jacko not a wacko

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 6:16 am

i mean do you need any more proof the guy is normal :rolleyes::rolleyes:

YouTube - Michael Jackson's video nasty; Unseen footage shows quiz over sex

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 8:58 am

farmer giles;1213262 wrote: i mean do you need any more proof the guy is normal :rolleyes::rolleyes:

YouTube - Michael Jackson's video nasty; Unseen footage shows quiz over sex So what is your point exactly ?

I have watched this video and seen nothing even worthy of posting it so what are you trying to say?

If your refering to the last part of the video where he talks of Jesus loving the children and him being raised with similar thought, then what is wrong with that? Most religions believe that Jesus was the saviour of children. Why does it make MJ any different?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:00 am

what is your point exactly :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

jeez a guy posted a thread saying wacko is normal and you still go out looking for a fight give it a rest for pete's sake:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:09 am

farmer giles;1213291 wrote: what is your point exactly :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

jeez a guy posted a thread saying wacko is normal and you still go out looking for a fight give it a rest for pete's sake:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Two points: 1) Your previous posts claiming MJ is a sick Peado and 2) The roll eyes smilies after your opening post which indicates sarcasm.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:10 am

oscar;1213293 wrote: Two points: 1) Your previous posts claiming MJ is a sick Peado and 2) The roll eyes smilies after your opening post which indicates sarcasm.

dont you have anything better to do than go around fg following me trying to start fights ???

no wonder people have you on ignore

:D

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:13 am

farmer giles;1213295 wrote: dont you have anything better to do than go around fg following me trying to start fights ???

no wonder people have you on ignore

:D If you really think i'm following you, then you have a problem. Remember that this is not your forum, it is here for everyone.

If you also think everyone has me on ignore, then i suggest you look at the lack of responses to your own threads.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:17 am

oscar;1213299 wrote: If you really think i'm following you, then you have a problem. Remember that this is not your forum, it is here for everyone.

If you also think everyone has me on ignore, then i suggest you look at the lack of responses to your own threads.

i think that by the very fact you have come on this thread and others just to pick yet another boring fight with me is proof enough who follows who

at least i post different stuff

some die a death some dont

and i dont get fixed posting on the same subject all the time eg many months of gordon brown rubbish... then bnp rubbish yawn now mj rubbish

change the record please its got stuck

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:24 am

farmer giles;1213304 wrote: i think that by the very fact you have come on this thread and others just to pick yet another boring fight with me is proof enough who follows who

at least i post different stuff

some die a death some dont

and i dont get fixed posting on the same subject all the time eg many months of gordon brown rubbish... then bnp rubbish yawn now mj rubbish

change the record please its got stuck

Every thread i have read has you banging on about how i'm supposed to be following you around even on threads that i have not posted on. That tells a story to most sensible folks.

As for my threads, the whole board of late seems to be taken up by yours. It is very difficult these days to actually find a thread that you have not posted. You also post on every thread going even the thread for Odie and myself which i have no problem with as all threads once posted are there for everyone. As you are the most frequent poster, it is very difficult for anyone to avoid you.

You are acting extremely childishly and you can play on your own. If you don't like another poster disagreeing with some-thing you have said, then why post on a forum?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:26 am

oscar;1213310 wrote: Every thread i have read has you banging on about how i'm supposed to be following you around even on threads that i have not posted on. That tells a story to most sensible folks.

As for my threads, the whole board of late seems to be taken up by yours. It is very difficult these days to actually find a thread that you have not posted. You also post on every thread going even the thread for Odie and myself which i have no problem with as all threads once posted are there for everyone. As you are the most frequent poster, it is very difficult for anyone to avoid you.

