Sounds like pretentious whining to me.  And there was humor at the start of the thread. 

Also, I haven't checked out whether the source is valid or backs up his claim, but PhoenixKing did provide a source for some of his claims:  http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-286274

You haven't exactly stated what you don't disagree with him on and the same can be said about your position. In the end, we both think we have the better interpretation.

Wow... have you never heard of "innocent until proven guilty" in your life?

You divert attention back to OJ Simpson and claim big money helped him win when you obviously never read more into the case and learned how the State completely botched the chain of evidence or the overwhelming support Black people gave Simpson to "get equal" on the whites for the years they apparently suffered the white oppression. Which was just a digusting and stupid way to view things.

And no, that particular "evidence" was what Jordan Chandler told his own son to say after drugging him to convince him to say those things. The sedative is commonly used by dentists to persuade people to admit to things that may not be true. With dentists, it's merely used to relax the patient before prepping them for drilling on their teeth.

Also, Evan Chandler is a child abuser and was found guilty of child abuse over his son Jordan Chandler, but I suppose you never looked into that because he's not rich and that means he is always the innocent one in your mind.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/people/jackson-boy-accuses-father-of-abuse/2006/09/05/1157222107403.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

The man, Evan Chandler, had beaten his son with a dumbbell.

He also tried suing Jackson for 60 MILLION in damages for "speaking of the case" when Jackson sued a slanderous author of a book stating he had published the diary of Jordan Chandler and his "sexual encounters" with Jackson when he had no such thing and made up the diary's existence.

Another aspect you're unaware of, which seems to be the norm since all you think is rich means guilty, is that Michael Jackson never had a real childhood, the reason he liked spending time with children so much hadn't been because he had this sexual lust for them. It had been because, in his mind, Jackson considered himself a child. It's a common psychological problem that Jackson had unfortunately suffered from due to his own father's maltreatment of him.

Oh, who am I kidding? You never bother to read any of these, Numenox. Even if you do, it won't change the hate you have for people who were acquitted due to their innoncence. After all, they're rich, so to you,  that means they're guilty. xD

Excuse me
and no. 

... OH WAIT.  "DON'T disagree"?  So are you really asking what I do agree with him on?  I'm not being clever here, this is actually a legitimate question, which the other isn't because I already gave an answer to it. 

To answer that question, 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. 

i guess he took his job way too seriously.

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. 

You obviously didn't grasp the fact that it would be bad propoganda for them to post something without at least looking it over otherwise much racist content could be found. And no, the man isn't liable for anything, nor does he have proof of such claims.

You also didn't look-up or read into the 1993 case itself, which was what I was referring too.

In this post you replied to me, and others, you just sound angry and seething with rage. Calm down.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/jackson/

You can tell whether a person is guilty or innocent in regards to what they say. In this situation Michael Jackson never denies the allegations. Jackson makes us believe he has something to hide. He sounds like he is guilty of the sexual molestation.

I could post some articles about witnesses seeing Jackson molesting kids but he pays them off or threatens them all if they say anything about him to the authorities. He actually molested a lot of kids. His staff caught him in the act but he would have them silenced.

Michael Jackson came across as if he was above the law. I am Michael Jackson I can do whatever I want. I am famous celebrity, I am rich and I am powerful.

Michael Jackson clearly proved by being so rich and powerful you can get away with anything.

The process of posts being held for a cursory check for unacceptably racist, vile, etc. content is, I believe, known as "screening". 

Which CNN explicitly denies doing. 

There is, I also believe, a method for people to report unacceptably racist etc. articles, which allows CNN to (presumably) delete them and ban the authors.  This allows them a certain amount of control over the unacceptable content you mention.  It's the same thing thousands of forums do, so it's entirely reasonable to believe CNN figures this, along with the HUGE UNMISSABLE DISCLAIMER, will allow rational people to realize that the iReport titled "Coons still subhuman despite taking our women" is not condoned in any way by CNN. 

As for the rest, I can see why someone would think I was angry in the above post, although I'd say I was more like 'upset' and very annoyed by your seeming disregard for the most obvious of evidence to the contrary of what you were saying.  Especially the parts about unvetted iReports being vetted, and me agreeing with numonex completely because I agreed with one post of his. 

But "seething with rage" ... I can't see how you could have gotten that from my post.  Nowhere do I depart from rational counterargument into ranting, nor succumb to excessive ALLCAPS or bolded tirades.  I can only suppose that you eitherproject upon me what is either in yourself or in others you've argued with, or simply massively misread my mood. 

P.S.  If Mr. Aaron is making public statements to the effect that Jackson has not been exonerated of molesting a particular boy by that boy, when in fact he has been, and those statements are conscious lies (when given the story he posted they would pretty much have to be), how is it that he could not be sued for defamation of character etc.?