Michael Jackson

[daleduke17]

Please, news media, shut the fuck up about this guy. He died, we get it. Yes, he was influential, but, I think the local news spending the first five minutes of the news about a record store running out of Jackson albums, a girl who was supposed to go to London to see Jackson and regurgitating the same stories from the last day is going overboard. Local news should start off important local news. A washed up 80's singer is not important.

Yes, he died. It is not some momentous occasion that needs to be rammed down people's throats endlessly.

[the_std]

Agreed. So agreed. The very first time I heard about it, all I could think was, "And here comes the deluge", because I knew this would happen.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

What I don't get is people running out and buying albums now that he's dead. What, they didnt' like him enough to buy them when he was alive and now he's dead they can't get enough of him? What is up with that?

[Rapscallion]

This is related to another peeve of mine. What's one of the most popular phenomenons is gaming of late? Guitar Hero.

What's heroic about playing a musical instrument?

A firefighter running into the WTC? Heroic - check.

A soldier braving enemy fire to rescue a wounded comrade? Heroic - check.

Someone getting on stage with minders between them and the people who have paid to see them, and then singing or playing an instrument? Heroic - nope.

Maybe I have no soul, but although I enjoy certain tunes on the radio I have to point out that the people singing and playing musical instruments are not heroes. I'm with you on this - he was a good showman and he entertained, but death comes to us all. It came to him. It also came to other people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8039613.stm), almost to other people (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8057087.stm), and the result is contempt by chavs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8106455.stm).

Funny old world.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Molesting children? DEFINATELY not heroic.

[Rapscallion]

Dude? Last I heard he was cleared of that by a court. While I don't think he really was a hero, I've yet to see anything other than such claims being the work of a money grab.

Rapscallion

[Flyndaran]

Dude? Last I heard he was cleared of that by a court. While I don't think he really was a hero, I've yet to see anything other than such claims being the work of a money grab.

Rapscallion

Found not guilty by a bunch of morons does not mean he was proven innocent. He admitted to numerous instances of sleeping and inapropriate touching of children, but oh no he never molested. Bull!
You know, I also think OJ did it. There was D.N.A. freakin' evidence.
It's not my fault jurors are often idiots and can be easily hoodwinked by celebrities with stupid stories.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Plus, from what I read about the last case, he was aquitted only due to there being insufficient evidence for a guilty verdict. One source said that had the trial been in Scotland, it would have been given "not proven"; which basically means "guilty as sin but we can't prove it". Plus the payoffs to stop the trial in the first instance are a bit fishy, as is the fact that there were three such incidents. One could be seen as just a malicious money grab, three is suspect. For the record, Lizzie Borden was aquitted, but it's pretty obvious she was the guilty party.

[Flyndaran]

... For the record, Lizzie Borden was aquitted, but it's pretty obvious she was the guilty party.

I have to disagree with you on that one.
There was not a single shred of evidence that she did or even could have physically done the double homicide of her father and step-mother.
You do know that during the trial the prosecution drugged her to get her testimony, right?
She never once wavered or messed up her version of the events.
Personally, I believe it was the painter maybe-boyfriend that disappeared after the murder.

People that commit violent axe murders rarely go through life without another single act of violence like she did.

[Slytovhand]

Someone getting on stage with minders between them and the people who have paid to see them, and then singing or playing an instrument? Heroic - nope. Oh, I dunno... there are some really bad 'musicians' out there, and just getting up on stage to attack ppl with their playing could be considered 'heroic' :p

But, back to topic.. I totally agree (with the 'we didn't play him before, we barely acknowledged him, but now he's all over the radio).

[Nyoibo]

The first case was settled out of court, and no charges were filed due to a lack of evidence, in the second case in 2003 he was found not guilty on all counts. Given that the father of the first boy said this when asked how it would affect his son "That's irrelevant to me...It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together...This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief...He will not sell one more record" and that when the kid alledged MJ touched him he was under the influence of Sodium Amytal.

Funny how a lot of stories surfaced after the first trial started, all those people who instead of reporting to police, sold their stories to Hard Copy and the like.

[Estil]

To the OP: that'd be like saying shut up about when Elvis died. :(

[Flyndaran]

To the OP: that'd be like saying shut up about when Elvis died. :(

Though to be fair Elvis slept with an underage GIRL not boy.

[Cats]

While I understand what everyone means, with all due respect, the man's been dead for a WHOLE TWO DAYS. While yes, news spreads fast nowadays, there hasn't even been enough time to beat it (no pun intended) into the ground yet.

Everytime someone famous dies, you ARE going to hear about it for several days afterward. It's how the news world works.

What I find interesting though, is that NO ONE is telling everyone to shut up about Farrah Fawcett's death, only Jackson. So it's okay for one and not the other? Granted in the past few years, Jackson has found himself lower on the likeness scale, but still. If we can talk about one for a few days, then we can talk about the other.

[AdminAssistant]

What bothers me is that something I see as extremely important, "history in the making" type stuff - the protests in Iran - has been shoved aside to discuss an entertainer. A good entertainer, a troubled man, who died.

Let me phrase it this way: Is the death of Michael Jackson or Farrah Fawcett more important than those of anonymous Iranians being shot for peacefully protesting their governments?

[blas87]

OMG...thank you.

E! has played the THS of Michael Jackson at least 10 times since Thursday. Nothing else is on that fucking channel right now!

[Slytovhand]

Granted, I'm a hermit, especially over weekends when I'm working, but it was only on a call when someone had mentioned Farrah had died as well.... I don't see (perhaps also cos I"m a hermit) the news running story after story after story on her...

AA - I am so totally with you on that!!!!

[LeChatNoir]

I like to come home in the morning and turn on CNN or the local news and get caught up with current events (usually too tired to sit at my computer and read the news that way.) The past couple of days, all I've seen is MJ news. Granted, it's sad. It's kind of tragic (I think he may possibly have made a comeback with this London tour). But...I know there is more going on in the world! At least this morning, CNN had a bit "other" news...but for the most part it was every other story was about MJ. And, actually...I've barely heard anything about Farrah Fawcett. Maybe it's because everyone expected her to die, and so her death is not as newsworthy? I don't know.

