Whitney Houston Dead

Off Topic
241

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Some of you are being silly. These people were after money from the jump. You don’t accidentally end up at MJ’s house. Do I believe he did anything? I think he was a kid in a man’s body so I think he needed professional help, but no, I don’t think he literally had sex with any kids.

I really don’t understand the " we all have a price" nonsense.

You can’t act like you are protecting your kid if it is all about the Benjamins.

Everyone involved was shady to some degree.[/quote]

The only silliness I see is someone glossing over the fact that I actually handled an element of that first claim (the coverage due to the nature of the allegations) and therefore had access to all legal documents and such.

“We all have a price” in the context of a civil lawsuit. That’s what the process is about; reaching a price. That’s the essence of litigation in it’s simplest terms. Even criminal litigation is about reaching a price in terms of “justice”.

Of course, in a world where people are silly enough to believe OJ was innocent, I guess we can believe MJ was just a boy trapped in a child’s body that liked to climb trees with little kids and drink some wine on the side.

Anyway, we sure did pay millions of dollars for a guy that just was having innocent play time. Then again, maybe we should have been filling cavities instead of doing what WE were experts at.

242

[quote]roybot wrote:

The specifics of the Jackson scandal are that there were no leaks, so speculating on the risk of leaks is just that: speculation. We may as well make all private info public to avoid leaks in the first place, which defeats the purpose of privacy.

[/quote]

Well, insofar as the first claim, you are 100% wrong b/c someone from our company (probably a mail room clerk) sold MJ’s deposition transcript to one of the gossip rags for $10,000.

And you’re wrong about enough that I’m not going to cut and reply to each misunderstanding you have about my talking points. I don’t have the energy.

243

[quote]Professor X wrote:
You know, I am finding it hard to believe anyone sees those parents as acting in the right. If you don’t want your kids to have to face this all their lives, you don’t put them on national tv. You also don’t leave your kids at someone’s house for a week while accepting all the benefits that come with hanging with MJ, sometimes in relationships that lasted YEARS, and then suddenly a good pay off is all that is needed to repair someone RAPING YOUR KID.

Uh, yeah. That makes sense.

If someone were to rape someone I care about, I find it hard to believe my morals and values can be bought off…unless they were real cheap to start with.

I would love to hear what loving households these kids actually grew up in.[/quote]

Reading comprehension; I guess it wasn’t required to become a “doctor”.

No one stated that the parents were “acting in the right”. It wasn’t even implied. I illustrated the general considerations in such situations that are common to abuse cases, and not limited to the MJ case. One or more of the MJ CASES (plural) almost certainly were about money at some point.

But the equivocation and “algebra” about what to do or not to do happens…ALL THE TIME. Fucking prosecutors cut deals they don’t necessarily like ALL THE TIME to spare minors the trauma of a trial.

In fact, we have a local case here with Hall of Fame sportswriter Bill Conlin whom was just exposed as an abuser and it turns out that no less than 4-5 parents were fully aware of the abuse (to their own children) and DID NOTHING TO REPORT IT for some of the very same reasons I outlined.

244

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:

Although I do disagree with one thing. Michael is not the innocent little babe you guys make him out to be.

[/quote]

Dude, how can you be so gullible? Don’t you know that both MJ AND OJ are innocent?! They were both set up by the man!

245

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.[/quote]

I said that because I really don’t know where else you were going with it. I mean, you haven’t explained to me where you were heading with it.

Jacko wasn’t that gifted in business: he was notorious for not being able to handle his own money and he was on his ass (by his standards) a few times in his career (not a coincidence that this happened when his record sales dropped: he needed a constant flow of cash because his expenses had outstripped his earnings). He was a supreme talent who made a ridiculous amount of money very young, and that’ll give a false impression of his business sense. At his height he would’ve had trouble giving money away.

He did not handle his financial affairs on his own: a procession of lawyers, accountants and financial advisors did that for him. As for the hangers-on and sycophants, well of course they’re going to say he’s smart. It’s the entertainment industry. However, I would not say that a man who dangles his own baby off a balcony in public is particularly intelligent or in touch with reality.

I would take his actions caught on film as a more accurate barometer of the guy’s character than a fawning interview from a fellow entertainer or someone on his payroll. That’s all.[/quote]

At this point, I’m no longer interested in the discussion; I’m just wondering which of MJs concerts you last attended and if you’ve properly preserved all your MJ memorabilia to protect its value.

After watching a few seasons of Pawn Stars now, I understand the importance of “condition” when it comes to memorabilia and such.

