Wasn't MJ mostly rich for the increase in the value of his investments rather than the returns on his music? I'm thinking of the Beetles back catalogue rights: bought for something like $45M bundled in with that media company and now worth something like $2B, of which MJ Inc owned 50%. Of course, he couldn't have bought the investment unless he was pretty rich.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Or maybe, just maybe, it wasn't BS but the family took the money with glee anyway. Let's face it, you only have to look at that Shannon Matthews family to realise that not all families are like Little Mis Spurs and her friends.
No, not everyone would take the angle LMS and myself would take. No one knows for sure what happened, but one thing is for sure, 'innocent until proven guilty' is very thin on the ground.
Are these two children the only two to have made complaints I wonder?
It's not very thin on the ground in my posts. I'm being very careful to qualify the things I say and to put forward a number of alternatives. The bottom line is we, here, simply don't know at the moment and it's all speculation. I'm just trashing arguments that try to show he's innocent based on what people might do themselves.
Opinion, which is all we're all expressing here is subjective, that's why some people look at what they might do themselves and consider whether they believe the rumours. Sometimes it's all you can do when you don't have all the facts.
Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Wasn't MJ mostly rich for the increase in the value of his investments rather than the returns on his music? I'm thinking of the Beetles back catalogue rights: bought for something like $45M bundled in with that media company and now worth something like $2B, of which MJ Inc owned 50%. Of course, he couldn't have bought the investment unless he was pretty rich.
It was also endorsements (Pepsi for one), at one time he made gold just by thinking of it, the guy made an absolute fortune just by having his name next to a brand. I'd imagine his royalties would have continued to trickle in nicely though
It's compulsory? I didn't get that memo.. 
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Wasn't MJ mostly rich for the increase in the value of his investments rather than the returns on his music? I'm thinking of the Beetles back catalogue rights: bought for something like $45M bundled in with that media company and now worth something like $2B, of which MJ Inc owned 50%. Of course, he couldn't have bought the investment unless he was pretty rich.
I don't know how his ultimate wealth came about, but to purchase the investments in the first place he needed the money, which, it is my understanding, he earned from performing from a very young age.
quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
very good 
quote:Originally posted by Little Miss Spurs:As I keep saying "IN MY OPINION" I think he was innocent! Now I am off to bed! This thread may run and run (Good luck Temps, you seem to be on your own!) but that is my belief and it will not change! Night folks!quote:Originally posted by Karma_:
Are there STILL people INSISTING he didn't do it even though they weren't there?
Night LMS
quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Opinion, which is all we're all expressing here is subjective, that's why some people look at what they might do themselves and consider whether they believe the rumours. Sometimes it's all you can do when you don't have all the facts.
Some of them are not just opinions, they're arguments in favour of one thing or another. The reasons in the arguments can be argued against, which is what we're doing. I'm inclined to think he was set up by the parents of the first kid but I think the arguments put forward by some others in favour of MJ's innocence are poor. If you see what I mean.
No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
I see a huuuuuuuuge ego .......not greed. I really dont see your point at all.
Probably because we have differing opinions.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
I see a huuuuuuuuge ego .......not greed. I really dont see your point at all.
quote:Originally posted by tupps:
It's compulsory? I didn't get that memo..
*goes to sack personal assistant*quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Opinion, which is all we're all expressing here is subjective, that's why some people look at what they might do themselves and consider whether they believe the rumours. Sometimes it's all you can do when you don't have all the facts.
Some of them are not just opinions, they're arguments in favour of one thing or another. The reasons in the arguments can be argued against, which is what we're doing. I'm inclined to think he was set up by the parents of the first kid but I think the arguments put forward by some others in favour of MJ's innocence are poor. If you see what I mean.
Arguments based on opinion, given that none of us have the facts. Your opinion on the basis for some of the arguments is entirely your perogative
quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by tupps:
It's compulsory? I didn't get that memo..
yeah.. tell her to Beat It..