Anyway, the frenzy will most likely die down once they have his funeral. Or when we get the official autopsy results, etc. It's frustrating to be so inundated with a celebrity death that it feels like all the other world news is nothing.

[BlaqueKatt]

Found not guilty by a bunch of morons does not mean he was proven innocent. He admitted to numerous instances of sleeping and inapropriate touching of children, but oh no he never molested.

I'm glad you know the jurors personally, know their jobs, and know their IQ to be able to call 16 people morons(12 jurors and 4 alternate)-oh you've never met them well.....how do you know they're morons, is it because they don't agree with you? As far as the law is concerned he was found not guilty, or innocent of all charges.

Jackson's attorney alleged that the charges were made in retaliation by the family after the family members realized that Jackson was not going to continue supporting them financially indefinitely. The family was portrayed during trial as exhibiting a long history of attempting to extort celebrities.

and also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson)
"Both he and Jackson testified that they had slept in the same room, but not in the same bed. They also agreed that each had offered to sleep on the floor and let the other have the bed."

admitting to sleeping in the same room=/= inappropriate touching

filmed on the night of February 19, 2003 in the home of videographer Hamid Moslehi. and it showed the accuser's family praising Jackson, Gavin insisted no molestation had occurred and that Jackson was "innocent".[8] Gavin, his sister Daveline, brother Star and mother Janet were "upfront" and said that inappropriate behavior had "absolutely not occurred" while also calling him a father figure.[8] They also insisted that they slept in Jackson's bed although Jackson himself always slept on the floor.[8] To further the rebuttal Janet Arvizo issued the statement:

"The relationship that Michael has with my children is beautiful, loving, father-son and daughter one. To my children and me Michael is part of the family."

[guywithashovel]

Micheal Jackson has been such a powerful media sensation for such a long time that it's pretty much a given that his death would be such a big news item. It's sad that other stories that many of us deem more important are having to take a backseat to MJ, but let's face it, news networks thrive off of sensational stories.

A few years ago the editor of my city's newspaper wrote a special column about how people had written to the newspaper complaining about the newspaper printing too many "depressing" stories. These "depressing" stories included things going on in the Middle East as well as other tetchy political and social issues. These complainers apparently felt that the newspaper was printing these stories simply to ruin their breakfast, and that the paper should find some "happier" stories to print.

If the newspaper for my city gets bad mail for printing such stories, then I'm sure that major news networks do, too. I'm no expert in journalism, but I would wager that this is probably the reason why the news media eats up stories like MJ's death. I guess many people would rather hear about one of their favorite entertainer's life and death as opposed to a story about a skirmish between the Isrealis and Palastinians. That's probably also why I so often turn on CNN and hear reports about kids mooning their graduating classes and people trying to close down kids' lemonade stands while there is conflict in the Middle East and in Congress.

[Nyoibo]

He admitted to numerous instances of sleeping and inapropriate touching of children, but oh no he never molested. Bull!

When, I'd like to see an instance of him saying he inapropriately touched a child.

[Flyndaran]

When, I'd like to see an instance of him saying he inapropriately touched a child.

He slept in the same bed, naked I think, hugging little boys. I consider that inapropriate.
Either way, I guess it's possible for others to, naively in my opinion, think Mr. Jackson was just weird/mentally ill without ever once molesting children.
I find that seriously unlikely, but technicaly within the realm of possibility.
I won't call anyone that thinks that crazy, but I may secretly judge them as a little blinded by celebrity worship.

On the other hand, I guess you would make a wonderful friend; what with your willingness to believe others over more likely scenarios. :)

[BroomJockey]

He slept in the same bed, naked I think, hugging little boys.

Source? Preferably quoting Jackson or one of the boys. Remember, any other source would be suspect in either sensationalizing, or inflating in hopes of a nice civil suit.

[Slytovhand]

And not indicating a stance one way or another, but when jurors are asked to deliberate, the judge will lay down certain guidelines that they are supposed to follow, and various points of law that are significant.

If there's not enough 'proof' to give 'reasonable doubt', then they've got to rule 'not guilty'. And, unless there's penetration, or kids consistently saying things to the police/investigators about what happened, then the jury is going to have to rule 'not guilty'. Inappropriate touching, at the best of times, is going to be damn hard to convict on.

[DGoddess]

What I don't get is people running out and buying albums now that he's dead. What, they didnt' like him enough to buy them when he was alive and now he's dead they can't get enough of him? What is up with that?

I think it's because it's being believed that MJ memorabilia will shoot up in price and worth more money now that he's dead.

Frankly, I wouldn't part with my money that way. And I'm not too crazy about all the hoopla over his passing.

All these people boo-hooing it up on the video cameras, talking about how MJ was "their hero" yadda yadda yadda.

But would they dare leave their children alone in the same room with him?

They can say what they please, but IMO all the world lost was just another pedophile. Even though he was never found guilty, there's still a number of people who still believe in his guilt and it was only the combination of his fame (he was almost broke by this time) and the fact that the parents of the minor child involved were less than credible that got MJ off the hook.

And now the child from the first allegations (in 1993) has come forth to recant his story? Gimme a break. Sounds to me more like he's wanting his 15 minutes worth of fame, too.

[McDreidel09]

Though to be fair Elvis slept with an underage GIRL not boy.

And that's any better how? Underage is still underage.

[Flyndaran]

And that's any better how? Underage is still underage.

I was being sarcastic.

[powerboy]

Found not guilty by a bunch of morons does not mean he was proven innocent. He admitted to numerous instances of sleeping and inapropriate touching of children, but oh no he never molested. Bull!
You know, I also think OJ did it. There was D.N.A. freakin' evidence.
It's not my fault jurors are often idiots and can be easily hoodwinked by celebrities with stupid stories.


Exactly. The world lost a pedophile, not a hero. If he didn't touch any boys, then why did he give that one kid millions to shut up? If was innocent, then why pay him off? But then again, I have never really liked MJ. I only liked one song and that was Thriller.



What I find interesting though, is that NO ONE is telling everyone to shut up about Farrah Fawcett's death, only Jackson. So it's okay for one and not the other? Granted in the past few years, Jackson has found himself lower on the likeness scale, but still. If we can talk about one for a few days, then we can talk about the other.


