Kurt420

mine isn't holding a charge very long these days so I may have to take you up on that!!

Agreed! They're just as vile as the one throwing the kicks to that poor soul. What a worthless excuse for a human being that piece of trash is. I hope he gets what's coming to him ten fold.

I'm heartbroken for him but just goes to show that none of this stuff is 100%......someone is always gonna be in that small percentile where the drugs don't work. Seems like the "on demand" approach may have factored in here though. I do wonder if he'd taken it every day if this would've happened. I recently watched a documentary about the beginnings of HIV/AIDS and we really have come so far. I know it's only going to get better as time goes on. Truly think there will be an outright cure available to everyone in the next 10 yrs or so.

Glad I'm in good company Jazzy! This thread is making me feel obsolete!! Maybe I'll just get a refurbished Touch when mine finally goes kaput.....hopefully it'll last 15 yrs and by that time, hell, maybe mp3's will be "in" again??

OMG peter I'm so afraid my ipod is going to break!! Idk how it's lasted this long, I've had the same one since 2006!! I was talking to a friend (my ex bf actually) last night and he remembers when I bought that and I was talking about listening to my ipod and he was like "uh....REALLY, you still have an ipod...LOL" and then I told him it was the same one I bought when we were together and we was just like . I mean, I know it's been all about streaming for a few years now but I didn't know ipod's were considered THAT obsolete.....Christ! I really didn't know that you could add your own mp3's to streaming services though. I have THOUSANDS though some that prob wouldn't even be recognized by a streaming service, idk if that would even matter in this case. I'm assuming streaming while I'm driving would be dependent on internet connection so what if I have a "spotty" connection. Would I be able to listen to my music?? It's these things that just make me hesitant to go full on streaming. Well, I'll never go full on streaming....I collect vinyl and still collect CD's for artists I really like (like M, all the remastered Fleetwood Mac/Stevie Nicks albums etc) so I don't think they'll ever go away, I mean there's even a market for cassette tapes now (which I'd NEVER go back to not even for nostalgia purposes) whether I'll have a CD player to listen to these CD's on is a whole 'nother story though. Right now, all I can do is rip them to my computer. I have a CD player in my car but that thing broke years ago.

So, now we just act like MJ never said he was innocent for 15 yrs and his estate isn't saying the same now? You can live in your little la la land where that aspect of this story doesn't exist, but it does and it's being discussed as in depth as "the other side". You know why? Because no matter how passionately we may feel that he's definitely guilty, no matter how passionately we may feel that he would never touch a child, NOBODY REALLY KNOWS. Which is why this discussion will never end. Which is why there is nothing wrong with discussing all aspects. You can still think he's guilty but look at the other side of things and vice versa. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept. I truly hope some of you NEVER have jury duty because it would be a total, epic fail. Imagine being in the room and telling the other jurors flat out "oh I refuse to discuss that side of this case....it doesn't exist. Only *this* side exists."..... GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK!! There are people here CLEARLY stating they think he's definitely guilty but may have a question about something they noticed on the defensive side, just because they're CURIOUS not because they're trying to be swayed to believe he's innocent or whatever......they get ripped apart for even asking a fucking question!! Shame to see Madonna fans of all people condone censorship and bullying. Oh and please spare me with your paedo apologist "truth" bullshit......typical extreme, overreacting SJW garbage. Yeah....and if you listen to some people they say you're a flat out paedo if you think he's guilty. Complete opposite sides of the SJW spectrum, but both views are cut from the same shit stained cloth as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed completely! The fact that anyone who even THINKS about looking at the "other side" of the story is immediately labeled a "paedo apologist" is deeply concerning. SJW bullshit at it's finest. It's like, get off of your fucking high horse already. Then you have the diehard MJ fans that refuse to watch the doc and will say those that believe the accusations are "paedos" that just enjoy hearing the stories and want them to be true to fulfill their own fantasies. As far as I'm concerned, both of these extreme reactions are two sides of the same "witch hunt" coin. The bottom line is, only 3 people know the truth. No matter how strong you feel one way or another, no matter the "evidence" you've collected in defense of or in persecution of MJ, when you boil it down it's all an opinion. Looking at and discussing all sides of the story isn't a bad thing but stifling discussion of all sides of the story is.

My perspective has changed greatly since watching the doc and having time to let it sink in. I do believe they're authentic in what they say. I was expecting 4 hours of graphic sexual descriptions and a little bad acting but what I got was far more complicated, intense and heartbreaking. There are still legitimate questions though that many people have. It's not 100% "he's guilty" across the board as far as public opinion goes. In fact, the "did he or didn't he" debate seems just as polarizing as it always was. I see nothing wrong with discussing both sides of the story and anyone that tries to shouldn't be shot down and called "paedo apologists" for it. This is a discussion forum after all and I'm confident there's nobody here that truly condones abuse against children. It's disheartening to see members of the forum criticized for merely pondering questions that thousands or even millions of other people may have.

I'll be good with my shit quality one but I appreciate the concern sir!

I didn't mean to imply it's ONLY the tape that may make the public perception of his case different. Certainly, MJ's "childlike" image and also the fact that the world has "known" him for basically his entire life definitely factor into giving him the "benefit of the doubt" as well. Not to mention, MJ is embedded far more deeply into our culture than R. Kelly. I feel like all of those things (and then some) would factor into the difference in the perception of these two men.

And where did I state my opinion on the documentary since it's aired?? Oh that's right I haven't.

I mean in comparison to something like the R. Kelly case where they actually had a tape to bring in as evidence. I understand evidence like that is rare in these cases. I was only responding to the person that asked why R. Kelly doesn't seem to get the same "benefit of the doubt" that MJ does. For many, tangible evidence like that is a "smoking gun". It leaves little wiggle room for any questions....even if in the case of R. Kelly the tape still didn't get him convicted but in the court of public opinion, that tape plays a huge part in the overall perception of him.

So, because I don't think MJ's (or anyone's) music should basically be wiped off the earth, that makes me disrespectful to children? That's reaching.

The MJ case just isn't as cut and dry as R. Kelly's. There's no "smoking gun" with MJ. Whether that's because he was incredibly slick, manipulative and covered his tracks really well or whether it's because he's truly innocent is all in who you talk to I suppose.