i wish i could sleep over jackos house.

In article .net, Dwight
Stewart says...

"white rover" wrote:

What parents in there right minds would still
send their children up to Netherlamds after
the first court case?


Were you watching Fox television yesterday? They had a woman on who is
still planning to send her son to sleep over with Jackson, even after all
that has happened over the last few days. Don't ask me why she would do it.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone would do something that stupid.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

N8WWM wrote:

i wish i could sleep over jackos house.

Too old?

- Mike KB3EIA -

)

Thanx for a chuckle, Mike!


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
t...
N8WWM wrote:

i wish i could sleep over jackos house.

Too old?

- Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N8WWM wrote:

i wish i could sleep over jackos house.

Too old?


He acts childish enough at times, Mike. Since Michael Jackson thinks of
himself as a kid, perhaps N8WWM can also convince Michael Jackson that he's
a kid too. I'll certainly vouch for you, N8WWM. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

In article . net, Dwight
Stewart says...


"Mike Coslo" wrote:
N8WWM wrote:

i wish i could sleep over jackos house.

Too old?


He acts childish enough at times, Mike. Since Michael Jackson thinks of
himself as a kid, perhaps N8WWM can also convince Michael Jackson that he's
a kid too. I'll certainly vouch for you, N8WWM. ;-)


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

Im not childish I just like michaels music. Why cant we just leave his personal
life out of this? He's innocent until proven guilty just like i am. The rain
report claimed I jammed repeaters but they didn't prove it.

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

Were you watching Fox television yesterday? They had a woman on who is
still planning to send her son to sleep over with Jackson, even after all
that has happened over the last few days. Don't ask me why she would do it.
I have absolutely no idea why anyone would do something that stupid.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

Dwight:

I hope she was wearing a strait jacket, and being attended by two of those
nice young men in the clean white coats while she was giving that interview.

73 de Larry, K3LT

Dwight Stewart wrote:

Is there anyone out there who actually believes Michael Jackson is really
innocent of this latest charge?

Don't know, wasn't there.....

There is a long list of questionable
behavior that suggests otherwise - his "relationship" with 14 year old Brook
Shields (including at least one date to a Hollywood awards ceremony), rumors
of sleeping in bed with children, music videos targeting children with
images of him grabbing his crotch, a multi-million dollar payoff of a family
with similar accusations, admissions of sleeping in bed with children, an
interview showing a 13 year old boy leaning against him like some kind of
lover, and now these accusations.

Two possibilities: he's molesting kids, and thus guilty, or
he just likes the (non molesting) company of kids. But not smart enough
to avoid getting "shaken down" by unscrupulous people. He should
have just played with the kids in the amusement park, in the living room,
and such, in the presence of their parents and other responsible adults
and not let the kids into the bedroom.

Anyway, I thought he looked better being black....

Does he have a ham license?

Hello, Dwight.

Although way off topic (as are many threads here), I couldn't resist this
one.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire. The smoke is so thick around
Michael Jackson that they will probably argue that the smoke is too thick so
you can't see and therefore prove fire. I'll grant the one arguement that
will come up - there will be folks out to make money. But it would appear
that this may well not be the case this time. What really galls me is that
some folks that have a *lot* of money (I'm talking hundreds of millions of
dollars) or political connections appear to be able to buy their way out of
nasty situations (Whitewater comes to mind here as well as OJ).

Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker, but the name of the
game should be to protect society (especially kids). Since his close call
in the early 90s hasn't seemed to have any effect on him, he is going to
have to be put away somewhere where he can't cause more damage(assuming he
is convicted). I still worry about what money can buy. If he isn't able to
buy out the victim, he can sure afford to buy a ton of attourneys. How does
one district attourney with a staff of attourneys that are already very busy
deal with someone who can keep a stable full of attourneys coming in from
every direction?

I also believe that he married Lisa Marie Presley as a smoke screen. How
many divorces so far? I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that
he was never married until that mess 10 years ago or so. Suddenly, he gets
married. And divorced. And ... so on and so on.

Frankly, I don't care what someone does in bed - as long as they leave kids
and non-consenting adults out of it; especially kids.

I totally agree with your accessment as to classic symptoms of a pedophile.
Neverland should be renamed Never - Ever land. Why just the kids and not
the whole family? I believe he was paying his security guards $18.00 per
hour over 10 years ago. For the wealthy, this may well be normal - but it
also tends to keep those guards' mouths shut.

Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do you, that this case is going
to be another media circus court case. In all honesty, where are they going
to find jurors? Oh - I forgot, the Michael Jackson fans. I'd be hard put
to be impartial with all of the other known facts (none of which is that he
actually molested a kid, but, as I mentioned, there is a ton of smoke and I
guarantee there is a fire).

If he isn't convicted, how old do these characters get before their libido
finally slows down?

Sorry for being so long winded, Dwight, but this case has me quite upset
(and I think most folks should be upset).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
news
Hello, Dwight.

Although way off topic (as are many threads here), I couldn't resist this
one.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire. The smoke is so thick
around
Michael Jackson that they will probably argue that the smoke is too thick
so
you can't see and therefore prove fire. I'll grant the one arguement that
will come up - there will be folks out to make money. But it would appear
that this may well not be the case this time. What really galls me is
that
some folks that have a *lot* of money (I'm talking hundreds of millions of
dollars) or political connections appear to be able to buy their way out
of
nasty situations (Whitewater comes to mind here as well as OJ).

Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker, but the name of the
game should be to protect society (especially kids). Since his close call
in the early 90s hasn't seemed to have any effect on him, he is going to
have to be put away somewhere where he can't cause more damage(assuming he
is convicted). I still worry about what money can buy. If he isn't able
to
buy out the victim, he can sure afford to buy a ton of attourneys. How
does
one district attourney with a staff of attourneys that are already very
busy
deal with someone who can keep a stable full of attourneys coming in from
every direction?

I also believe that he married Lisa Marie Presley as a smoke screen. How
many divorces so far? I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong,
that
he was never married until that mess 10 years ago or so. Suddenly, he
gets
married. And divorced. And ... so on and so on.

Frankly, I don't care what someone does in bed - as long as they leave
kids
and non-consenting adults out of it; especially kids.

I totally agree with your accessment as to classic symptoms of a
pedophile.
Neverland should be renamed Never - Ever land. Why just the kids and not
the whole family? I believe he was paying his security guards $18.00 per
hour over 10 years ago. For the wealthy, this may well be normal - but it
also tends to keep those guards' mouths shut.

Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do you, that this case is
going
to be another media circus court case. In all honesty, where are they
going
to find jurors? Oh - I forgot, the Michael Jackson fans. I'd be hard put
to be impartial with all of the other known facts (none of which is that
he
actually molested a kid, but, as I mentioned, there is a ton of smoke and
I
guarantee there is a fire).

If he isn't convicted, how old do these characters get before their libido
finally slows down?

Sorry for being so long winded, Dwight, but this case has me quite upset
(and I think most folks should be upset).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


Well, personally, I think it's rather interesting that it is the Michael
Jackson story that draws such a debate--when the Catholic priests, bishops,
and whomever else in the Catholic Church, have been in the news for at least
the last two years...and with increasing evidence, admitted guilt, admitted
"sweeping it under the rug," and adults who were kids when they were raped
by the priests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the Michael Jackson
case(s), there have been no convictions--only speculation and rumors
thusfar.

I am not pointing up innocence or guilt--only puzzled by the weirdness of
frenzy for the Michael Jackson story; when we have a whole host of
tragedies--*proven* not just supposed--from the Catholic Church... I just
don't get you folks...

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
news
Hello, Dwight.

Although way off topic (as are many threads here), I couldn't resist this
one.

They say where there is smoke, there is fire. The smoke is so thick

around

Michael Jackson that they will probably argue that the smoke is too thick

so

you can't see and therefore prove fire. I'll grant the one arguement that
will come up - there will be folks out to make money. But it would appear
that this may well not be the case this time. What really galls me is

that

some folks that have a *lot* of money (I'm talking hundreds of millions of
dollars) or political connections appear to be able to buy their way out

of

nasty situations (Whitewater comes to mind here as well as OJ).

Personally, I think the guy is right off his rocker, but the name of the
game should be to protect society (especially kids). Since his close call
in the early 90s hasn't seemed to have any effect on him, he is going to
have to be put away somewhere where he can't cause more damage(assuming he
is convicted). I still worry about what money can buy. If he isn't able

to

buy out the victim, he can sure afford to buy a ton of attourneys. How

does

one district attourney with a staff of attourneys that are already very

busy

deal with someone who can keep a stable full of attourneys coming in from
every direction?

I also believe that he married Lisa Marie Presley as a smoke screen. How
many divorces so far? I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong,

that

he was never married until that mess 10 years ago or so. Suddenly, he

gets

married. And divorced. And ... so on and so on.

Frankly, I don't care what someone does in bed - as long as they leave

kids

and non-consenting adults out of it; especially kids.

I totally agree with your accessment as to classic symptoms of a

pedophile.

Neverland should be renamed Never - Ever land. Why just the kids and not
the whole family? I believe he was paying his security guards $18.00 per
hour over 10 years ago. For the wealthy, this may well be normal - but it
also tends to keep those guards' mouths shut.

Sorry for the long ramblings. I suspect, as do you, that this case is

going

to be another media circus court case. In all honesty, where are they

going

to find jurors? Oh - I forgot, the Michael Jackson fans. I'd be hard put
to be impartial with all of the other known facts (none of which is that

he

actually molested a kid, but, as I mentioned, there is a ton of smoke and

I

guarantee there is a fire).

If he isn't convicted, how old do these characters get before their libido
finally slows down?

Sorry for being so long winded, Dwight, but this case has me quite upset
(and I think most folks should be upset).


73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



Well, personally, I think it's rather interesting that it is the Michael
Jackson story that draws such a debate--when the Catholic priests, bishops,
and whomever else in the Catholic Church, have been in the news for at least
the last two years...and with increasing evidence, admitted guilt, admitted
"sweeping it under the rug," and adults who were kids when they were raped
by the priests!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the Michael Jackson
case(s), there have been no convictions--only speculation and rumors
thusfar.

I am not pointing up innocence or guilt--only puzzled by the weirdness of
frenzy for the Michael Jackson story; when we have a whole host of
tragedies--*proven* not just supposed--from the Catholic Church... I just
don't get you folks...

I guess it depends where you are at, Kim. In this neck of the woods,
there has been a HUGE amount of press and talk about the abusive
priests. Just about every radio and TV station, multiple daily newspaper
stories. couldn't get away from it if you tried. It has slowed a bit
now, as the issue is in a interim stage. But you can count on 10-20
stories per week.

- Mike KB3EIA -