How much do you hear about her death? Compare that to how much you hear of Jacksons death. There is your answer. Her was overshadowed by his

[linguist]

Exactly. The world lost a pedophile, not a hero. If he didn't touch any boys, then why did he give that one kid millions to shut up? If was innocent, then why pay him off? .

not saying he did or didn't, because i wasn't there and i don't know, but the payoff could very well have been exactly to shut him up and prevent further damage to his reputation. a public trial on this sort of charge, even if he was ultimately found innocent, could have done irreparable damage to his reputation. look at the damage that just an accusation did. people label him a pedophile when he was never proven so.

[blas87]

This is almost just as bad as Anna Nicole's death two years ago. It was almost 6 months before E! and other channels just finally shut the hell up and found someone else to talk about.

Although we are talking about two very different people here....it's still the same principle on the ridiculous scale. Every. Single. Day. "Breaking news!"

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Even if he did do something inappropriate, the parents are just as bad for being so naive/downright neglectful. I for one take the serious lack of real evidence and the sensationalism around the whole thing as more important than the comparatively baseless allegations.

If that's true, that he didn't do anything, I don't really care if he was a pedophile. That's not illegal and it's not hurting anyone just by liking something disgusting. It's whether or not he actually hurt someone that is important and we don't have nearly enough to prove that even a bit.

That said, he was an innovative and skilled performer who suffered if anything from being too popular, too soon. There are plenty of nuts out there and I respect everyone's right to do what they wish with whatever amount of money they had ( I personally would blow a lot of it on a private Airsoft MOUT facility and a huge armory, something most people would think of as equally if not the same type of weird as a private amusement park.)

And so it is that I, as in so many places including the debate over possible negative values in being homosexual, the claim that making all firearms illegal would decrease crime, and the belief that PETA isn't crazy ask that we prove things before we hate people over them.

[McDreidel09]

I was being sarcastic.

Oh! Couldn't tell what the tone was, it being text and all.

[McDreidel09]

Why I think MJ is getting so much attention is this:

He influenced music of all genres, whether or not any of us want to admit it. Many musicians get their inspiration from him. He not only defined the industry in one decade, but throughout his musical career, starting as a young boy.

As I was saying to a friend of mine, who wonders why Farrah did not get the same attention, she was 1) expected to die and 2) did not impact as much as Jacko did. Sure, she was America's Sweetheart and became a symbol, but for only the 70's. After making a few made for tv movies, she went into hiding until she came out about her cancer. Then she became a humanitarian for colon cancer.

That's just something I thought about.

[AFPheonix]

If there's a god, we won't hear as much about MJ because all the news will be covering Billy Mays kicking it.

[Flyndaran]

Oh! Couldn't tell what the tone was, it being text and all.

No problem. Oddly enough I have the opposite problem in person. Everyone thinks I'm being sarcastic all the time.

[Flyndaran]

If there's a god, we won't hear as much about MJ because all the news will be covering Billy Mays kicking it.

Well his was a bit more unexpected. No cancer, history of drug abuse, or insanity.
Really blows for the co-host of his discovery channel program just as it goes into its second season.

[AFPheonix]

RIP Billy Mays (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtYdDK1uTDI) :(

[Flyndaran]

RIP Billy Mays (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtYdDK1uTDI) :(

Shouldn't he have his own thread?

As to pedophilia, a rational one would never put themself in a situation where temptations "arise".

Back when I had a sex drive, I wouldn't want to sleep next to someone I consider super attractive... Not that I didn't do just that when I went away for the weekend with my girlfriend back in highschool. Talk about uncomfortable. I still don't know why her parents allowed us to sleep in the same bed.

[AFPheonix]

Well, he could have his own thread, but I don't know how well it would work on a debate forum, as I suspect he is unanimously considered awesome.
:p

[hecubus]

Even if he did do something inappropriate, the parents are just as bad for being so naive/downright neglectful. I for one take the serious lack of real evidence and the sensationalism around the whole thing as more important than the comparatively baseless allegations.

In the case that Jackson settled, I really think that the parents came off the worst. They dropped their accusations about Michael when he agreed to pay the how ever many millions of dollars.

Now, if Michael did not do anything inappropriate with the boy, then the parents were basically saying, "Give us money, or we'll tell the world that you're a pedophile." That's blackmail in my book.

If he did do something inappropriate with the boy, the what the parent would essentially be saying, "As long as we get some money, it's okay that you had sex with our son."

So, to put it in more simple terms, no matter what did or did not happen, the parents were either extortionists or pimps.

[Flyndaran]

...
So, to put it in more simple terms, no matter what did or did not happen, the parents were either extortionists or pimps.

Every parent that lets their small child sleep in the same bed as an unrelated whacko rich adult is a pimp, whether or not the adult is a rapist.

[BroomJockey]

Every parent that lets their small child sleep in the same bed as an unrelated whacko rich adult is a pimp

So if they're related that's fine?

Or if they're poor, that's fine?

Or if they're not a "whacko?" And who gets to define "whacko?"

[Flyndaran]

So if they're related that's fine?

Or if they're poor, that's fine?

Or if they're not a "whacko?" And who gets to define "whacko?"

It seems obvious to me that the parents were hoping something would happen that could turn into money for them.

Not just related, but legitimate custodians may have a reason to share a bed with their small children. Strangers certainly don't.

As to whacko, how obvious should potential injury be to negate the benefit of the doubt given to parents? With the case of MJ, I refuse to believe the we had no idea something bad could happen BS.

[daleduke17]

The funeral is over, media, now shut up and not mention Michael Jackson again.

[Kalli]

Personally, I was horrified by how readily people accepted that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, especially when there is in fact quite a bit of evidence to the contrary (although nobody ever seems to point this out, or point out the countless good deeds he did in his life, because let's face it, good news is boring).

I just couldn't believe how many people of the same species as me were capable of being so cruel and heartless to someone, then point and laugh when that someone becomes strange and withdrawn.

Now, after his death, once again people are demonstrating how horrible people really are capable of treating another human being, even in their death.

Those of you who call Michael Jackson a pedophile or a horrible person of some other distinction, let me just ask you to do one thing quickly. Imagine you are wrong, that MJ never did anything to any children, and that in reality he was very kind and generous and innocent.

