?! THE FUQ  How are you OK being so wrong, being so proud of being so wrong, did you um...seriously think I wouldn't clown that? No even better did you seriously think that would be taken seriously  Again there's just absolutely no way to take that seriously. For that matter when the trial was taking place, both were not fixtures in Michael's life, 2, Michael didn't have the power to destroy them or anyone during his trial, he was in debt, and getting sued for years for that, he had nothing to hold over them or any of the more who said he did nothing wrong. His estate has more with him being dead so they changed their minds to get a piece so they wouldn't have to work it's too damn obvious to be this lazy with it Game 

Cute theory, but Cohen is backing up that he was coerced with your arch nemesis in this discussion, EVIDENCE!!!   An enemy you & Trump & all who side with this doc share...

Yea your opinion of MJ vs. all that police, FB raids and years of investigation and court systems work When it comes to caring about the truth there is no "too much information to read through". But again, when Evidence is the enemy, you want nothing to do with it.

 I'm damn near convinced that you're taking this stance as kind of a performance art of those dumb enough to side with them cause it's like you're not even trying to be right, you're trying to be funny which I REALLY appreciate like you haven't challenged any evidence that exists nor the words of MANY more credible witnesses. If your goal is to try to convince anyone anything YOU NEED EVIDENCE! I'm not like the people you're mocking, I'm not going to believe he was because you say he was or because factual liars say he was, I need proof and I need it backed and vexed by professionals. Good luck on that though, seeing as how I'm already on the side of facts...so if you wanna change that some of your/their alternate facts have to become real.

R. Kelly isn't going to Jail right now because of what people said, he's going to jail right now because there are new proof and new witnesses, and until Mikes case has either, innocent until proven guilty

I know your move to ignore facts won't let you maintain enough attention to read and attempt to debunk all those facts I laid out. I have a feeling you had the same sentiment when looking at the evidence proving his innocence in general

I've combed through details of these investigations SINCE the 2005 trial and years after when more information became public for my own opinion. When it comes to caring about the truth there is no "too much information to read through". I can't blindly believe, I like evidence & credibility too damn much. 

You want him to be guilty, they say he's guilty with no proof, you agree.  

(again) My opinion comes from evidence and the testimony from more people that were there and say nothing incriminating happened that would have nothing to lose or gain by telling the truth which is more relevant than people who go for the cash grab after the mans dead and they make up a convincing enough story.

McCulley Culkin was there, Corey Feldman, other kids that testified nothing happened, other kids that strongly defend MJ. My side is Evidence vs. story....that's really weird how you keep trying to make that wrong. Hell the whole "don't look in the closet" thing you posted earlier...you're literally on the side that's sayin DONT LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE OR THEIR PAST INCONSISTENCIES, BELIEVE ONLY WHT THEY SAY NOW  you agenda is "I think he did it, so I'll believe anyone & anything that says he did" and that's cutefully sheepish, but...I like "Beyond a reasonable doubt, or guilty until proven innocent"

Hell you said "don't look in the closets", well the random raids on his houses looked through the closets, every room, every item, every photograph, every video, every web search, every picture, note, audio every kid who's spent time with him had (if they didn't offer anything up it's withholding evidence, and it doesn't appear in this film) and found NOTHING that paints him out to have done anything illegal......were all the non-accusors, the police & the FBI & court systems on drugs too....cause you keep making this about beliving what Michael says, vs. I'm believing what all that work & labor & time says & produced= Innocent.

Except OJ was found Guilty in the civil suit, and the 1st trial the narrative was changed (which damn near the juror's now all admit to being the sole reason for their stance of guilty, at the time that it wasn't about OJ & Nicole it was about the LAPD), something that didn't happen for anything related to MJ.

Geez Norm, whilst on your campaign to devoid facts, you didn't bother to check that I didn't quote myself, I quoted Entertainment Weekly & The Chicago Sun-Times, That's your side that's of the belief "I said it, so it must be true, DONT GO LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE, I SAID IT!.....SO BELIEVE ME! I CHANGED MY MIND! AND I'M TELLING THIS VERSION FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS!" Get yourself together, you're defending Jussie with "wait for facts" but everything around MJ you're "DONT LOOK AT FACTS? WHAT DO THEY PROVE?!?! Listen to the words of these inconsistent men". You're literally riding for both fact & fiction

On 2/26/2019 at 6:00 PM, jarrylf said:

The larger issue with Leaving Neverland, though, is that for something that calls itself a “documentary,” it is woefully one-sided — and in some cases, conveniently selective about the information it chooses to include about its two subjects

https://ew.com/tv-reviews/2019/02/21/leaving-neverland-review/

There’s no video or audio evidence of actual crimes

https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/in-hbo-documentary-michael-jackson-is-possibly-a-molester-definitely-a-weirdo/

 

Again, I stand with & for facts 

31 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

35  year old Molly: mom, dad... Uncle Bobbi touch my ass hole when I was 10

Mom: oh my? Do you have any evidence? Proof?

