|
Is Michael Jackson Innocent?
So what does this have to do with ham radio.
|
"K7JEB" wrote:
I think I'll hang onto the legal convention of 'innocent until proven guilty' but my personal grand jury has coughed up an indictment. When asking the question in the subject line, I was thinking more alone the lines of personal opinion than legal guilt or innocence. We're obviously not a court. The last paragraph had to do with predictions about any potential court ruling. "Celebrity Justice" will break into prime-time and Court-TV will buy CBS. Interesting prediction. :-) Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
I predict he will be convicted, since this is the second time he's been involved officially in this sort of thing. (snip) I don't know, Mike. Up until the very last few days of the trial, I was fully convinced O.J. would be found guilty. As for sentencing, that is a different thing. I think loonyland has a minimum 3 year sentence per incident, but envisioning him in a state prison is hard to do. (snip) Okay, I'll give my own prediction. Will he be found guilty? Probably not. If found guilty, how much time will he spend? I agree three years is pushing it (which is why I doubt he'll be found guilty). But, since three years is the minimum, he'll have to serve that. But I seriously doubt it will be much more than that. Perhaps if it happens, they will try to get him sent to Juvy? Someone asked last night on CNN (I think) if he will be tried as an adult of minor. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Steve Stone" wrote:
So what does this have to do with ham radio. I'm a ham radio operator and I asked it. I also asked other ham operators. There's room in this newsgroup for less formal discussions between ham operators too. The subject line is clear, so you should be able to easily skip the discussion if you're not interested. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Steve Stone wrote:
So what does this have to do with ham radio. three |
"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message thlink.net...
"K7JEB" wrote: I think I'll hang onto the legal convention of 'innocent until proven guilty' but my personal grand jury has coughed up an indictment. That's premature, Jackson is not into ejaculating with 12 year old Cancer Patients. http://jackson.alturl.com |
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
As for sentencing, that is a different thing. I think loonyland has a minimum 3 year sentence per incident, but envisioning him in a state prison is hard to do. Perhaps if it happens, they will try to get him sent to Juvy? That would be just like California...Send a pedophile to juvy. That would be like sending Richard Speck to Chino Women's Correctional Facility. Steve |
Steve Robeson, K4CAP wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ... As for sentencing, that is a different thing. I think loonyland has a minimum 3 year sentence per incident, but envisioning him in a state prison is hard to do. Perhaps if it happens, they will try to get him sent to Juvy? That would be just like California...Send a pedophile to juvy. Ayup! If he's convicted, the kid's parents should be nailed with something too. Anyone who allows a pubescent child that a 40 something guy wants to pick up, take to his amusement park home and hop into bed with the kid (all those things are widely known) should be held responsible. That would be like sending Richard Speck to Chino Women's Correctional Facility. That would be one way of cutting down on prison population! - Mike KB3EIA - |
"Mike Walton" wrote:
That's premature, Jackson is not into ejaculating with 12 year old Cancer Patients. Ejaculation is not required for a conviction. When it comes to children, even inappropriate fondling or touching is illegal. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
"Mike Coslo" wrote:
If he's convicted, the kid's parents should be nailed with something too. Anyone who allows a pubescent child that a 40 something guy wants to pick up, take to his amusement park home and hop into bed with the kid (all those things are widely known) should be held responsible. (snip) I've thought about that too. But, how would we hold them responsible - stupidity isn't a crime in this country? Letting a child sleep with an adult is certainly stupid, but we'd have to prove more than that to actually hold the parents responsible. And I can't think of anything specific in the laws we can apply to the parents in this case. Child endangerment is the only thing that comes close, but I don't even think that would fly. To convict, you'd have to show the parents should have known there was a clear and present danger. Since JUST sleeping with an adult is not illegal, that may be a tough case to prove. Anyway, since you said "something" in the first paragraph (not anything specific), perhaps you're having the same problem I'm having. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) http://www.qsl.net/w5net/ |
Ejaculation is not required for a conviction. When it comes to children,
even inappropriate fondling or touching is illegal. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Rumor has it MJ is also a No Code CBplusser. I wonder if he is an NCI Member? |
"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/ |
|
I'm a no code tech and a Michael Jackson fan too. don't be mean to my hero.