Just imagine that for a sec, that someone simply targeted for money. Now, think about the cruel things you and others have said about him, and how much that would hurt. Now multiply that by twenty million or more.

Not only do I completely not understand how anyone (let alone millions of people) could be so heartless, but I ESPECIALLY don't understand what the fuck everybody gets out of it. I mean seriously? What do you have to gain by telling those who loved him that we shouldn't?

[BroomJockey]

What do you have to gain by telling those who loved him that we shouldn't?

Easy enough. Validation on a personal level. It's easy for some people to believe the worst about others, because that way, when they slip up, they can say to themselves, "I am only human. I made a mistake, but at least I've never done THAT." The idea that someone might just have been innocent and caring enough to have slept in the same bed with a child not theirs in the same manner a parent or best friend the child's own age could strikes a chord in them that maybe instead of comparing themselves to the worst in humanity and being excused for their failings, they should compare themselves to the best, and strive to be better people. So obviously that means any time someone does something they can't grasp, that means it was done for nasty, evil, dirty reasons.

[Kalli]

Good point, Broom.. I suppose it's just one of those insane human nature things. I guess what gets me is that so many people just cannot fathom someone being that way, like you said, and that they are willing to persecute someone so brutally for their own peace of mind.

I guess if I looked at my own set of judgements, I'd find an example or two of myself doing the same thing.

[BroomJockey]

I guess if I looked at my own set of judgements, I'd find an example or two of myself doing the same thing.

Most people do. I'm sure I've got a few too. It's like the Wizard's First Rule, and the only solution is constant vigilance and self-assessment.

[Flyndaran]

Not everyone found not-guilty is innocent. I stand by my assessment of his guilt. And OJ did it too.

[BroomJockey]

Not everyone found not-guilty is innocent. I stand by my assessment of his guilt. And OJ did it too.

Hmm. Equating MJ to OJ. Pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort, if you're trying to appear rational.

As for the first bit, no, not everyone. However, in light of a lack of sufficient evidence, a person is to be treated as innocent. Your personal judgement of a person's guilt or innocence carries no weight in society. This is why the mere accusation of this sort ruins lives. People decide to believe it even when it can't be proven. MJ wasn't saved by technicalities or lawyering. There simply wasn't evidence.

[Kalli]

Not everyone found not-guilty is innocent. I stand by my assessment of his guilt.

And not everyone who is accused is guilty. Do you actually have an "assessment" of his guilt to speak of? If so, I'm interested to hear how you came to that conclusion, because I haven't heard anything more convincing than "everyone says so".

[BroomJockey]

Not everyone found not-guilty is innocent. I stand by my assessment of his guilt. And OJ did it too.

Further thought: You scorn belief in face of lack of or contradictory evidence when it relates to religion, but you're all over believing this.

I guess you CAN believe.

[PepperElf]

my own personal feelings on him....

yes i think he engaged in acts of an "inappropriate nature" with children.
i rather feel that his behavior and the darker side of his personality is downplayed because he had hit songs.

i don't mourn him
and i wonder if there are some young men who will sleep better at night now

[Kalli]

my own personal feelings on him....

yes i think he engaged in acts of an "inappropriate nature" with children.
i rather feel that his behavior and the darker side of his personality is downplayed because he had hit songs.


Again I ask; do you actually have a reason for believing this? Could you explain, please?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

If anything the negative acts of the famous are exaggerated by the media because that's what sells.

No one's going to pay to hear about a CCL holder saving someone's life, a celebrity that's innocent of even one accusation or how logging companies aren't ruining the world. The facts state that all three are true statements, but most everyone is afflicted by confirmation bias, something I've made a personal rule to always avoid.

The best way to go about deciding the truth is to take the information from both sides with a grain of salt each and honestly comparing them. The one that has more facts on it's side is probably true. If there is something you don't understand, learn about it before passing judgment on it. But instead, most people pick the side they think is true and proceed to ignore any and all facts supporting the opposition.

It's like all the people who accuse opponent organizations of membership padding or studies as being biased when all organization seek to have as many members as possible (that's how you accomplish your goals, bring together those who agree with you) and everyone has pre-existing opinions.

In this case we have nothing but the word of the parents against the word of MJ. In this society, that isn't enough. If it were, I may well be in jail right now myself. If we didn't require proof of guilt before assigning it, anyone could be arrested for anything and they would go to jail automatically.

End of Song, for now.

[Flyndaran]

Further thought: You scorn belief in face of lack of or contradictory evidence when it relates to religion, but you're all over believing this.

I guess you CAN believe.

Abusing kids doesn't require magic.

Hmm. Equating MJ to OJ. Pretty sure that's a fallacy of some sort, if you're trying to appear rational.
....

Two people found not guilty that pretty obviously did it. Seems similar to me. In american justice systems, it matters far more who the jurors are than whether the accused is guilty.
I just say that MJ gave up the benefit of the doubt when he admitted to inapropriate behavior. Once that b.o.t.d disappeared his guilt seemed as likely as any sexual crime can be.
Would you let him sleep with your children?
Whatever. We aren't going to change our opinions of the facts.

[Kalli]

Interesting how so many people were keen to jump on the "Yeah fuck the pedophile, he deserved to die anyway" bandwagon (seemingly without any regard to how disgusting this attitude is), but when asked to present some kind of argument, any kind at all, to back up those huge claims then everyone disappears.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I don't see anything that makes it anything like obvious that MJ did anything...

Got a link?

[LeChatNoir]

Two people found not guilty that pretty obviously did it.

Last time I checked, one person accusing another person of a crime is not sufficient to prove that the accused "pretty obviously did it".

I honestly think that MJ was naive and gullible for his age. I truly think that he thought it was ok to share his bed with a child (and not in a sexual manner) and that backfired on him. Of course people are going to think the worst.

Where is the physical evidence that Michael Jackson abused any child? Not just the say-so of the childrens parents, which isn't enough to convict anyone.

[Nyoibo]

Abusing kids doesn't require magic.

BJ was more pointing out, that even though there was no evidence to support the claims except a couple of peoples words for it, you still believe it, nothing to do with magic, that's faith right there.



I just say that MJ gave up the benefit of the doubt when he admitted to inapropriate behavior.

When did he admit to inapropriate behaviour?