Dad: You haven’t told us! I asked when you were 12 so you lied.. you’re lying now

And Scene

Thats what you’re doing. You are personally harming victims by defending a pediophile. You may take a bow 

I’m pretty sure the director knows what he’s doing. Odd you don’t attempt to come for his creditials, his credibility.. his knowledge (Director has done his research, read the court documents, interviewed other key witnesses) 

MJ has you fooled, per the Failing New York Times, with magic. Ohh look! Talent but don’t look in the talent’s closet! 

PS: you don’t need evidence and proof for sexual assault and abuse. You also don’t put your family through this, you don’t tell your shrink lies. MJ, a drug addict who hosted children in his hotel room without adults, bed room, and who built a kiddy trap in his backyard isn’t exactly credible period

 

Nah just like Wade imagined that this happened to him, that's how you imagine I see the situation, how I see the situation is an accuser strongly defending someone who's been accused and acquitted, then when they get fired by their company and have trouble getting work they come up with a new story (that keeps changing) and go for millions, not relatable to "Molly" or most other abuse cases, but alas, they don't want you to pay attention to that....so blindly YOU don't. 

He's done all that, but yet his documentary has been repeatedly dragged for selfishly being bias  & devoid of damaging or crucial evidence despite providing moving performances (unlike real documentaries).

Nah, facts credibility, the law, evidence & the lack thereof for the opposing side has me "fooled" vs.........a changing story.....

P.S. When you commit purgery, you do. When there's overwhelming evidence that doesn't support your accusations you do, when there are more witnesses (who were also boys & girls) who are on his side, and nobody has come forward without going for a cash grab...you do. Again find someone who accused him that hasn't sued for millions & you'll have a better shot at a case. R.Kelly isn't a pedophile because he's called one, he's 1 because there's evidence proving it. OJ isn't a murderer because he's called a murder, he's 1 because there's evidence proving it (who was found guilty in the civil suit). Michael Jackson isn't a pedophile because these 2 liars are calling him 1, he isn't 1 because there's been no crucial or vital evidence proving he is including this doc.

On 2/26/2019 at 6:00 PM, jarrylf said:

The larger issue with Leaving Neverland, though, is that for something that calls itself a “documentary,” it is woefully one-sided — and in some cases, conveniently selective about the information it chooses to include about its two subjects. 

There’s no video or audio evidence of actual crimes

 

13 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Back with the story Back to the money.. back to the misdirection

Theyre not getting paid for the documentary. The lawsuits and book deals the director touched on if you read the interview 

You didn’t read it 

 

Back to the facts, evidence & credibility 

Yea but he's the same director who's promoting ignorance and to blindly follow his & their words...so...I won't take his word for it....until there's evidence. So yea I read it, and I watched his interview, the difference appears to be you think he & they are incapable of lying  

22 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Unless you were in MJ ‘s hotel room, hot tub, bed room... you have nothing. 

All you have testimony from two children who are easily manipulated by ANYONE and one 22 year man who lied to protect someone he loved... MJ

Im not surprised you didn’t read the director’s interview with Jezebel but maybe you should but you won’t bc it goes against your beliefs 

 

 

Except for the words of more people who have been there with Michael and have been saying he's innocent than the few who said he was guilty...whilst going for millions, and that list of other kids have better reputations and are more credible than any of the money hungry proof lacking fools who've accused. There's that

 AKA someone who told the same consistent story for 20yrs, and then when they got fired & their money ran out their stories changed (and haven't been consistent since they were on the same side as evidence and facts appear to be on)

Actually, I did and like with all the interviews he's done, I laughed my ass off and felt disgust for him and everyone who takes the narrative of "doesn't look at facts, look at THIS FILM....that has no facts" seriously. His stance of "believe people without evidence & who change their minds" is promoting ignorance.....literally he wants you to ignore, what a tool.