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
Wasn't it a major complaint of MJ's that he had no childhood because his parents made them perform shows all around the country, getting them up at silly hours to travel and stuff? That was when he was something like 8 years old. That's not greed by MJ but the drive and hard-work there is obviously from his parents. Working yourself as an adult like that might be a virtue, I'm not sure it is a virtue working your young kids like that. Perhaps that was greed.
quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Probably because we have differing opinions.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
I see a huuuuuuuuge ego .......not greed. I really dont see your point at all.
Yep that's true. and maybe one of us has a better understanding of the English language.
How is giving your kids 'high and mighty' names greedy?
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Opinion, which is all we're all expressing here is subjective, that's why some people look at what they might do themselves and consider whether they believe the rumours. Sometimes it's all you can do when you don't have all the facts.
Some of them are not just opinions, they're arguments in favour of one thing or another. The reasons in the arguments can be argued against, which is what we're doing. I'm inclined to think he was set up by the parents of the first kid but I think the arguments put forward by some others in favour of MJ's innocence are poor. If you see what I mean.
Daniel whats your argument for his innocence
quote:Originally posted by tupps:quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by tupps:
It's compulsory? I didn't get that memo..
yeah.. tell her to Beat It..
who Dirty Diana
for my tuppence worth that is having idea's above your stature .. iequote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Probably because we have differing opinions.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
I see a huuuuuuuuge ego .......not greed. I really dont see your point at all.
Yep that's true. and maybe one of us has a better understanding of the English language.
How is giving your kids 'high and mighty' names greedy?
I doubt very much that that alone is and did not suggest it.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Yep that's true. and maybe one of us has a better understanding of the English language.
How is giving your kids 'high and mighty' names greedy?
quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Opinion, which is all we're all expressing here is subjective, that's why some people look at what they might do themselves and consider whether they believe the rumours. Sometimes it's all you can do when you don't have all the facts.
Some of them are not just opinions, they're arguments in favour of one thing or another. The reasons in the arguments can be argued against, which is what we're doing. I'm inclined to think he was set up by the parents of the first kid but I think the arguments put forward by some others in favour of MJ's innocence are poor. If you see what I mean.
Daniel whats your argument for his innocence
I dont know about Daniel J but on my part ...........I'll put forward the fact that he was found not guilty by a judge and jury for starters.
quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Arguments based on opinion, given that none of us have the facts. Your opinion on the basis for some of the arguments is entirely your perogative
Actually, no. One assumes the propositions and then argues from those. The arguments may be logically valid, but not sound if the propositions are false. I've put forward arguments from a number of different propositions. However, Little Miss Spurs, for example, has said that no parents would sell their justice for money and that I was writing nonsense. I only have to provide one example to show that her argument is not sound. That's not a matter of opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Queen of the High We feel as though we are able to judge his actions when in fact we are no more capable of justly doing that than we are of judging Joe Shmoe from down the road who may have had a traumatic childhood for all we know. The difference is if Joe Shmoe had done what MJ did, people would be much more wary because he would be a true stranger rather than a recognisable one. QUOTE]
Joe Schmoe may not have a house with a theme park in the garden or luxuries beyond belief. MJ shared a bed with kiddies .........that is all that has been proven ....nothing else.
So if a stranger with possible mental health issues wants to play with kids, that's ok as long as he's got a big house, wads of cash and a theme park to entertain them in?
No that's not what I was saying at all. I'm finding it hard to word TBH.
Joe Shmoe might be a child (at heart) and would love to have kids round to play but most if not all parents wouldn't have any of it. MJ on the other hand had the lot ........parents were obviously happy to let their kids go there.
I wouldn't have let my kids anywhere near either of them TBH .........even though I believe nothing sexual happened.
all I am saying is ..............this Joe Shmoe lark isn't washing with me .....................the parents let the kids go play with MJ and they shared a bed (not the ideal situation) but .....................why let your kids go there in the first place? IMO .........nothing untoward happened.