[Kalli]

Yet MORE exclamations by people that he "obviously did it" with no evidence or even any argument. It's absolutely pathetic.

Either admit defeat, or come up with SOMETHING.

[BroomJockey]

Yet MORE exclamations by people

Actually, I haven't seen any since the last challenge. Closest is Wingate's confusingly worded post which is actually also asking for something to prove that it's "obvious he did something." Looks like they're all suddenly... busy.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Yet MORE exclamations by people that he "obviously did it" with no evidence or even any argument. It's absolutely pathetic.

Either admit defeat, or come up with SOMETHING.

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty. The only person who knows truly what happened is dead.

[BroomJockey]

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty.

Except there's a presumption of innocence in Western Society. The default IS innocent. So turning it around has absolutely no relevance. We can't prove he's innocent? So what? We don't need to.

[Nyoibo]

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty. The only person who knows truly what happened is dead.

Well, kinda can, he was found innocent in a court of law due to a lack of credible evidence, that goes more to the "not guilty" than "guilty".

And no, there's another person who knows what happened, the kid it happened to, and strangely, he came forward and claimed nothing happened.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Except there's a presumption of innocence in Western Society. The default IS innocent. So turning it around has absolutely no relevance. We can't prove he's innocent? So what? We don't need to.

In France, it's the opposite. And in any case, this isn't a court of law, it's a debating forum and both sides have to prove their argument, not just the one you believe is correct.

[Kalli]

Just saying, that could be turned round to you, too. You can't prove he's innocent, any more than Flynn can prove he's guilty.

Except there's a presumption of innocence in Western Society. The default IS innocent.

This. "Innocent until proven guilty" exists not only because it's more in line with personal rights than an assumption of guilt, but also because it is nigh impossible to prove something didn't happen. You have to prove it did. Having said that...

In France, it's the opposite. And in any case, this isn't a court of law, it's a debating forum and both sides have to prove their argument, not just the one you believe is correct.

I'll dismiss the France thing, because MJ wasn't subject to French law and it is therefore about as relevant to his case as this roll of sticky tape I have here. You may as well speculate how Ancient Sumeria would have dealt with his case. However, you raise a good point about this being a debating forum and not a court of law, and I have asked people to present an argument for his guilt, so I suppose it is only fair that I present an argument for his innocence.


Accusation the First.

I should mention first of all that there are 2 instances of sexual abuse allegations against Michael, the first in 1993 by a boy named Jordan Chandler, and his father, Evan Chandler.

Now, I'm not going to go into a twelve page epic about all the evidence and what it all denotes for the case, if you want an in-depth description of the case, here's an article. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_child_sexual_abuse_accusations_against_Michae l_Jackson) (Yes I know it's only a wikipedia article, but there are plenty of links and citations from within it, the whole thing is subjective so there's really no 'reliable source').

Anyway, that's the whole case, but here are some highlights:

- There is a taped phone conversation between Evan Chandler (the alleged victim's father) and Dave Schwartz (the alleged victim's stepfather) where Chandler says, "Everything's going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine... and if I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way I lose. I've checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever. June will lose [custody of the son]... and Michael's career will be over."
Now, I know there's nothing in there that explicitly says "I'm going to LIE to get his MONEY even though he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, MUAHAHAH". But, I think it's quite obvious that this man is not motivated by the pursuit of justice for his son. He's quite clearly motivated by trying to win money and a custody battle.

- The boy himself had not initially made any allegations. That all changed when his father gave him a drug called sodium amytal. Under the influence of this drug, people are said to be extremely impressionable. Chandler claimed he only used the drug for dental purposes and while under its influence, the boy came out with the allegations. Most medical experts agree that this is unlikely.

- The case fell apart after the boy refused to testify. The prosecution contacted hundreds of children who had stayed at Neverland and could not find another "victim."

All these points are taken from this website (http://www.wethewest.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=231:mjack-innocent&catid=34:2009-04-19-16-25-13).


Accusation the Second.

Now, this is a much more complicated case, and If I cut out the bits that point to Michael's innocence it's sort of an incomplete explanation, so I urge you to read about it yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson). What I'm going to do now is put forward some facts and observations about Michael Jackson himself that might explain some of the behaviour that led people to believe these accusations.

Why the accusations make no sense.


Reliving his Childhood

Michael was an abused child. Physically and emotionally, not sexually. His father treated him like an employee from the age of 5, made him rehearse and rehearse and rehearse and if he got it wrong, he got yelled at, bashed, called ugly, and told to do it again.

"Yes Kalli, that's exactly the kind of childhood that would lead someone to become an abuser!! THE ABUSED BECOME ABUSERS!!" you say. No, that's not what happened with Michael. He had ALWAYS displayed a childish side, and it's got nothing to do with sexual arousal (which I will explain further in a sec), it has to do with the fact that he spent his spare time in adulthood having a childhood, because he never had one when he actually was a child. That's why he surrounded himself with children and trivial things and what seemed like silly childish activities; because he was living the childhood he never had.
His friends said this about him way before the mudslinging started. Someone decided this looked close enough to "creepy middle-aged kiddy fiddler" to figure people would believe it and they could get some money. I mean really, is it so hard to believe that someone would take advantage and SUE? This is America, after all.

He was Asexual.

Now, this argument is usually met with an outcry of "What? No fucking WAY, dude was a pimp and then a pedophile!" No, his closest friends and WIVES (Brooke Shields, Debbie Rowe, Lisa Marie Presley) Have all described Michael as asexual. Debbie claimed they were never intimate, while Brooke claimed she had never known him to be a sexual being at all, even though they knew each other for 30 years or more. This probably stems from his perpetual child-like state. Correct me if I'm wrong, if there are any asexual people out there, but I don't believe asexuals have any kind of fetish or drive at ALL, least of all to the point of pedophilia.

In short, these accusations do not match Michael's personality, which has been consistently described as the above since decades before the lawsuits.


I have a LOT more to say, but at this point I might take a breath and leave some room for rebuttal.


OK, Your turn, camp guilty.

