Michael Jackson Impersonator Facing Child Sex Charges

[Final-Fan]

PhoenixKing said:

Final-Fan said:
...Are you really asking what I do agree with him on?  ... I'd like to remind you of an earlier post of numonex's. 

"It will be interesting to see how this case unfolds. More than likely he will be sentenced to prison for a long time. US hands out long prison sentences to child molesters. Will there be more victims? Police will be building up a solid case and gathering evidence to put this creep away for a very, very long time.

Victims of child molestation do not get over it. They are psychologically scared by it for the rest of their lives and need psychological counselling ASAP. The perpetrators of these abhorrent crimes need to burn in hell. They are sick twisted perverts. So what is they may or may not of been victims themselves of child molestation. Nothing excuses this sort of behaviour."

I don't believe in hell.  Also, I think I'd rather have "trying to build up" instead of "building".  And replace "more than likely" with "probably".  After all, just being an MJ impersonator doesn't mean he's going to fondle kids, despite the jokes -- there's some reason he was arrested. 

Other than that, I cant think of anything else at the moment in that post that I couldn't agree with. 

Also, it's my opinion (which is to some extent in agreement with numonex) that Michael Jackson was probably guilty.  I took the time to check out your source.  It turns out that it's basically something that ANYONE can post, NOT vetted by CNN.  In fact, this particular "story" is fiction. 
http://www.examiner.com/x-15033-Memphis-Celebrity-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Michael-Jackson-Jordan-Chandler-never-admitted-to-lying-despite-reports
Here, a real news source brutally destroys this canard.  I hope you were spreading this story due to being gullible -- considering the alternative. 

That so called "real news" has absolutely no credible source of info and isn't even a news station or listed under news. The man has no proof of his statement either.

Furthermore, at least mine is actually from a news station and printed on the site despite not being vetted. They wouldn't allow information on their site to be posted without having looked it over so content such as racist material to outright fabrications wouldn't give them any negative reactions from the public.

So, no you didn't "totally and brutally" destroy anything. How can you? Your article has no source.

I also find it laughable that you don't actually disagree with Numenox at all. You just have less certainty regarding the issue.

Therefore, we have nothing more to discuss. You have no idea what you're talking about and likely haven't looke-up information on the cases as in-depth as I have, as is typical of witch hunters. Accepting the guilt of people without trying to learn more about the subject in question.

Good day.

You, sir, have not one damn clue what you're talking about, most particularly in regards to CNN iReport

Taking things out of order: 
-- I agree with numonex? 
Yes, ON THAT ONE POST.  Most of his others were rants and unsubstantiated accusations. 

-- The article I mentioned has no source? 
It doesn't link to another source on the Internet, if that's what you mean.  But at some point, news does come from somewhere, you know.  You're right about one thing:  I mistook the Examiner for a professional news organization -- online newspaper or whatever -- when it seems to be similar to CNN's iReport in actuality.  I take full responsibility for that oversight and admit that it makes my talk about 'obliterating' your own source hyperbole. 

Nevertheless, this Randy Aaron claims to have PERSONALLY done research to contact related parties (presumably Jordan Chandler or his legal counsel) who told him that no such confession had been made.  How does that not count as a source? 

-- The article you mentioned is just as valid as mine? 
Let's see, completely unsubstantiated story by anonymous internet wackjob versus something posted by someone with an actual name, who could be easily sued for libel if lying.  Which could possibly be less credible than the other? 

-- It may not have been vetted, but they (CNN) must have checked it for untrue content. 
Do you ... comprehend what "vetted" means?  In point of fact, when you visit the site, there's a POP-UP THAT WARNS YOU:

"So you know: iReport is the way people like you report the news. The stories in this section are not edited, fact-checked or screened before they post. Only ones marked 'CNN iReport' have been vetted by CNN."

NOT EDITED, FACT-CHECKED OR SCREENED BEFORE THEY POST.  So you are completely wrong in every way.  This pop-up happens EVERY TIME you go there until you tell it to stop, so it's a bit of a mystery how you could be ignorant to that, but here we are.  And no, just in case you're clinging to that hope, the 'story' is NOT marked 'CNN iReport'.  (Unlike, for example, this one:  http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-435235)

-- "Accepting the guilt of people without trying to learn more about the subject in question."  No, you again confuse me with numonex.  I am not so blissfully certain that Jackson is guilty, though I think it's pretty likely.  And I have gone to at least some effort to discover truths about the matter ... whereas you, I suspect, look only for what you want to find, disregarding along the way all evidence that points in a direction you don't care to go. 

I mean honestly, this is embarrassing.  CNN goes out of its way to make sure that anyone who goes to iReport gets a short and sweet disclaimer shoved in their faces every single time they look at anything ever, until they check a little box that says "I know already, stop showing me this." 

And then you tell me that iReport is the opposite of what the disclaimer says it is. 

-- Also:  Having done a little MORE research, it seems that the whole recanting thing goes back to a claim made by Jackson's brother.  Soon after the alleged victim's father committed suicide, Jermaine Jackson comes out with a story about how he killed himself over the guilt of falsely accusing MJ and that the son had admitted that "MJ never touched him".  http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2009/11/26/jermaine_jackson_abuse_victim_claims_mic
Classy.  And uncorroborated.