Not sure I'm making myself any clearer now than before ...........'C'est la vie' it's Sunday night and I've had a few.
Not sure I'm getting you tbh, I don't know if it's because you've had a few or I haven't had any though.
I still think that what I say stands though. People were ready to trust MJ beause of who he was and what he had, but when all is said and done, they probably didn't know anymore about him than Joe Shmoe, who as you said, they probably wouldn't have trusted with their kids. That's the point. People assume they can trust famous people because they think they know them. I don't think MJ was a sexual predator but I do think his behaviour was highly innappropriate. People are also forgetting that children have an innocent sexual curiosity, doctors and nurses anyone/I'll show you mine if you show me yours etc are a natural part of children's play. That doesn't mean that they want to have sex or even see what they are doing as sexual. My recollection of the MJ abuse allegations was that something like this had taken place, something that was ultimately meant as innocent, but while MJ may have been an innocent child in his heart he still had the body of a man.
quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
I don't think that he proclaimed himself as the King of Pop, it was a title the media gave him.
Jermaine named one of his kids "Jermajesty" and what about what Jordan called her daughter? Princess Tia Maria?
People name their kids some stupidly outrageous things all the time. My favourite is still Tequila January that some stupid woman named her daughter in the states.
I wish I had the money to buy exotic animals. My dream is to have several miniture shetland ponies with trained monkeys to ride them and play polo.
Did everyone else get booted out? 
quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by tupps:quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by tupps:
It's compulsory? I didn't get that memo..
yeah.. tell her to Beat It..
who Dirty Diana
too right.. she's Bad
quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Did everyone else get booted out?
yep.. kinda..
she's outa your life
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Queen of the High We feel as though we are able to judge his actions when in fact we are no more capable of justly doing that than we are of judging Joe Shmoe from down the road who may have had a traumatic childhood for all we know. The difference is if Joe Shmoe had done what MJ did, people would be much more wary because he would be a true stranger rather than a recognisable one. QUOTE]
Joe Schmoe may not have a house with a theme park in the garden or luxuries beyond belief. MJ shared a bed with kiddies .........that is all that has been proven ....nothing else.
No that's not what I was saying at all. I'm finding it hard to word TBH.
Joe Shmoe might be a child (at heart) and would love to have kids round to play but most if not all parents wouldn't have any of it. MJ on the other hand had the lot ........parents were obviously happy to let their kids go there.
I wouldn't have let my kids anywhere near either of them TBH .........even though I believe nothing sexual happened.
all I am saying is ..............this Joe Shmoe lark isn't washing with me .....................the parents let the kids go play with MJ and they shared a bed (not the ideal situation) but .....................why let your kids go there in the first place? IMO .........nothing untoward happened.
Not sure I'm making myself any clearer now than before ...........'C'est la vie' it's Sunday night and I've had a few.
I'm not sure I'm getting you tbh, and I'm not sure if that's because you've had a few or because I haven't had any.
I distinctly remember him naming himself that when he sailed that godawful statue of himself up the Thames.quote:Originally posted by Suzi-Q:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:No. I said not all greed is monetary. That'd probably mean I wasn't referring to shed loads of money made on the back of anything.quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Billie Jean:Whatever for? It's easy as A B C!quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm-Ok .................I might need you to spell it out for me.
Not for me it isn't. they were a very driven hard working family and made shed loads of money on the back of it.
I dont see that as greedy but ...........you obviously see something else.
Naive I may be but .............I need you to spell it out.
IMO somebody who proclaims himself to be the King of Pop, goes on to give his children royal titles and sets himself up as some sort of warped Jesus figure displays phenomenal greed.
I don't think that he proclaimed himself as the King of Pop, it was a title the media gave him.
Jermaine named one of his kids "Jermajesty" and what about what Jordan called her daughter? Princess Tia Maria?
People name their kids some stupidly outrageous things all the time. My favourite is still Tequila January that some stupid woman named her daughter in the states.