246

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

The only silliness I see is someone glossing over the fact that I actually handled an element of that first claim (the coverage due to the nature of the allegations) and therefore had access to all legal documents and such. [/quote]

To which you are now giving details of on a public forum. It doesn’t matter what claims you covered. How does that make you infallible when it comes to telling who is lying and who isn’t? Because you read the court documents?

[quote]

“We all have a price” in the context of a civil lawsuit. That’s what the process is about; reaching a price. That’s the essence of litigation in it’s simplest terms. Even criminal litigation is about reaching a price in terms of “justice”.

Of course, in a world where people are silly enough to believe OJ was innocent, I guess we can believe MJ was just a boy trapped in a child’s body that liked to climb trees with little kids and drink some wine on the side.

Anyway, we sure did pay millions of dollars for a guy that just was having innocent play time. Then again, maybe we should have been filling cavities instead of doing what WE were experts at. [/quote]

? I didn’t take him to court so what are you talking about and what does this have to do with my job?

Quit reaching.

Either present your infallible proof that he sexed up the kiddies or leave it alone.

Claiming you handled documents doesn’t give you any authority without FACTS.

I am sure the bailiff handled some documents too.

247

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Reading comprehension; I guess it wasn’t required to become a “doctor”.[/quote]

Gee, that’s twice now you have mentioned my job for absolutely no reason. What makes someone do that?..besides the lack of originality.

? Did Mike HAVE SEX WITH THEM???

You are claiming it makes perfect sense to you for a parent to have their kid raped and take a pay off instead of see the rapist punished.

I say bullshit.

People who are after money do that. People who care about their kids as the utmost priority don’t put them in the public eye and take a pay off while millions watch the rapist go unpunished.

Get real.

You have no authority to be barking like you do. You speak down to people…when I can’t see any reason for you to see yourself above anyone else unless by height alone. But you handled documents.

LOL

248

The Bill Conlin case:

It looks like this happened 40 years ago. The children are just now coming forward as adults. The two cases are not the same especially since it would make sense for an child to hide this and come forward years later.

That is not the same as parents taking a pay off when their kid gets raped.

249

More info:

[quote]In several cases, alleged victims, or their parents, reportedly confronted Conlin but – as has been a recurring aspect of the recent abuse scandals around the country – the police were not called. As was the case with the allegations against former assistant basketball coach at Syracuse Bernie Fine, the statute of limitations for any crimes committed has passed.

[/quote]

250

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Who fucking cares? None of you knew her. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people die daily. She’s just one bitch.[/quote]

Hahahaha.

Misanthropy, misogyny and just the right amount of profanity.

Excellent post sir.

She is a great loss to the gene pool however.

251

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

The only silliness I see is someone glossing over the fact that I actually handled an element of that first claim (the coverage due to the nature of the allegations) and therefore had access to all legal documents and such. [/quote]

To which you are now giving details of on a public forum. It doesn’t matter what claims you covered. How does that make you infallible when it comes to telling who is lying and who isn’t? Because you read the court documents?

[quote]

“We all have a price” in the context of a civil lawsuit. That’s what the process is about; reaching a price. That’s the essence of litigation in it’s simplest terms. Even criminal litigation is about reaching a price in terms of “justice”.

Of course, in a world where people are silly enough to believe OJ was innocent, I guess we can believe MJ was just a boy trapped in a child’s body that liked to climb trees with little kids and drink some wine on the side.

Anyway, we sure did pay millions of dollars for a guy that just was having innocent play time. Then again, maybe we should have been filling cavities instead of doing what WE were experts at. [/quote]

? I didn’t take him to court so what are you talking about and what does this have to do with my job?

Quit reaching.

Either present your infallible proof that he sexed up the kiddies or leave it alone.

Claiming you handled documents doesn’t give you any authority without FACTS.

I am sure the bailiff handled some documents too.[/quote]

Well for starters, the particular case I was involved in is oh…about 20 years or so old now and I’m retired from insurance. And to the extent I can remember much from a case I handled among tens of thousands, I didn’t exactly give away any State secrets.

Your “argument” for “infallible proof” is fallacious (you do it all the time). Only the parties in the room know what happened. In the real world, there isn’t much that amounts to “infallible proof” - just ask all the guys on death row that were freed or later proven innocent.

LOL @ “handled documents”. I handled THE claim - the coverage aspect. That means I reviewed the ENTIRE file, including everything produced in the criminal case. All the testimony. What does this mean you might ask? It means I have what they commonly refer to as an “informed opinion” and you do not.

And the considered opinion of those that were “informed”, made a collective decision to pay A LOT of money to settle the case.