You are acting extremely childishly and you can play on your own. If you don't like another poster disagreeing with some-thing you have said, then why post on a forum?

yaaawwwwnn:D:D

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:30 am

farmer giles;1213313 wrote: yaaawwwwnn:D:D
You said it.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:31 am

oscar;1213317 wrote: You said it.

er record stuck

:D

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:49 am

Why don't you two get a room ?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:52 am

Bruv;1213327 wrote: Why don't you two get a room ?

why dont you insert a cactus somewhere

:D

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:32 am

farmer giles;1213262 wrote: i mean do you need any more proof the guy is normal :rolleyes::rolleyes:

YouTube - Michael Jackson's video nasty; Unseen footage shows quiz over sex

so what is you point?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:52 am

Odie;1213364 wrote: so what is you point? Can you see a point to the video Odie because i can't?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:07 am

Odie;1213364 wrote: so what is you point?

seeing as you are not just a nit picker

i believe there many points of interest

like his lawyer telling him not to answer questions .... why was that in your own words

i'll leave the jesus thing out of it

did mj come across to you as a reasonable normal man

what are your points of view on this i know and you know my thoughts on ythe kink of pop

when you watch the video what do you honestly see

a normal man talking to a reporter ,or an abnormal guy with his lawyer trying not to incrimanate himself

:)

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:26 am

oscar;1213386 wrote: Can you see a point to the video Odie because i can't?

nope.......it was fine to me.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:27 am

Odie;1213408 wrote: nope.......it was fine to me.

well if that is what you honestly see then fair enough

:)

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:29 am

farmer giles;1213411 wrote: well if that is what you honestly see then fair enough

:)

what, just because he refused to answer some questions?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:32 am

Odie;1213408 wrote: nope.......it was fine to me.

farmer giles;1213411 wrote: well if that is what you honestly see then fair enough

:)

Odie;1213413 wrote: what, just because he refused to answer some questions?

?????:):)

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:34 am

farmer giles;1213419 wrote: ?????:):)

If I was being integrated, I wouldn't answer questions that were not their concern.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:38 am

Odie;1213422 wrote: If I was being integrated, I wouldn't answer questions that were not their concern.

if i had nothing to hide neither would i ,but if i was worried i'd incriminate myself i would take a lawyer and refuse to answer questions ,but i think i would not use jesus as part of my defence

would you of let your children sleep in mj's bed and let him get them drunk ,if not why not

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:41 am

farmer giles;1213426 wrote: if i had nothing to hide neither would i ,but if i was worried i'd incriminate myself i would take a lawyer and refuse to answer questions ,but i think i would not use jesus as part of my defence

would you of let your children sleep in mj's bed and let him get them drunk ,if not why not

never would I have allowed my sons to sleep in his bed.....but did these parents know ahead of time.....I think not.....and if the did......what kind of parents were they?

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:45 am

Odie;1213431 wrote: never would I have allowed my sons to sleep in his bed.....but did these parents know ahead of time.....I think not.....and if the did......what kind of parents were they?

had he slept with your 8 year old or so child and given them booze would you of been worried that he might of abused your children

if not why not

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:47 am

farmer giles;1213437 wrote: had he slept with your 8 year old or so child and given them booze would you of been worried that he might of abused your children

if not why not

I would have immediately had my son fully checked out from head to toe by a physician.

then I would have sued him.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:51 am

Odie;1213438 wrote: I would have immediately had my son fully checked out from head to toe by a physician.

then I would have sued him.

why do you think this about your children yet still think mj has done nothing wrong to other peoples children

if he had had your child in his bed and given them booze and you had watched my video would you of been 100% happy with his answers

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:52 am

farmer giles;1213442 wrote: why do you think this about your children yet still think mj has done nothing wrong to other peoples children

if he had had your child in his bed and given them booze and you had watched my video would you of been 100% happy with his answers

only because I don't know the real story there.....