I wish I had the money to buy exotic animals. My dream is to have several miniture shetland ponies with trained monkeys to ride them and play polo.
It's not the names alone, it's the overall megalomania which leads me to the 'not all greed is monetary' comment.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Arguments based on opinion, given that none of us have the facts. Your opinion on the basis for some of the arguments is entirely your perogative
Actually, no. One assumes the propositions and then argues from those. The arguments may be logically valid, but not sound if the propositions are false. I've put forward arguments from a number of different propositions. However, Little Miss Spurs, for example, has said that no parents would sell their justice for money and that I was writing nonsense. I only have to provide one example to show that her argument is not sound. That's not a matter of opinion.
sorry for taking so long, I got booted
I didn't mean arguments in general are based on opinion, I mean in this particular thread
I bet you're glad I came back just to say that quote:I don't think that he proclaimed himself as the King of Pop, it was a title the media gave him.
hackshually... it was old Betty Taylor who coined the phrase and first used it..
I gotta go feed me boy...night folks
quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Templetonpeck:
Opinion, which is all we're all expressing here is subjective, that's why some people look at what they might do themselves and consider whether they believe the rumours. Sometimes it's all you can do when you don't have all the facts.
Some of them are not just opinions, they're arguments in favour of one thing or another. The reasons in the arguments can be argued against, which is what we're doing. I'm inclined to think he was set up by the parents of the first kid but I think the arguments put forward by some others in favour of MJ's innocence are poor. If you see what I mean.
Daniel whats your argument for his innocence
I dont know about Daniel J but on my part ...........I'll put forward the fact that he was found not guilty by a judge and jury for starters.
Not for the first accusation he wasnt
quote:Originally posted by Suzi-Q:
I wish I had the money to buy exotic animals. My dream is to have several miniture shetland ponies with trained monkeys to ride them and play polo.
What an absoloutely fabulous dream ............i'm gonna think of that as I nod off tonight and hope that I dream of it.
I ABSOLOUTELY LOVE IT!!!!!
quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:quote:Originally posted by Queen of the High Teas:quote:Originally posted by Soozy woo:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Queen of the High We feel as though we are able to judge his actions when in fact we are no more capable of justly doing that than we are of judging Joe Shmoe from down the road who may have had a traumatic childhood for all we know. The difference is if Joe Shmoe had done what MJ did, people would be much more wary because he would be a true stranger rather than a recognisable one. QUOTE]
Joe Schmoe may not have a house with a theme park in the garden or luxuries beyond belief. MJ shared a bed with kiddies .........that is all that has been proven ....nothing else.
No that's not what I was saying at all. I'm finding it hard to word TBH.
Joe Shmoe might be a child (at heart) and would love to have kids round to play but most if not all parents wouldn't have any of it. MJ on the other hand had the lot ........parents were obviously happy to let their kids go there.
I wouldn't have let my kids anywhere near either of them TBH .........even though I believe nothing sexual happened.
all I am saying is ..............this Joe Shmoe lark isn't washing with me .....................the parents let the kids go play with MJ and they shared a bed (not the ideal situation) but .....................why let your kids go there in the first place? IMO .........nothing untoward happened.
Not sure I'm making myself any clearer now than before ...........'C'est la vie' it's Sunday night and I've had a few.
I'm not sure I'm getting you tbh, and I'm not sure if that's because you've had a few or because I haven't had any.
I'm sure I knew what I meant when I started out ......believe me I had a very good point to make ............it's got a bit lost now though TBH.
i'll give you that one
You won by default
yee hah # saddle up and ride your pony#
quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by tupps:quote:Originally posted by Lockes no 1 fan:quote:Originally posted by tupps:
It's compulsory? I didn't get that memo..
yeah.. tell her to Beat It..
who Dirty Diana
Bliddy hell don't bring Diana into it, this thread will explode if we start on the Di conspiracies too.