252

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Reading comprehension; I guess it wasn’t required to become a “doctor”.[/quote]

Gee, that’s twice now you have mentioned my job for absolutely no reason. What makes someone do that?..besides the lack of originality.

? Did Mike HAVE SEX WITH THEM???

You are claiming it makes perfect sense to you for a parent to have their kid raped and take a pay off instead of see the rapist punished.

I say bullshit.

People who are after money do that. People who care about their kids as the utmost priority don’t put them in the public eye and take a pay off while millions watch the rapist go unpunished.

Get real.

You have no authority to be barking like you do. You speak down to people…when I can’t see any reason for you to see yourself above anyone else unless by height alone. But you handled documents.

LOL[/quote]

I mention the Doctor thing b/c you claim to be one, when in fact not many people think of a Dentist as a “doctor” although they are in a technical sense, I guess. But moreover, I do not necessarily even believe you’re a dentist. I don’t find you particularly bright to be honest. Are we clear on that?

Moving on to your first fallacious argument; I made no claim that it “makes perfect sense… bla bla bla”. I illustrated the considerations that actually occur in these cases. Those considerations occur, they are undeniable, and not subject to your or my opinion - they are fact.

I speak down to you b/c your “arguments” are usually fallacious or illogical. You’re just not that smart in my opinion.

253

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Bill Conlin case:

It looks like this happened 40 years ago. The children are just now coming forward as adults. The two cases are not the same especially since it would make sense for an child to hide this and come forward years later.

That is not the same as parents taking a pay off when their kid gets raped.[/quote]

Well Einstein, if you could actually READ, you would have noticed that I did not hold the Conlin case up as an example of parents getting paid in lieu of justice. I held up the Conlin case as an illustration that IN REAL LIFE, people make considerations in lieu of their “pound of flesh”. These parents did not report the crime to spare their families (I believe it was a husband or two) AND the children. They just wanted to the whole thing to “go away”.

No one said “this is the same”. Who did you fuck to graduate from dental school?

254

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Only the parties in the room know what happened.[/quote]

Glad you admitted that.

[quote]

In the real world, there isn’t much that amounts to “infallible proof” - just ask all the guys on death row that were freed or later proven innocent. [/quote]

Look, these kids never once even acted like the victims of rape. REAL rape victims are often ashamed, one of the reasons the other case you mentioned involves 40 year old circumstances yet no one called the cops.

[quote]

LOL @ “handled documents”. I handled THE claim - the coverage aspect. That means I reviewed the ENTIRE file, including everything produced in the criminal case. All the testimony. What does this mean you might ask? It means I have what they commonly refer to as an “informed opinion” and you do not. [/quote]

What information do you have that shows these kids were without a doubt raped?

LOL @ “I read files so that makes me right with no proof or facts”.

[quote]
And the considered opinion of those that were “informed”, made a collective decision to pay A LOT of money to settle the case. [/quote]

He’s a celebrity. How much did Kobe Bryant pay in that divorce? How does that compare to the average citizen? You have no point with this just because they paid out.

The general public would likely do what you are doing now and find him guilty if it were not settled. He chose to pay up to avoid that possibility. That doesn’t show guilt.

TAKING THE MONEY AFTER YOUR KID GETS RAPED BY A MAN WHO COULD DO IT AGAIN DOES.

255

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

Reading comprehension; I guess it wasn’t required to become a “doctor”.[/quote]

Gee, that’s twice now you have mentioned my job for absolutely no reason. What makes someone do that?..besides the lack of originality.

? Did Mike HAVE SEX WITH THEM???

You are claiming it makes perfect sense to you for a parent to have their kid raped and take a pay off instead of see the rapist punished.

I say bullshit.

People who are after money do that. People who care about their kids as the utmost priority don’t put them in the public eye and take a pay off while millions watch the rapist go unpunished.

Get real.

You have no authority to be barking like you do. You speak down to people…when I can’t see any reason for you to see yourself above anyone else unless by height alone. But you handled documents.

LOL[/quote]

I mention the Doctor thing b/c you claim to be one, when in fact not many people think of a Dentist as a “doctor” although they are in a technical sense, I guess. But moreover, I do not necessarily even believe you’re a dentist. I don’t find you particularly bright to be honest. Are we clear on that?

Moving on to your first fallacious argument; I made no claim that it “makes perfect sense… bla bla bla”. I illustrated the considerations that actually occur in these cases. Those considerations occur, they are undeniable, and not subject to your or my opinion - they are fact.