[BroomJockey]

it's a debating forum and both sides have to prove their argument

Err, no, the fact remains, it's still impossible to prove a negative. If I say something didn't happen, it's up to the people who say it did happen to find evidence to say it did. Then, I take that evidence and try to disprove it. It's not a matter of "which I support." To ask me to prove someone didn't do something shows a lack of logic, when the other side is only putting forward "despite the evidence not being sufficient, I still think he did it."

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Yeah, sorry about that... my wording in real life is infinitely worse... take my word for it.

Let me try and duct-tape together a more cogent statement:

People don't pay to hear good news anymore, and always assume the worst.

IMO the only logical way to go about proving something is to assume no existence, in this case innocence, and try to prove the opposite. Otherwise you're assuming something that has a lot of impact and will probably not be correct.

Yeah, I'm demanding proof like the others :D

Sorry again, I don't type or speak well after a four hour battle with GMod so I can keep thirty minutes of footage that will end up as about five seconds in a one-minute 'demo' of a video I'm trying to make... it's been a long week...

[Kalli]

I have to disagree with you on that one.
There was not a single shred of evidence

Hang on a sec....

So if there's no evidence of guilt in Lizzie Borden's case, she's obviously innocent.

BUT, if there's no evidence of guilt in MJ's case, he's obviously guilty?

Please explain this inconsistency.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Right, so if this was an abortion thread, and you believed passionately in abortion for everyone, you wouldn't allow anyone to post that it was wrong, cuz that's proving a negative? I'm confused.

I'm not really interested in proving either way; the guy's dead now, so I'm sick and tired of hearing the constant stories. Just that you can't say "I believe he's innocent, so all you others can stfu" cuz that is not presenting your side, that's just basically faith. Like saying "I believe in god, therefore there is one, so you atheists can stfu". Prove your side; if you're so sure you're right, then what have you got to lose? :p

[BroomJockey]

Right, so if this was an abortion thread, and you believed passionately in abortion for everyone, you wouldn't allow anyone to post that it was wrong, cuz that's proving a negative? I'm confused.


Er, no. I'm quite sure you don't understand the concept of proving a negative. Prove that a person is incapable of jumping to the moon.

Prove that God doesn't exist.

Prove that a person cannot survive a 10,000 ft free fall.

You cannot do those, because while it might be true in one individual case, you cannot prove that it's always true. A person with mechanical assistance could very well jump to the moon in the future. God might exist, but cloak his existence from the human mind. People HAVE survived falls from that height.

Your example is fallacious because the positions aren't that something cannot happen or doesn't exist. One side says "abortion is an acceptable procedure. The reasons are *insert reasons for believing so." The other side says "abortion is unacceptable because of *insert reasons for believing so."

No one actually says "abortion does not, and cannot exist," which is what the negative would be. It would only take one person with video evidence of an abortion to show their position incorrect.

Thus, you're asking me to prove that someone did *not* do something. How can I do that? Provide video evidence of all the times where MJ didn't molest a boy? The burden of proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)) rests on those asserting something did happen, France's legal system not-withstanding, since in that case, they're making an assertion, then you disprove it, and is thus a different systematic approach, which still starts with the assertion of something happening.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'm just saying that in a debate topic, merely saying "No he's innocent" doesn't really give anyone anything to debate with. You could, for example, give out examples of good character, or of personal experiences; I know people have met Michael Jackson. Sort of like a character reference; in court you would not get away with just saying, "I know he's innocent of this crime cuz I say so".

No need to drop the dummy over this; I just like to read good arguments in a debate, as in both sides; rather than just a "I said so, so stfu" which is what Kelli is saying, pretty much. Not trying to be rude, just saying. :(

[BroomJockey]

No need to drop the dummy over this; I just like to read good arguments in a debate, as in both sides; rather than just a "I said so, so stfu" which is what Kelli is saying,

Not how I read it at all. Instead, I read it as other people saying "MJ's a child abusing bastard because I say so." Kalli then asked for something to back that up. No one has actually bothered to do so. THEN the comment of "if you can't back it up, stfu" came along. While not the most diplomatic of debating techniques, I feel it still goes to the heart of "If you can't defend your position, why do you have it?" I defend my position by saying that if there is no evidence that it happened, then it probably didn't, and saying that people, by-and-large read the worst in to actions that are likely innocent, and MJ, as a child-performer, didn't have a proper childhood, thus likely more easily identified with children than adults to the point of taking on childish mannerisms as demonstrated by his naming of his estate "Neverland" and his massive video game collection, then doing anything untoward is unlikely. My position is alterable by the simple production either of a confession or incriminating transcript, a medical report detailing signs of abuse, or other such similar materials. Since none of that has been provided, and a court of law found insufficient evidence to substantiate a claim, then my position is so-far well defended.

On a separate note... "drop the dummy?" I've never heard that before. What's it mean? :confused:

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sowwy; that's slang round where I am for getting all het up, usually over an innocent or innocuous question. ^^;; Like yelling at a child asking why you're wearing that hat. XD

I don't see that Flynn has been on since he was asked to defend his position so he hasn't really had that chance to. However, I tend to stay out of this kind of thing, especially when the person in question is the only person who knows what happened and if there are fans involved, it tends to end up as a free fight. O.o I've seen way too many internet flame wars in the Kiss fandom to want to get involved elsewhere.

In any case, I should have clarified; as in, I mean for both sides to present an argument, rather than just saying "He's guilty, everyone knows it" and "No he's not, stfu".

I defend my position by saying that if there is no evidence that it happened, then it probably didn't, and saying that people, by-and-large read the worst in to actions that are likely innocent, and MJ, as a child-performer, didn't have a proper childhood, thus likely more easily identified with children than adults to the point of taking on childish mannerisms as demonstrated by his naming of his estate "Neverland" and his massive video game collection, then doing anything untoward is unlikely. My position is alterable by the simple production either of a confession or incriminating transcript, a medical report detailing signs of abuse, or other such similar materials.

That is what I meant when I refered to defending your position, thank you.

[Nyoibo]

I'm just saying that in a debate topic, merely saying "No he's innocent" doesn't really give anyone anything to debate with.

What I find funny is that in the first case, they didn't prosecute due to lack of evidence, there goes that one proving he's guilty, and in the second case he was found not guilty, 30 other kids were interviewed and denied MJ had molested them, others have spoken out in his defence, people who claimed he was a pedophile have retracted those statements, but no, he still must be guilty "because".