In article , WA8ULX says... Ejaculation is not required for a conviction. When it comes to children, even inappropriate fondling or touching is illegal. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Rumor has it MJ is also a No Code CBplusser. I wonder if he is an NCI Member? |
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/ |
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? |
N8WWM wrote:
i wish i could sleep over jackos house. Too old? - Mike KB3EIA - |
I'm a no code tech and a Michael Jackson fan too. don't be mean to my hero.
Are all you CBplussers like MJ? |
I can't speak for all of them. Whats not to like?
In article , WA8ULX says... I'm a no code tech and a Michael Jackson fan too. don't be mean to my hero. Are all you CBplussers like MJ? |
I can't speak for all of them. Whats not to like?
Yea thats what I thought. |
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 |
'cmon. Read the headers. You just fed a troll :)
73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA "WA8ULX" wrote in message ... I'm a no code tech and a Michael Jackson fan too. don't be mean to my hero. Are all you CBplussers like MJ? |
Dwight,
I almost agree with you except on that "clear and present danger". I wouldn't want my kid to go near that place; then again, you mention there is no law against stupidity. Sigh ... 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
:))
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 - |
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
... 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:
Oh good grief. This is ludicrous! Do you realize what a mockery you are making of the United States legal system? The US legal system has made a mockery of itself, without any help from Larry & Dwight. OJ walked, MJ will walk, Malvo will cop insanity, Scott Peterson will walk, and Zacarias Moussaoui is making a fool of our inept Attorney General Ashcroft. 73, Hans, K0HB |
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 |
|
|
I've thought about that too. But, how would we hold them responsible - stupidity isn't a crime in this country? Letting a child sleep with an adult is certainly stupid, but we'd have to prove more than that to actually hold the parents responsible. And I can't think of anything specific in the laws we can apply to the parents in this case. Child endangerment is the only thing that comes close, but I don't even think that would fly. To convict, you'd have to show the parents should have known there was a clear and present danger. Since JUST sleeping with an adult is not illegal, that may be a tough case to prove. Anyway, since you said "something" in the first paragraph (not anything specific), perhaps you're having the same problem I'm having. Dwight Stewart (W5NET) Dwight: Any adult, other than a parent, sleeping with a child is just plain sick -- period, End Of Story. Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible, although there are occasional, and rare, times when it may be OK to comfort the child in unusual circumstances causing emotional stress. Any parent permitting their child to attend "Neverland" ranch, with it's accused child molester and world-famous weirdo in residence, is simply exercising nothing less than a criminal level of negligence. Criminal charges should be sought against the parents of the 12-year old boy in question, and he should be immediately removed from that home and placed in protective custody in a registered foster care facility. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
"Larry Roll K3LT" wrote
Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible... Larry, When you become a parent I suspect you'll change your mind. Obviously there is an age where it is not longer appropriate, but I can assure you without reservation that having a couple of fresh bathed toddlers in 'jammies' warm from the dryer snuggle into bed between you and your spouse is one of the most beautiful rewards of parenthood that you could imagine. Until they were school age, we always let our kids to feel free to leave their beds and clamber in with us if the mood struck them. Didn't need to be some dire need of comfort from emotional stress. 73, Hans, K0HB |
What does that have to do with
being an NCI member? Nothing, I just asked if he was a NCI Member, I didnt say he was. Statements such as the one you made above are nothing less than pure silliness, and do not serve to advance any legitimate cause. 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry there is no legitimate cause left, the No-Code, CBplusser, Knuckle Draggers have WON. END of case. |
So far, everyone except Bruce, Kim, and yourself has recognized that
fact and has replied accordingly. Who cares Larry, the guy is a FRUIT CAKE. |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
"Jim Hampton" wrote in message ... 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 - |
Kim W5TIT wrote:
Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think that I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment, then you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that. Sure is what it looked like, but okay, I'll accept that you didn't mean that. What did you mean? - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: Kim W5TIT Well, folks, here we are now faced with a dual tragedy -- the fact that Dwight's brother was brutally murdered in a heinous crime of violence, and the fact that Kim thinks it's "hilarious." Dwight, you have my heartfelt sympathy and most sincere condolences. Kim, I can only hope that, as usual, you simply weren't thinking before you let your fingers spout off their usual gibberish. If you truly meant what you said, you are beneath contempt. 73 de Larry, K3LT Larry, you're an ass, as usual. For anyone but those who *choose* to be miserable, such as yourself--it is quite understood that the loss of human life is a tragedy. Kim: Correct -- which is why I never refer to it as "hilarious," such as you did. And, for anyone with even half a brain, *not* such as yourself--it is a given that I would not express such assinine thoughts as that the death of someone--*anyone* I might add--is hilarious. Except for the fact that you did, indeed, use that exact word directly in reference to the death of Dwight's brother. Go ahead, though, keep being miserable. Why should I work your side of the street? Whether you've noticed it by now or not, Kim, I have already acknowledged the fact that you could have made a mistake in the use of the word "hilarious" in it's given context. However, your reaction is, as usual, to go on the defensive, not accept responsibility for your mistake, and attempt to backpedal your way to a position of good standing. Did it ever occur to simply take responsibility for your mistake, offer Dwight and the rest of the newsgroup a simple, heartfelt apology, and take your fat little fingers off the keyboard for a while? I didn't think so -- and the results were as predictable as ever. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article .net, "KØHB"
writes: Even in the case of parents, it is definitely not a good idea and should be discouraged to the greatest extent possible... Larry, When you become a parent I suspect you'll change your mind. Obviously there is an age where it is not longer appropriate, but I can assure you without reservation that having a couple of fresh bathed toddlers in 'jammies' warm from the dryer snuggle into bed between you and your spouse is one of the most beautiful rewards of parenthood that you could imagine. Until they were school age, we always let our kids to feel free to leave their beds and clamber in with us if the mood struck them. Didn't need to be some dire need of comfort from emotional stress. 73, Hans, K0HB Hansl: I am not a parent, and at my age I have my doubts that I'll ever be one. I come from a very large family, and like about half of my brothers and sisters, I guess I had enough child-rearing early in my life to make me not particularly curious to do any of my own. Spending most of my adult life moving from one country to another every year or two didn't help much either. However, I don't think I am totally unqualified to make a statement such as I did in the message you replied to. Children belong in their own beds, period. I listen to radio talk show and degreed, licensed family counsellor Dr. Laura Schlessinger all the time, and she has addressed this issue many times, always stating the same thing I did. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree. All I know is, I never slept in my parent's bed as a child, for any reason, and neither did any of my 4 brothers or 4 sisters. Quite frankly, I don't know anyone who ever did. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes: From Michael Jackson's arrest to the above. Can it get any more hilarious? Kim W5TIT Oh, and by the way, Dwight. In the event that you would be (and I don't think you would) as childish as Larry, *if* you took the above to think that I was including the story of your brother in my "hilarious" comment, then you would be wrong; however I apologize to you if I implied that. Kim W5TIT Kim: You said, (quoting above) "From Michael Jackson's arrest to the above. Can it get any more hilarious?" Well, Kim, "the above" included the shocking story of how Dwight's brother was brutally murdered. You'll have to forgive me, but I cannot find anything "hilarious" about that! I have already acknowledged that you may have let that word fly without realizing that it included the story of Dwight's brother. I am not making any attempt to grind any axe with you; I just want you to at least begin to TRY to think things through a bit better before making reactionary replies to well-considered postings by others. One more thing -- it would have gone a long way toward helping you establish some scintilla of credibility if you could have simply accepted responsibility for your mistake without the accompanying backpedalling. Perhaps, some day when you grow up intellectually and emotionally, you may become aware of such things. 73 de Larry, K3LT |
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 |
"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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com