I speak down to you b/c your “arguments” are usually fallacious or illogical. You’re just not that smart in my opinion. [/quote]

?

Dude, I’ve met the people who run this site and they know me. Why the hell would I lie about it and exactly what benefit would it do me to list my personal info here?

I own my own practice now. Believe what you want, but bringing it up constantly like you do is fucking childish.

Yes, I am a doctor, Get the fuck over it. LOL at you thinking I was a Captain in the Air Force for no reason at that age.

256

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The Bill Conlin case:

It looks like this happened 40 years ago. The children are just now coming forward as adults. The two cases are not the same especially since it would make sense for an child to hide this and come forward years later.

That is not the same as parents taking a pay off when their kid gets raped.[/quote]

Well Einstein, if you could actually READ, you would have noticed that I did not hold the Conlin case up as an example of parents getting paid in lieu of justice. I held up the Conlin case as an illustration that IN REAL LIFE, people make considerations in lieu of their “pound of flesh”. These parents did not report the crime to spare their families (I believe it was a husband or two) AND the children. They just wanted to the whole thing to “go away”.

No one said “this is the same”. Who did you fuck to graduate from dental school? [/quote]

?
Uh, making a consideration to not make your kid the public face of “rape” is something like taking pay for not stopping a rapist who raped your kid while making your kid a public sensation?

The case you mentioned involved circumstances that happened in the 1970’s. It was a different society then where I am sure most rapes were kept silent because of feelings of shame. I don’t believe it is the exact same today even though rape is still an issue.

The two cases have NOTHING to do with each other so why mention it?

257

258

Candlelight vigil for the dearly departed

Too soon? Just stirring the piss pot

259

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

The specifics of the Jackson scandal are that there were no leaks, so speculating on the risk of leaks is just that: speculation. We may as well make all private info public to avoid leaks in the first place, which defeats the purpose of privacy.

[/quote]

Well, insofar as the first claim, you are 100% wrong b/c someone from our company (probably a mail room clerk) sold MJ’s deposition transcript to one of the gossip rags for $10,000.

And you’re wrong about enough that I’m not going to cut and reply to each misunderstanding you have about my talking points. I don’t have the energy.
[/quote]

I was talking about leaking identities, not a deposition transcript (go back and check if I mentioned anything other than identities in the lead-up to that quote). If the identities were in that transcript, then anonymity was not maintained to begin with. Since I’m so completely wrong, let me ask you if releasing the identity of Jordan Chandler could be traced directly back to that transcript, or was his identity known before the deposition (and therefore before the leak you’re talking about)?

Again, I haven’t misunderstood any of your points, nor am I trying to twist them to secure a win …
I asked you to explain to me how you can equate public exposure with protective parenting, since most of what you said feeds into that. In this thread I’ve been obtuse, fallacious and selective, yet you don’t want to provide an answer to a very simple and glaring question.

260

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]IamMarqaos wrote:
You are making him sound as if his an innocent, not very smart boy man in most of your posts but I claim he is not innocent and very smart. We have to agree to disagree then. To claim that I say business acumen leads to sexual predatory behavior is so far of the mark I really do not know how to respond further.[/quote]

I said that because I really don’t know where else you were going with it. I mean, you haven’t explained to me where you were heading with it.

Jacko wasn’t that gifted in business: he was notorious for not being able to handle his own money and he was on his ass (by his standards) a few times in his career (not a coincidence that this happened when his record sales dropped: he needed a constant flow of cash because his expenses had outstripped his earnings). He was a supreme talent who made a ridiculous amount of money very young, and that’ll give a false impression of his business sense. At his height he would’ve had trouble giving money away.

He did not handle his financial affairs on his own: a procession of lawyers, accountants and financial advisors did that for him. As for the hangers-on and sycophants, well of course they’re going to say he’s smart. It’s the entertainment industry. However, I would not say that a man who dangles his own baby off a balcony in public is particularly intelligent or in touch with reality.

I would take his actions caught on film as a more accurate barometer of the guy’s character than a fawning interview from a fellow entertainer or someone on his payroll. That’s all.[/quote]

At this point, I’m no longer interested in the discussion; I’m just wondering which of MJs concerts you last attended and if you’ve properly preserved all your MJ memorabilia to protect its value.

After watching a few seasons of Pawn Stars now, I understand the importance of “condition” when it comes to memorabilia and such.
[/quote]

And so it begins…“no longer interested in the discussion” anymore, yet here you are showing a formidable fallacious streak of your own, in spite of energy levels too low to carry on. Just enough pep left to squeeze out an ad hominem. Holy hypocrisy, Batman!