― Oops (Oops), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:32 (twenty-one years ago) link
But I'm still waiting for someone to spell out the reasoning behind this one.
Uh, perhaps he settled to save himself the time/money/embarassment of following through with a trial? Whether it backfired or not in the court of public opinion, or even the court of Shakey's opinion, is another matter entirely.
Look at it this way: this past fall, a number of investment banks settled with the NY Attorney General, who had brought a suit alleging fraudulent practices in the Research areas of these banks. Not all of these banks had research analysts with the well-publicized problems of a Frank Quattrone or Henry Blodgett or Jack Grubman, but they all settled in order to save themselves from litigation, because ultimately any trials brought would be more expensive/time-consuming than just settling. Not an admission of guilt, even though these firms paid serious money and restructured their research departments.
― hstencil, Friday, 7 February 2003 20:35 (twenty-one years ago) link
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078262/
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 20:37 (twenty-one years ago) link
Seems to me someone who was innocent would have his attorneys focus on getting the case thrown out of court, not settlement. Particularly when such charges were guaranteed to damage their client's career unless he was completely exonerated.
"Michael's attorney's fees would certainly have been in the millions and his private life would become public record – can you blame him for paying out?"
Yes, because by paying out he bought the right to hide the truth.
hstencil: Michael Jackson is not a bank. He trades on his public image, and obviously the value to his image of being cleared of such charges is infinitely higher than having these charges dog him.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 20:39 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:43 (twenty-one years ago) link
― hstencil, Friday, 7 February 2003 20:44 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:45 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 20:48 (twenty-one years ago) link
it's obviously only the "case for the defence" rather than the "facts in the case", but i still think it undermines the ABSOLUTE of "settled-out-of-court" = "must therefore be guilty" (essentially what it does is even up the no-smoke-w/o-fire cynicism, if you like) (MJ has power yes, bcz he's rich, but he's also vulnerable, bcz of the degree to which his image is his power...)
partly my judgment of it is based on the fact that the authorities didn't carry on the prosecution — in respect of other cases? — after the first guy was bought off (like i said, i assume child molesting is still illegal even if the parents say "go ahead")
my objection to alex's question is this: i have seen a documentary in a format i despise and distrust by a journalist i have zero faith in or respect for, about a man i have never met, in a plainly intensely stressed situation: alex is asking me to make a complex personal essentially intimate decision about my attitudes to him, my possible trust in him, HERE AND NOW, RIGHT NOW!!
i think this is a completely unreasonable and ridiculous question
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:49 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Oops (Oops), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:50 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
So, Mark, am I to believe you're turning a blind eye to the more unsavoury parts of the program because you assert they are somehow taken out of context?
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:55 (twenty-one years ago) link
Have you not read a newspaper since, oh, October 2001?
I actually agree with mark s regarding all this. I don't think it's relativist to not take a position on someone/something that has no bearing on me whatsoever. I mean, hey I like to dance to Thriller at parties, but that isn't a tacit approval of anything MJ may or may not have done.
But then aagin I like climbing trees, so what the hell do I know?
― hstencil, Friday, 7 February 2003 20:57 (twenty-one years ago) link
I'm not saying you have to go snap your copies of BAD, THRILLER and DANGEROUS in half, but sakes alive, man....admit that there *MIGHT* be a problem!
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:57 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 20:58 (twenty-one years ago) link
On the other hand, Jackson's behavior around children still strikes me as psychologically damaging and inappropriate. Of course, there's no law against that.
And no, I've never been in court for anything (besides jury duty). But then again, I've never done anything like sleep with other people's children, so I have little to fear.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 21:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
(what d'you mean you "actually" agree with me, hstencil, u cheeky monkey?)
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:04 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 21:06 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
― hstencil, Friday, 7 February 2003 21:08 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
"Would you be comfortable allowing your own children to sleep in the same bed with him, Mark?"
...at which point you assumed the role of the political prisoner and accused me of rampant McCarthyism.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:11 (twenty-one years ago) link
PS Jacko wrote most of the songs (all the great ones), sang them, and danced his ass off. I'm not sure why Gordy or Q should get the credit.