If simpltons follow blindly............isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? I mean Michael's side has facts, and evidence, their side....has their changing minds & stories yet you follow them oh-so blindly 

1 minute ago, Rocknet said:

actually there are stories out here where people claimed to recall events under therapy and went so far as to claim a parent molested them, only to recant later and state the memories were false ...true story

True, I do in the general sense believe in memory suppression, but too what's funny about this case is Wade saying that these new memories came after being fired....and people think that's acceptable?  "Yes PLEASE don't look at the evidence, listen to what they say today....cause it might change tomorrow" 

1 minute ago, Rocknet said:

I agree with Jarryl these guys have changed their stores over and over lost credibility. If you're asking to take down the biggest pop Icon ever, I think you need to come a lot harder.

Exactly, and be it MJ or anyone else or any type of serious offense, a story from someone who's mind changes shouldn't be "enough" to warrant instant belief or judgment. 

Again it's weird & disturbing that the director is urging everyone to not look at evidence  He has a problem with them being discredited because it takes facts to do that vs. he wants their "new memories" to be alllll the facts we need. I'm just not dumb enough to do that, and that goes for any case. And ay, though alot of people are I'm very pleasantly surprised to see that it's still a good amount of regular people who feel the same way. Calling someone a molester and coming up with a graphic story doesn't make someone a molester, the evidence does, and no evidence ever has. Maybe some will someday, but it's definitely not coming from these 2. 

I think it's sad & pathetic to judge off of performance over evidence & credibility, both of which are missing from these 2 accusers. That's why we shouldn't believe them. And it's sad & pathetic to proudly market and bank off of peoples ignorance & stupidity to tell your side, to almost proudly be clear of any facts & rest your case solely on testimony....from proven liars.

Again this is the hilariously ignorant tone of everyone who comes out believing them:

10 minutes ago, bu. said:

The good sis is trying to bury the documentary about her friend Harvey’s weinstein I see

The tea is delicious bitch!

I thought she was doing this for the same reason OWN now has trashy scripted reality shows because it needs views....but I had forgotten....

27 minutes ago, Game For Now said:

Watch the docu which I’m sure you won

They didn’t change their minds... He was once converse, threatened

Um whether or not I do or don't (I already said I will to mock them, and judge their acting), the only thing I'd be curious about watching it for has already been addressed

16 hours ago, jarrylf said:

There’s no video or audio evidence of actual crimes

 

That what he alleges, but he was factually fired and broke and came up with a story & went for millions and sold his MJ stuff for $$$$. Facts aren't just for Jussie

The doc isn't OJ Made In America or Surviving R.Kelly, both sides were represented in the docs, but also they offered proof & new evidence. This doc is out to tell the truth, it's out to tell their "stories" and that's cute, but in accusations, I care about truth & proof, and this doc by all accounts lacks both and almost thrives on it, it's damn near yelling at people "DON'T LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE....listen to what we came up with....it's more moving"

 AHHHH so you ONLY need to prove you're not lying about your damning accusations when you're going to court, not in life  God forbid they have proof to back up their claims. I'm sorry, you can't call someone something damning without factual evidence to prove your point, especially when it's tons of evidence against your claims and your character. 

It's accusors who've changed their minds and have no evidence (Wade even calling his memories of abuse "new memories" )  vs. a dead man and people who care about facts vs. opinion & acting

That was exciting when she did the Unbreakable Tour when she added new songs from the album before she released the album, it made it way enticing for me.

"it presents a convinceing case"= dumb people who don't do research and quick to judge are likely to believe it (I didn't highlight that because it's a given, I've been giving them props in that their performances are apparently very good)

thing is tho...

13 hours ago, jarrylf said:

"There’s no video or audio evidence of actual crimes"

 

So basically everyone who is on their side =

I like these better, seeing as how unlike the Vulture one the authors did their research and seemingly weren't introduced to the 2 in this film, and if they were bothered to fact check and look into their claims vs. being going off of performance like sheep.

The larger issue with Leaving Neverland, though, is that for something that calls itself a “documentary,” it is woefully one-sided — and in some cases, conveniently selective about the information it chooses to include about its two subjects. 

Neverland all but ignores Robson and Safechuck’s lawsuits against the Jackson estate — both of which were dismissed and are currently under appeal. Though Robson’s suit is mentioned in the film, neither he nor Safechuck are questioned about the ongoing litigation or their motives for pursuing it.

https://ew.com/tv-reviews/2019/02/21/leaving-neverland-review/

The problem with “Leaving Neverland” is, as mentioned, that two proven liars are the sources here, which makes the doc feel like a hit piece rather than any kind of artistic statement.