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 11:57 am

Odie;1213446 wrote: only because I don't know the real story there.....

what is the real story ??

to me he is being asked about abusing two children yet refuses to answer

that does not look good to me ,it looks like he is trying not to incriminate himself ??

quite why he is saying the jesus stuff is beyond me ,i dont recall jesus getting children into his bed and getting them drunk in the bible do you

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:13 pm

farmer giles;1213448 wrote: what is the real story ??

to me he is being asked about abusing two children yet refuses to answer

that does not look good to me ,it looks like he is trying not to incriminate himself ??

quite why he is saying the jesus stuff is beyond me ,i dont recall jesus getting children into his bed and getting them drunk in the bible do you

1) He was not being interviewed under caution. This means he has no duty to reply.

2) He was not being interviewed by police. He was being interviewed by a hack who could have edited the tape at a later date.

3) even in police interview under caution, your lawyer may advise you not to answer. It is standard practice the world over.

I was charged with a second offence that my lawyer instructed me to reply 'No comment' to every question due to the line of police questioning. In court, i was found not guilty of that charge despite giving nothing but 'no comment' to the police in interview under caution and on tape.

It means nothing.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:18 pm

thanks odie i enjoyed chatting with you

:)

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:26 pm

Did he have a hole on the side of his nose

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:27 pm

abbey;1213464 wrote: Did he have a hole on the side of his nose

from doing coke

a stud

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:40 pm

farmer giles;1213465 wrote: from doing coke

a stud

More likely it's collapsed from the surgery.

Cant see wacko having a stud on his face.....Too old. :wah:

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 12:57 pm

abbey;1213474 wrote: More likely it's collapsed from the surgery.

Cant see wacko having a stud on his face.....Too old. :wah:

i was soo tepted to post 25 of these :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

that was funny though

:)

why do you think wacko took a lawyer with him abbey

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:12 pm

I think you'll find that "Stars" would have either a Lawyer or publicist with them on all interviews.

You all know my feelings on the cretin, I think He's as guilty as hell.

Bet He wishes he'd had one when Martin Bashir interviewed him! :wah:

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:14 pm

abbey;1213486 wrote: I think you'll find that "Stars" would have either a Lawyer or publicist with them on all interviews.

You all know my feelings on the cretin, I think He's as guilty as hell.

Bet He wishes he'd had one when Martin Bashir interviewed him! :wah:

the truth at last:-6:-6

shining like a beacon

:D

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:16 pm

Michael Jackson: ITV to show edited version of Martin Bashir documentary | Media | guardian.co.uk

Cowards!

ITV has confirmed it will repeat the 2003 Martin Bashir documentary Living with Michael Jackson following the pop icon's death – but without the controversial segment in which a 12-year-old boy talked about his relationship with the singer.

The broadcaster has said it will cut the 90-minute documentary, which was fronted by Bashir and screened around the world, to 60 minutes in order to fit a 9pm hour slot on Thursday, 16 July, on ITV1.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:20 pm

abbey;1213489 wrote: Michael Jackson: ITV to show edited version of Martin Bashir documentary | Media | guardian.co.uk

Cowards!

MJ was charged after the Bashier interview was aired. He was subsequently aquited of all charges. If they don't cut it, they are open to lawsuits be the family based on his aquital.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 2:35 pm

oscar;1213491 wrote: MJ was charged after the Bashier interview was aired. He was subsequently aquited of all charges. If they don't cut it, they are open to lawsuits be the family based on his aquital.
How on earth can they be open to lawsuits?

He said what he said, it's recorded on tape for chrissake, it was'nt Bashir saying those things it was MJ.

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:29 pm

farmer giles;1213460 wrote: thanks odie i enjoyed chatting with you

:)

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 1:16 am

Odie;1213527 wrote:

good grief

here on this thread :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:23 am

farmer giles;1213579 wrote: good grief

here on this thread :rolleyes::rolleyes:

O M G.........just because I had to leave here yesterday?

you should have known I had to leave as I no longer posted anywhere.:rolleyes:

I do have a life outside of here.....