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 21:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
It's a manipulative question because it's impossible (not to say irresponsible) to answer with the information to hand, and you're timing my reply, or lack of it, to PROVE THAT I'M TRAPPED IN A CORNER.
I do not believe that that documentary provided the evidence to make the judgment you are asking me to make, even if I could actually get my head round all the other things I have to imagine to make such an event possible.
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:27 (twenty-one years ago) link
If this is your idea of refreshingly flawed, then yes, by all means, Michael Jackson is refreshingly flawed.
this makes me so angry and so sad that I really really wish I hadn't read it. I don't know what is wrong w/your dorm-mate, but I get a strong picture from your description. The literal-mindedness and inability to relate that you describe are both very typical symptoms of autistic spectrum disorder. You could perhaps read about this, and try to understand the world your dorm-mate inhabits, college boy. A bit of empathy might make you a better person. He very likely isn't someone you need to be afraid of. Ugly minds like yours OTOH are very scary indeed.
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:28 (twenty-one years ago) link
If my post was insensitive, I apologize. The poor guy's most likely been through more shit than I will ever have to sit through in my pampered little life. But my point stands.
― My name is Kenny (My name is Kenny), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:46 (twenty-one years ago) link
If yelling is symbolized via CAPITAL LETTERS, you'll notice I did no such thing. I merely persisted after you dodged the question.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
The interview disclosed in very candid, plain terms that he's a 44 year old man that sleeps in the same bed with children. What more do you need to know?
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:53 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 7 February 2003 21:54 (twenty-one years ago) link
This is patently untrue. All the best Jackson 5 stuff ("ABC", "I Want You Back," "I'll Be There", et al) were written by Gordy and Motown's staff of writers. And it's pretty well-established the backing band on the recordings were session guys.
"I'm not sure why Gordy or Q should get the credit. "
Because they co-wrote and/or produced every worthwhile note he's ever made...?
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 21:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
Obviously Gordy and Jones played an important role in his career. Nobody does it alone. But to suggest that they were the masterminds and he was the puppet seems a bit unfair to me.
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:06 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
I don't think Jacko's was a "puppet" exactly - not in his solo career anyway (re: the Jackson 5 tho I would say "puppet" is an apt term) - but he's hardly a creative powerhouse. That's not exactly a wealth of great material there, 4 songs...
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:15 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:19 (twenty-one years ago) link
― the pinefox, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:19 (twenty-one years ago) link
I think by any standard that's a pretty weird thing to do - certainly unhealthy for children psychologically - there are very few socio-cultural (abject poverty, for example) circumstances where that's acceptable.
Ben: they aren't the sole measure, but when it comes to music, for me that's a massive part of it. Certainly it's a criteria for calling anyone a "genius" (a term I also cringe at using - hell, I don't even believe there's such a thing as "talent"...)
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:23 (twenty-one years ago) link
Very sound reasoning, Shakey, but I've since lost interest in the debate, nor relish the notion of being further branded as a hate-monger.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
Hmmmm....well, I didn't *KNOW* Charles Manson either, but I think it's pretty safe to assume he's a crazed wing nut....but I guess I'm just a slave to the media that way.
― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:26 (twenty-one years ago) link
i do actually seriously think that the judgment whether someone is fit to look after children shd be left to something more substantial than the mass TV audience of a piece of rubbishy tabloid television, especially when the presence of camera/interviewer etc, and the stress of the specific interview situation, may be the actual cause of (apparently relevant) oddity of behaviour
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:27 (twenty-one years ago) link
I don't give a fukcing shit about either michael jax0n or m4rtin bashir, for the rekkid.
― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:27 (twenty-one years ago) link
I remember a thread about whether there is such a thing as talent, but I can't find it...
"Come on, you think Quincy Jones and Berry Gordy could have made just anyone into Michael Jackson? "
Not just anybody, but somebody else? Sure. Why not? Star-making machinery is uber-powerful.
― Shakey Mo Collier, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Friday, 7 February 2003 22:35 (twenty-one years ago) link
alex, manson was tried and convicted in a court of law not by a television audience based on one TV programme
― mark s (mark s), Friday, 7 February 2003 22:44 (twenty-one years ago) link