Michael Jackson was, and still is, a well-loved musician, who was also a terrible judge of character, and a naive fool. He spent the better part of his large extravagant life trusting some of the shadiest characters imaginable. He made extremely bad choices because he had lost touch with the way of life of the normal people and had no idea that his friendships with young people (by the way, it wasn’t only boys, there were lots of girls too, but none of their parents ever sued or blackmailed him) may be seen as sinister. I believe that he really didn’t get it.

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2019/2/leaving-neverland

There’s no video or audio evidence of actual crimes

At times “Leaving Neverland” feels more like a deposition than a documentary, given we’re hearing from only one side, again and again.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/in-hbo-documentary-michael-jackson-is-possibly-a-molester-definitely-a-weirdo/

And yes yes I know many in the general public will be too lazy to do research like the Vulture critic, that is disturbing that overall consensus is that it's an entertaining piece but stupid people will believe it based little to no evidence. That was interesting about the "proof" but then when you think about when they filed suit, they had to present everything they have including pictures & audio, and if it wasn't enough to not get their case thrown out and stop their money grab....I'm legit doubting it's anything really damning to anyone who knows their back story.

I'd like every song of RN done in at least 1 verse, but eh. no expectations. I'm gonna aim to be at the 1st 1 too so every moment is a surprise. I do love getting the setlist after the 1st show but I only watch videos of certain songs  (the tour staples like When I Think Of You, If, Rhythm Nation, Control era, etc.) but like for the songs on SOTW that she had never touched live, certain ones I purposely didn't watch until being in the room, the exception was Skin Game cause I knew I wasn't gonna see any of the shows where she did that.

YUSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.........I been kinda low key rooting for this move since she announced the TJMS cruise....selfishly tho.....cause Vegas is 4hrs away from me....  

11 hours ago, jarrylf said:

Golden Globe win for acting on a TV series, got it

Golden Globe nomination for Acting in a movie, got it

Emmy Nomination for acting in a series, Got it

Grammys, #1's, Oscar, Golden Globe in music, Got it

Oscar for acting, Got it

WHO.ELSE? If nobody else does, she's the top of pop stars who venture into film & TV, PERIOD. For like the 12th time, it don't make her the best to have all that, it makes her a threat that nobody else is right now at having ALLLL of that

1

And ALLLL OF THIS AND ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL O DAAAAT

I've been OBSESSED with mashups, no lie they've helped me love Ariana Grande, because I realize alot of the time what keeps me from loving her music is alot of the modern beats that don't sound really different from much, but when initialtalk mixes her new vocals with 80's & 90's beats, ITS MAGIC. Also they did a mashup of Scream & Just Be Good To Me (S.O.S. Band) that I've been playing almost daily for a month, no bullshit, in 2019 I've probably played Scream more than I ever have in my life (and that's not a easy feat, I mean the song isn't in either artists top 20 for me, but this remix however...), this is a perfect mashup, it's my favorite earworm, underneath my breath all the time now I'm sayin "Stop fuckin with me, stop fuckin with me" lol. And 3rd Janelle Monae's Don't Judge Me.

1. Scream InitialTalk Remix

5 hours ago, jarrylf said:

Dahrlin....if I brought in Gaga's TV success......it couldn't have been "NOW". And white privilage for or against her....she's got this success...period. And...most of them have put in work into soundtracks to be considered (pretty much everyone I named actually). JHud has no musical or TV success....yet she's trying shes' been trying VERY hard in terms of films over the years, and Bey has very little acting success (nothing prestigious anyway). So unless we're saying Gaga's the only musician who does & has done TV, Film & Music......it's actually a pretty damn crowded ever growing house really. So again....she on top, and basically they all are either trying to or have tried to. Been there done that is actually irrelevant because they tired, period. That's what it's about & it's what it's always been about and no "if's or buts" will do in changing that, it's what is & isn't, and Gaga has all of that, period.

There is 1 threat tho.....(I guess I was the only 1 digging) Mary J. Blige, she hasn't won anything for her acting but she's been nominated now for all the prestigious awards and is doing TV now, so Gaga's still the top, but Mary's trying harder more than anyone else right now (as far as we see)

That