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:33 am

Odie;1213610 wrote: O M G.........just because I had to leave here yesterday?

you should have known I had to leave as I no longer posted anywhere.:rolleyes:

I do have a life outside of here.....

i was saying i was enjoying talking to you onthis thread thanks

:rolleyes::p

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:40 am

farmer giles;1213615 wrote: i was saying i was enjoying talking to you onthis thread thanks

:rolleyes::p

nah ah.......you meant because I never answered your questions before I left.

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:51 am

Odie;1213617 wrote: nah ah.......you meant because I never answered your questions before I left.

no if i meant you never answered my i'd of said that

i meant it was nice to talk to you about mj without you having a tantrum

:)

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:54 am

farmer giles;1213624 wrote: no if i meant you never answered my i'd of said that

i meant it was nice to talk to you about mj without you having a tantrum

:)

no tantrum here, just wish I knew for sure if he did indeed molest those poor kids and if so.....why did the parents do nothing?:-5:-5:-5

and why did those kids have alcohol?:sneaky::-5:-5:-5

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 5:59 am

Odie;1213628 wrote: no tantrum here, just wish I knew for sure if he did indeed molest those poor kids and if so.....why did the parents do nothing?:-5:-5:-5

and why did those kids have alcohol?:sneaky::-5:-5:-5

there is no doubt in my mind the facts are there

its up to every one to look at those facts with an open mind

if mj was just a 50 year old man that lived down the road ,and he had got little boys drunk in his bed and members of his staff told of him abusing them would you still have any doubt what so ever of his guilt ,i think people who loved his music let the fact cloud their judgement

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 7:10 am

Much seems to be over-looked here.

I saw the Bashier interview. MJ said he shared his bed to sleep with his friends, the one at the time being 'Gavin Avizo' who's parents later made the allegations. It was only due to the Bashier interview that brought the The Santa Barbara sheriff 'Jim Anderson' to bring molestation charges against Jackson. had it not have been for MJ saying in that interview that young youths slept over at his home in the same bed, the Sheriff would have had absolutely nothing to bring charges over. 'Jim Anderson' and MJ had a history. Anderson had an obsession with MJ and vowed he would spend his life doing anything to bring him down after the Jordon Chandler case came o nothing. Before you insist that MJ payed Chandler off to avoid charges, then there is much publised that Chandler was lying.

Jordan Chandler Admits He Lied about Michael Jackson

Mj was never arrested because even with the Bashier interview, there was not enough to issue a warrant for arrest. MJ went voluntary to talk to Anderson and was later charged.

If the Bashier interview was so damning, it would have stood up in court and he would of been convicted. The interview does not in any way say that he touched or molested a child, there-fore there is a huge element of doubt. No amount of money can buy off a jury and he was aquitted of all 10 charges because there was absolutely no evidence. The night it was alleged by Avizo's parents that he molested him, Elizabeth Taylor gave evidence that she was at MJ's home of that night and Avizo was not there. Is she lying? All the boys who's parents have made allegations against MJ have refused to have their boys intimatly examined to prove beyond doubt that MJ molested them. Why the refusal?

For those who think that because he admitted in interview that the boy slept in the same bed on sleep-overs, he must be a vile peado.

Last year i had cause to have many members and family staying with me for a week. Some had to go into hotels as my house wasn't big enough for all of them. Some had children with them and they all had to sleep some-where. I have a Californian Queen sized bed and i slept in that bed with several of my family and friends children. That makes me a vile peado then ???

Odie · Post by **Odie** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:00 am

It is very much possible that Michael or his family have used their money to bribe or buy Even and Jordan and they have changed their statements, but who knows.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

farmer giles · Post by **farmer giles** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 8:09 am

Odie;1213673 wrote: It is very much possible that Michael or his family have used their money to bribe or buy Even and Jordan and they have changed their statements, but who knows.

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

thats it odie keep an open mind weigh up the facts as if he was the guy next door and got your kids drunk and slept in their bed with them ,not forgetting off course the kids could then give an accurate description of his genitalia ... its to disgusting to think about