<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Michael Jackson Cancels Opening Comeback Gig &#8230; GOOD!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/</link>
	<description>Celebrity gossip from our lips to yours</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:26:08 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: J.R. LeMar</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/comment-page-1/#comment-89841</link>
		<dc:creator>J.R. LeMar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/?p=10810#comment-89841</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m glad you see my point, Dawn. Again, I&#039;m not saying he&#039;s completely innocent of other stuff. I don&#039;t know enough about the first charge since, obviously, they never went to trial. Some say he looks guilty because he paid the kid off. Maybe. I dunno. I could see why a settlement would make more sense than going to trial, even if I were innocent. But, again, that case is not supposed to have any bearing on the second case.

And, @ the very least, his judgment is extremely bad. As Chris Rock joked when this trial first started &quot;Another kid?!? That&#039;s like finding another dead White woman @ OJ&#039;s house!&quot; I mean, whether he was innocent or not in the first case, you&#039;d think that, after all he went through, he would stay as far away from young boys as possible. I would&#039;ve sold that ranch, and cancelled all further &quot;slumber parties&quot; in the future. Try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It was stupid of him to even put himself in this position where he could be &quot;falsely&quot; accused by someone else. So, that was dumb, but being dumb is not a crime. 

But he&#039;s definitely a weirdo. And I don&#039;t know about those kids of his. I&#039;m mixed-race, too, and we do come in all colors, but, dang, they don&#039;t look ANYTHING like him, or as if they have even the slightless trace of &quot;Blackness&quot; in them.  His brother&#039;s Jermaine &amp; Randy, each of some mixed kids too, &amp; they all look like Jacksons. So that&#039;s suspicious to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad you see my point, Dawn. Again, I&#8217;m not saying he&#8217;s completely innocent of other stuff. I don&#8217;t know enough about the first charge since, obviously, they never went to trial. Some say he looks guilty because he paid the kid off. Maybe. I dunno. I could see why a settlement would make more sense than going to trial, even if I were innocent. But, again, that case is not supposed to have any bearing on the second case.</p>
<p>And, @ the very least, his judgment is extremely bad. As Chris Rock joked when this trial first started &#8220;Another kid?!? That&#8217;s like finding another dead White woman @ OJ&#8217;s house!&#8221; I mean, whether he was innocent or not in the first case, you&#8217;d think that, after all he went through, he would stay as far away from young boys as possible. I would&#8217;ve sold that ranch, and cancelled all further &#8220;slumber parties&#8221; in the future. Try to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. It was stupid of him to even put himself in this position where he could be &#8220;falsely&#8221; accused by someone else. So, that was dumb, but being dumb is not a crime. </p>
<p>But he&#8217;s definitely a weirdo. And I don&#8217;t know about those kids of his. I&#8217;m mixed-race, too, and we do come in all colors, but, dang, they don&#8217;t look ANYTHING like him, or as if they have even the slightless trace of &#8220;Blackness&#8221; in them.  His brother&#8217;s Jermaine &amp; Randy, each of some mixed kids too, &amp; they all look like Jacksons. So that&#8217;s suspicious to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dawn</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/comment-page-1/#comment-89833</link>
		<dc:creator>Dawn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 19:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/?p=10810#comment-89833</guid>
		<description>JRL,

I am beginning to feel similar to you on this matter in regards to the second charge in 2003.  There are just too many non-credible individuals involved in that case to make it even believable, and as far as the Jordan Chandler case goes, even that is suspicious.

However, I wouldn&#039;t let my kids go near him, and not just because he was accused of pedophilia, but also because he has a history of very poor judgment and bizarre and creepy behavior.  Had Jackson behaved in a manner that society deemed as even remotely normal, it&#039;s possible he could have overcome these charges (assuming they are false), but he chose to carry on being a complete weirdo and freaking people out.

I have no sympathy for him what-so-ever, but I do have some serious doubts now about the molestation charges, which is a very serious allegation to make.  

If they were made falsely, then those people have their own karma to deal with some day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>JRL,</p>
<p>I am beginning to feel similar to you on this matter in regards to the second charge in 2003.  There are just too many non-credible individuals involved in that case to make it even believable, and as far as the Jordan Chandler case goes, even that is suspicious.</p>
<p>However, I wouldn&#8217;t let my kids go near him, and not just because he was accused of pedophilia, but also because he has a history of very poor judgment and bizarre and creepy behavior.  Had Jackson behaved in a manner that society deemed as even remotely normal, it&#8217;s possible he could have overcome these charges (assuming they are false), but he chose to carry on being a complete weirdo and freaking people out.</p>
<p>I have no sympathy for him what-so-ever, but I do have some serious doubts now about the molestation charges, which is a very serious allegation to make.  </p>
<p>If they were made falsely, then those people have their own karma to deal with some day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J.R. LeMar</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/comment-page-1/#comment-89777</link>
		<dc:creator>J.R. LeMar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:05:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/?p=10810#comment-89777</guid>
		<description>Queen, might I suggest that you would not be &quot;disgusted&quot; by the verdict in the last MJ trial if you had watched the news reports as it went on? This is in no way comparable to OJ.