That's a fair bit in favour of him being innocent, so now Guilty people, your turn.

[Kalli]

Right, so if this was an abortion thread, and you believed passionately in abortion for everyone, you wouldn't allow anyone to post that it was wrong, cuz that's proving a negative? I'm confused.

Bad analogy. Proving a negative means that you can never prove something can't/didn't happen, all you can say is that something can/did happen.

Prove your side; if you're so sure you're right, then what have you got to lose? :p

You're so busy saying that that you failed to realise I have already posted an extensive argument for his innocence.

I'm just saying that in a debate topic, merely saying "No he's innocent" doesn't really give anyone anything to debate with. You could, for example, give out examples of good character, or of personal experiences; I know people have met Michael Jackson. Sort of like a character reference; in court you would not get away with just saying, "I know he's innocent of this crime cuz I say so".

That's PRECISELY what I did, about 4 posts ago. Read before posting.

I just like to read good arguments in a debate, as in both sides; rather than just a "I said so, so stfu" which is what Kelli is saying, pretty much. Not trying to be rude, just saying. :(

I beg your pardon?

1) I never said "I said so, stfu" or anything of the sort. I said I believed A and others believed B, but B is damaging and hurtful. That's paraphrasing gone way out of control.

2) I then asked those who believed B to present some kind of reason rather than just saying he was guilty, because as I've already pointed out, innocent is the default in ANY question of guilt. You have to prove guilt, not innocence.

3) I then went above and beyond any reasonable debate etiquette and posted my argument first, and THEN you continued to point the finger at me and say I haven't presented an argument yet when I actually have.

I would call that rude.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I was debating with Broomjockey about the debate, not saying "MJ is guilty" so I don't know why in the world you see fit to pull my post apart and post an incredibly spiteful post in reply to me.

[Kalli]

I was debating with Broomjockey about the debate, not saying "MJ is guilty" so I don't know why in the world you see fit to pull my post apart and post an incredibly spiteful post in reply to me.

You've got to be kidding. You don't see the things you said about "Kelli wants us to post an argument but she didnt post one herself" as spiteful, when I did? If you are only arguing with Broomjockey and choose to ignore me, then leave me out of it.

[telecom_goddess]

I have to disagree with you on that one.
There was not a single shred of evidence that she did or even could have physically done the double homicide of her father and step-mother.
You do know that during the trial the prosecution drugged her to get her testimony, right?
She never once wavered or messed up her version of the events.
Personally, I believe it was the painter maybe-boyfriend that disappeared after the murder.

People that commit violent axe murders rarely go through life without another single act of violence like she did.

I was talking about this subject just this morning! I think she DID do it.....I believe in the theory that she did the murders in the nude and then washed up afterwards and got dressed....and therefore was "clean" of blood. The only reason she got acquitted is because they didn't have the technology back then that they do now.....if they could do dna testing back then she would have been so busted.

The fact that she didn't commit another act is not surprising....it was clear that her father was a complete jerk and her step mother wasn't any better. She had a vengence against them, not anyone else. It's not like she went out and committed random acts of murder on strangers.

IN the recent past they have found blood traces in the basement, and a bowl with blood on it....probably the bowl she used to wash up with :cool:

[BroomJockey]

an incredibly spiteful post in reply to me.

You don't see the things you said about "Kelli wants us to post an argument but she didnt post one herself" as spiteful, when I did?

Okay, I think everyone (me too! :) )needs to take a step back, breathe deep, and admit that this is a terribly long thread, and occasionally posts will be missed, and that while we all may disagree or not on a topic, getting flamey over it isn't terribly useful.

We all gonna be cool now? Or do I need to break out the slushies?

[Wingates_Hellsing]

We all gonna be cool now? Or do I need to break out the slushies?

I don't think I was particularly un-cool at any point in this thread, but do I get a slushie anyway? :p

Still could benefit from stepping back regardless of how I feel I've been acting. I might just be going crazy and not think it because of my own personal confirmation bias :p

Ehm... on topic something... uhhhh...

Oh, yeah. You can't really compare opposite sides of an issue like abortion (I hate the pro-life, pro-choice monikers... say what you mean dammit) with things like yes/no guilt or yes/no existence.

Although, it has to be said that most morality issues stem from an assumption of harmlessness followed by proof of negativity and/or proof of positivity. Either way, it's healthiest, or rather most logical to assume that something is not until proof arrives. There is the possibility that proof will arive later, but until then it's just not logical to assume that there is any.

I hope I didn't bumble the wording too much there, I'll try to clarify if necessary.

[Flyndaran]

...
Oh, yeah. You can't really compare opposite sides of an issue like abortion (I hate the pro-life, pro-choice monikers... say what you mean dammit) with things like yes/no guilt or yes/no existence.
....

Huh? Pro-choice is what it is. We are for the woman's right to choose. Pretty self-explanatory to me.

...
That's a fair bit in favour of him being innocent, so now Guilty people, your turn.

I believe he did it. You have the right to disbelieve without overwhelming proof. But don't dismiss me please.
Sexual abuse is almost impossible to convict. The fact that he was found not guilty by twelve people, does not begin to prove that he was innocent of all sex crimes.
I know that I certainly wouldn't allow any of my prospective children to sleep in the same bed as such an adult man. You may be less discriminating. Your right to do take such risks.

[BroomJockey]

But don't dismiss me please.

I dismiss those who don't offer proof of their belief. Sorta like you and religion.

[Kalli]

I believe he did it. You have the right to disbelieve without overwhelming proof. But don't dismiss me please.

I do dismiss your opinion (not you), because you have made absolutely no effort to back it up at all. This is a fair reaction in a debate, as far as I'm concerned.

Also, nobody asked for overwhelming proof. We asked for an explanation of why you believe he is guilty. This is a far cry from overwhelming proof.



In any case, I should have clarified; as in, I mean for both sides to present an argument, rather than just saying "He's guilty, everyone knows it" and "No he's not, stfu".

......


