Mate I was joking, someone said something about scary bedroom stuff and you mentioned the 'Golden Retriever test'. Sorry if I have offended you.

I don't wish harm to people (even pedophiles like MJ) but I cannot say I will miss him. The truly sad fact is that Farrah died on the same day and she had a heroic battle with cancer but the drive-by media will be tripping over themselves to say what a shame that MJ died.
It reminds me of the day that both Mother Teresa and Princess Di died. The amount of media attention was 10 to 1 for the celebrity as opposed to someone who dedicated her life to helping others.

Oh no, no offense, I got it, you cracked me up with your comment. The golden retriever test is pretty simple, I'd rather hang out with a golden retriever that risk another incident like the ex, you can trust a dog. The scary bedroom stuff I truly miss, but I met an Irish woman and there is Sue, life with girl friends is good, but the golden retriever will be the final judge!!!!!:D

A wild guess...you don't have children do you Norm?

What does the fact that adults with children letting them have a "sleepover" at a single grown man's house have to do with this? They weren't there to monitor the sleepover but they sure as hell were there for the court date/payday.

I think it's sad, he was such a troubled soul.

I can remember as a kid watching the Motown 25th reunion special on tv and seeing Michael and his brothers perform. The brothers left the stage and then Michael played the new stuff, Billy Jean. He did this incredible sideways moonwalk and everybody in my house couldn't believe it. The next day at school, EVERYBODY was talking about that performance. I'll never forget it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VASYhabHkM



How about watching the world premiere of his Thriller video on MTV. It might not seem like a big deal now, but at the time he was doing things that other artists had not even thought of.

You don't have to like the man, but you can't deny his talent back in the day.

Your correct! The children were at MJ’s house innocently, the parents need a good flogging for letting them go there.
The parents were at the court for the payday, the children were somewhere else.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer pedophile.

It's just that he was never convicted, and some people have found him "guilty" after all the publicity.

The McMartin Preschool case is a perfect example of the manipulation and devastation caused by heresay and hysteria. I'm not saying molestation didn't happen with MJ, but is there enough "hush money" to keep a parent from going after someone who molested their child?

I have children.

I find pedophiles reprehensible.

They should be taken out back and shot.

Would I leave my children with him? Not a chance in hell.

Do I think he was a pedophile?

I am not convinced.

I see a person who never had the chance to be a child and grow up like the rest of us.

Kids were the only ones that never used him for personal gain. They were the only ones he could trust.

One thing for sure, we'll never know the truth now.

And that means what?

N!

Not me.

A real parent would never want that to happen to anyones child.

If MJ did what they say, AND the parents took money to keep quiet, then they are equally guilty, maybe even more so as their motivation is greed. A pedophile is a sick person who is not capable of suppressing their urges. Greed, that's calculated.

Disclaimer: I believe pedophilia is an incurable mental illness, basically they can't help themselves which unfortunately for them means they need to be removed from society, permanently, by whatever means anyone sees fit.

Just cause they are sick they don't get a free pass from me.

I'm with you. I try to separate the artist from the work and his contribution to pop music is impossible to measure. I watch that video you on a semi-regular basis ever since I discovered youtube. It's truly what makes the internet great, being able to pull something like that performance up with a couple mouse-clicks.

That was one of the great live performances by an artist in the history of humans, IMO. The room was packed with a lot of the most talented people alive and he absolutely burned that place to the ground. Like a great Olympian or other athlete, no one can ever take that away from him, even if he was a disappointment in other areas later in life.

Re: Michael owning most of the Beatles publishing...

The story goes that in the mid 80s, after Lennon had died, and after Paul McCartney and Jackson had done "Say Say Say" and "The Girl Is Mine" duets.... one day, Paul gets this phone call...

"Hello Paul..this is Michael...guess what, I just bought most of your songs!"

This pissed McCartney off because he had no idea that the catalog was for sale...and when Paul tried to buy the songs back from Jackson...he refused to sell them back. This is why you heard "Revolution" in that Nike commercial...and piece by piece, Michael has had to sell the catalog back to Sony to pay off his debts...

Pretty much a true story and a real d*khead move by Jackson, IMO...

Well...just found this timely update on that situation

Michael Jackson leaving Beatles songs to McCartney in will
Jacko wants to "make things right"

Joe Bosso, Wed 7 Jan 2009, 12:28 am GMT


Jacko: We Can Work It Out...when I'm gone

View in gallery
Although he would rather have them much sooner, as in now, one day Paul McCartney will regain the rights to The Beatles' back catalog of songs. Michael Jackson is said to be giving them back to the former Beatle in his will.

Once friends and collaborators, the two had a bitter falling out in 1985 when Jackson, then flush with Thriller cash, beat out Sir Paul (and Yoko Ono, John Lennon's widow) in a bid to snatch up the rights to 200 of the Fab Four's iconic hits.

McCartney, 66, and Jackson, 50, have barely spoken since that time, and Macca has made no secret of his annoyance. In a 2006 interview he said, "You know what doesn't feel very good, is going on tour and paying to sing all my songs. Every time I sing Hey Jude, I've got to pay someone."

Is Jackson feeling guilty?
"Michael told his lawyers he was sad he no longer talks to Sir Paul and said he wanted to make things right" An insider speaking to The Daily MailWhatever is bringing about Michael Jackson's change of heart isn't known. Although he's been said to be strapped for money, recently selling his Neverland ranch and various holdings, he still earns over £40 million a year from his stake in The Beatles' songs (some years ago, he merged the catalog with Sony and created Sony/ATV, of which he retains a 50 percent share).

Perhaps his intention to turn over the song catalog is his way of burying the hatchet with McCartney. According to the UK newspaper The Daily Mail, an insider is quoted as saying, "Michael told his lawyers he was sad he no longer talks to Sir Paul and said he wanted to make things right."

However, if Jackson truly wanted to 'make things right,' wouldn't it be better to try to hammer out a deal with Macca now? The prospect of Sir Paul waiting for Jackson to kick the bucket just so he can regain the rights to his songs borders on the

Precisely!

updated my sig