"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 -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
et...
Kim W5TIT wrote:


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 -


Really. That's interesting. The issue's gotten *some* play down here but
not like I thought it would have been--given the immensity of the problem.
Also, I've not heard of one arrest or upcoming trial, etc.

Kim W5TIT

Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What I
don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a crime
in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).

Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is. Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever. I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.

Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that diluted
the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more than
drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...
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

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...
Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What
I
don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a
crime
in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).


Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate amount
of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson story?
For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were interviewing
Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids who
visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with" him.
Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating that he
always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with Michael
when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to question
was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The kid
next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed together.
Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the
floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now, both
of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have to
go on is what I heard.

Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't think
any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness imagine if
we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves" whatever
he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to live as
he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or even
to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others about
me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of us
knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not.

Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I
wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but only
because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with kids and
adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue.
And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on more
than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been there" so
to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because who'd
want a souvenir?


Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is.


I'm not sure why you brought this up.



Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever.


Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought.
Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet.
While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories about
Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial
that's already happened once?


I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.


Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll
still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as vociferous on
the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump on
the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I
mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I mean?


Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that
diluted
the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more
than
drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I
won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance that
it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust the
drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all the
same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just
because it's a Canadian drug.

Kim W5TIT

Is Michael a ham? I think not.

GOT DRUGS???

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/BN=03058540

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...x=UYGPYIXIGBGI

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/bn=03035679

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/BookPhot...03035679&WC U


Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church. What

I

don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a

crime

in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).



Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate amount
of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson story?
For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were interviewing
Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids who
visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with" him.
Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating that he
always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with Michael
when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to question
was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The kid
next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed together.
Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the
floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now, both
of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have to
go on is what I heard.

Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't think
any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness imagine if
we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves" whatever
he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to live as
he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or even
to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others about
me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of us
knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not.

Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I
wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but only
because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with kids and
adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue.
And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on more
than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been there" so
to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because who'd
want a souvenir?


Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is.



I'm not sure why you brought this up.



Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever.



Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought.
Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet.
While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories about
Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial
that's already happened once?


I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.



Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll
still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as vociferous on
the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump on
the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I
mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I mean?


Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that

diluted

the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more

than

drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I
won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance that
it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust the
drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all the
same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just
because it's a Canadian drug.

Kim W5TIT