That is what I meant when I refered to defending your position, thank you.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts about what I posted. I made the exact same point as Broom did, and more. Do you have any thoughts? You are the person who asked me to post it, after all.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

My point is that everyone more or less believes in people's right to choose what they do, and people are also generally in favor of people staying alive. The issue can be described in those terms but they strike me as a way of trying to swipe high ground out of thin air by accusing the other side of being unilaterally anti-rights or anti-not-dying.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, I also believe in everyone's right to life (liberty and blah blah blah) BUT when it comes to abortion I believe in the woman's rights in that the baby is not yet a person.

Make sense?

I guess I'm just generally against beating around the bush so to speak. Just say it: 'I am for abortion rights', or 'I am against abortion rights'. Alternative naming schemes always struck me as an attempt to get out of actually discussing the issue itself.

A parallel, in a unsurprising vain for me:

Pro-gun and anti-gun:
Everyone wants to be safe and/or to be able to defend themselves.
Everyone wants to keep guns away from criminals.
The actual issue is abolishing or not abolishing the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for self-defense and/or recreation.

[Kalli]

I know that I certainly wouldn't allow any of my prospective children to sleep in the same bed as such an adult man. You may be less discriminating. Your right to do take such risks.

You keep saying that, about sleeping in the same bed. That was not the case. The children sometimes slept in the same ROOM as Michael, not the same bed.

[Flyndaran]

You keep saying that, about sleeping in the same bed. That was not the case. The children sometimes slept in the same ROOM as Michael, not the same bed.

Not what I heard from his testimony. He had a special room that other adults weren't allowed in.
Either way, the point is quite dead.

[AFPheonix]

now you too (http://www.eternalmoonwalk.com/index.php) can have Billie Jean stuck in your head.

Oh no, no need to thank me. It was my pleasure.

[CaptainJaneway]

I am a big fan of Michael. I believe he is innocent of all charges.

Right now I am on information overload but from what I have been reading and watching. In the first case Michael did not want to pay out the money. The insurance company insisted and MJ was very upset as was seeing crying his eyes out over it.

I remember from the second case that the family tried to hit up Jay leno and one other celebrity for money. The kid's mother shaved his head and claimed he had cancer. MJ decided to stop supporting them financially and that is when the shit hit the fan.

I found this video while reading the Michael Jackson board on imdb.
http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=680097n (http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=680097n)

That is from the second case.

Besides if he was a child molester wouldn't he be molesting his own children?

There is a book coming out this week by an Ian Halperin called Unmasked. He was at MJ's memorial ceremony. He was one of the ones that at first thought Michael was guilty as sin and he was going to prove it. Well come to find out he said after several years of investigation into MJ's camp and interviewing a thousand kids that stayed at neverland. He said that Michael was innocent and he did not touch any of those kids.

Though he does claim that MJ was gay and had two gay lovers and dressed as a woman. Not taking much stock in that.

Also i think it was Access Hollywood that had on MJ's long time friend Yuri Geller. Yuri stated that he had hypnotized Michael and while he was under he did ask him about touching children. Yuri said the MJ empathically told him no he did not.

If i have the time i will see if i can located the video otherwise i will try and get the video off of my tivo and upload it to youtube.

ETA:
I could be wrong but in the first case wasn't the father a screen writer or something? Michael offered to produce one movie for him but that wasn't good enough the guy wanted 5?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I have to admit, I find the whole "Yay, such and such is dead now and therefore can't sue for slander, so let's bring out a scandal book FOR THE WIN!" idea a bit repungnent. It's surely no coincidence that this guy only mentions his book after the funeral. It smacks of cashing in on death.

[Kalli]

Not what I heard from his testimony. He had a special room that other adults weren't allowed in.


Source please?

[AFPheonix]

I have to admit, I find the whole "Yay, such and such is dead now and therefore can't sue for slander, so let's bring out a scandal book FOR THE WIN!" idea a bit repungnent. It's surely no coincidence that this guy only mentions his book after the funeral. It smacks of cashing in on death.

To be fair, it was already in the works before Michael's death. However, he did have to do a quick rewrite to include his death and memorial in the book, so that was a little tacky.
It does not surprise me one bit about MJ being gay. The man was terrible at picking beards. That, and the whole having 5 older brothers would statistically point to his increased possibility of being gay.

[Flyndaran]

...That, and the whole having 5 older brothers would statistically point to his increased possibility of being gay.

Heh, you read that study too? Even with many older brothers, the absolute statistic would still be below 50%.
Either way, I don't like too much bashing of him. Not because I have any respect for the dead, but because he can't hurt anyone else anymore. The issue itself has died. Let the living victims rest in peace.
Even if you believe it was all a conspiracy, then the issue is still dead as it's now even more unlikely for the "truth" to come out.

[Kalli]

The issue itself has died. Let the living victims rest in peace.
Even if you believe it was all a conspiracy, then the issue is still dead as it's now even more unlikely for the "truth" to come out.

I disagree, I think there's something to be said for the pursuit of truth for it's own sake, even when there is no longer anybody to receive justice.

However, I will concede that this particular debate has been mutilated beyond salvation. If anyone wishes to continue it, I'm happy to do it, but I agree that this particular thread has run its course.

[Flyndaran]

I disagree, I think there's something to be said for the pursuit of truth for it's own sake, even when there is no longer anybody to receive justice.
...
In theory I agree. But why should anyone fund the search that can't lead to a prosecution?

[Kalli]

In theory I agree. But why should anyone fund the search that can't lead to a prosecution?

Oh sorry, I meant in the way of discussion and debate like we are doing here, not in the way of criminal investigation. I misunderstood your last post.

[Flyndaran]

Oh sorry, I meant in the way of discussion and debate like we are doing here, not in the way of criminal investigation. I misunderstood your last post.

But a debate rarely leads to any form of undeniable truth. I guess I misunderstood your last post too.

[Skunkle]

Waters on YouTube of one of their shows performing to Michael Jackson's music. This was apparently originally programmed in 1996 for a show in Brunei (and likely seen by Jackson there, on Brunei's massive Waltzing Waters unit, since it seems he visited for the Sultan's birtday in '96, for which this huge show was purchased and this programming done). The fountain runs to parts of "Remember The Time", "Heal The World", a very sinister "Who Is It", a breathtaking "You Are Not Alone", followed by "I Just Can't Stop Loving You", "Man In The Mirror", and ending with "Earth Song". Childhood memories + WW's Liquid Fireworks = Win in my book.