Like you, when I first heard of this latest charges, I immediately assumed that he was guilty as hell. The circumstantial evidence of him being a pedophile is certainly great, he&#039;s admitted behavior, as it regards sleeping in bed in young boys, is extremely bizarre. And, if I had children, I definitely wouldn&#039;t let them stay with MJ for any amount of time.

HOWEVER, as the trial went on, and watched the news analysis, &amp; read the reports, I had to rethink my position on this case. The boy, and his mother, simply were not credible. At all. This was a very bad case, that the Santa Barbara D.A. brought, probably because he, like most of us, assumed that MJ got away with the previous molestation case by paying them off. And he was determined to get MJ this time, and rushed to prosecute.

But it soon became clear to me that the accusers were fishy, and the prosecutors knew that they had no real case. That became apparent when Macauly Culkin was on the stand, and testified that he had slept in the same bed with MJ many times, and nothing ever happened, and the prosecutor asked him if it&#039;s possible that he may slept through the molestation, and just doesn&#039;t remember it? 

What kind of question is that? And how can you answer it? That was desperation, on their part. Plus they called a ton of other witnesses, who had nothing to do with this case. There was one man, now a youth minister, who claimed that MJ molested him as a child, and he did seem partially credible to me. Yet MJ was not on trial for molesting HIM, or anyone else. Just that one boy.

It became clear to me, that this was a set-up. And, think about it, isn&#039;t it perfect? If you&#039;re a young boy, and claim that Michael Jackson molested you, of course people are going to believe it. They were hoping for a payoff. 

I think the D.A. was hoping that the jury would just think that MJ is a freak (which I agree with) and think that he deserves to be locked up for SOMETHING, but that&#039;s not how our system is supposed to be. There was more than enough reasonable doubt that he had molested that one boy he was charged for, and the jury rendered the correct verdict of not guilty.

Just my opinion.

PS And I still don&#039;t buy any of his music of go to his concerts anymore.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Queen, might I suggest that you would not be &#8220;disgusted&#8221; by the verdict in the last MJ trial if you had watched the news reports as it went on? This is in no way comparable to OJ.</p>
<p>Like you, when I first heard of this latest charges, I immediately assumed that he was guilty as hell. The circumstantial evidence of him being a pedophile is certainly great, he&#8217;s admitted behavior, as it regards sleeping in bed in young boys, is extremely bizarre. And, if I had children, I definitely wouldn&#8217;t let them stay with MJ for any amount of time.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, as the trial went on, and watched the news analysis, &amp; read the reports, I had to rethink my position on this case. The boy, and his mother, simply were not credible. At all. This was a very bad case, that the Santa Barbara D.A. brought, probably because he, like most of us, assumed that MJ got away with the previous molestation case by paying them off. And he was determined to get MJ this time, and rushed to prosecute.</p>
<p>But it soon became clear to me that the accusers were fishy, and the prosecutors knew that they had no real case. That became apparent when Macauly Culkin was on the stand, and testified that he had slept in the same bed with MJ many times, and nothing ever happened, and the prosecutor asked him if it&#8217;s possible that he may slept through the molestation, and just doesn&#8217;t remember it? </p>
<p>What kind of question is that? And how can you answer it? That was desperation, on their part. Plus they called a ton of other witnesses, who had nothing to do with this case. There was one man, now a youth minister, who claimed that MJ molested him as a child, and he did seem partially credible to me. Yet MJ was not on trial for molesting HIM, or anyone else. Just that one boy.</p>
<p>It became clear to me, that this was a set-up. And, think about it, isn&#8217;t it perfect? If you&#8217;re a young boy, and claim that Michael Jackson molested you, of course people are going to believe it. They were hoping for a payoff. </p>
<p>I think the D.A. was hoping that the jury would just think that MJ is a freak (which I agree with) and think that he deserves to be locked up for SOMETHING, but that&#8217;s not how our system is supposed to be. There was more than enough reasonable doubt that he had molested that one boy he was charged for, and the jury rendered the correct verdict of not guilty.</p>
<p>Just my opinion.</p>
<p>PS And I still don&#8217;t buy any of his music of go to his concerts anymore.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Celebrity Blog &#124; Babelogs &#124; Celebrity Gossip &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Michael Jackson Cancels Opening Comeback Gig … GOOD!</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/comment-page-1/#comment-89679</link>
		<dc:creator>Celebrity Blog &#124; Babelogs &#124; Celebrity Gossip &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Michael Jackson Cancels Opening Comeback Gig … GOOD!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:36:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/?p=10810#comment-89679</guid>
		<description>[...]  Queen Related Posts:Michael Jackson To Announce Concert Dates In London?Michael Jackson is Planning a [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  Queen Related Posts:Michael Jackson To Announce Concert Dates In London?Michael Jackson is Planning a [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rachel</title>
		<link>http://glosslip.com/2009/06/02/michael-jackson-cancels-opening-comeback-gig-good/comment-page-1/#comment-89606</link>
		<dc:creator>Rachel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2009 22:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://glosslip.com/?p=10810#comment-89606</guid>
		<description>He isn&#039;t capable of performing anymore.  

The people who were naive enough to put money into this are screwed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>He isn&#8217;t capable of performing anymore.  </p>
<p>The people who were naive enough to put money into this are screwed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
