well, someone had to do it.

I was an 8 years old kid when Thriller swept the world.  "Beat it" rocks 
so much! "Billie Jean" and the moonwalk... man, can you believe it led 
even a shy, white brazilian kid to try to perform it?  and fail, of 
course. :P

Anyway, RIP, Michael.  "Billie Jean", "Beat it", "Don't Stop 'til You 
Get Enough" and "Smooth Criminal" will never leave my "stereo"... :)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> well, someone had to do it.

And let us all learn from it:  Don't be a s**t to your kids (MJ's dad 
reportedly was), and don't surround yourself with sycophants (which MJ 
clearly did).

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Anyway, RIP, Michael.  "Billie Jean", "Beat it", "Don't Stop 'til You 
> Get Enough" and "Smooth Criminal" will never leave my "stereo"... :)

  He was indeed a really talented singer (and dancer!)

  I find it sad that some people dislike his music primarily because they
dislike him as a person. Or even if they admit that some of his songs were
pretty good, they still more or less avoid his music because of how they
feel about him. I suppose it's some kind of (conscious of subconscious)
fear that if they are seen listening to his music, people will think that
they like the musician as well, so they don't want to give the "wrong
impression".

  MJ was also a sad victim of people's twisted notion of inverted burden
of proof in child molestation charge cases: The accused is assumed to be
guilty until proven innocent. And even after being acquitted of all charges,
still highly suspicious. Most people outright call him "pedophile" and
"child molester" for the sole reason that he was *accused* of being one.

  Now, I'm not saying he wasn't. I have no way of knowing if he was guilty
or not. However, I find it rather outrageous that people just condemn him
without any kind of proof, and even though he was never found guilty. That
should never be done. That kind of thinking is despicable, IMO. That kind
of thinking has ruined innocent people's lives.

  It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
will be completely ok, though.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a467153@news.povray.org...

>   MJ was also a sad victim of people's twisted notion of inverted burden
> of proof in child molestation charge cases: The accused is assumed to be
> guilty until proven innocent. And even after being acquitted of all
charges,
> still highly suspicious. Most people outright call him "pedophile" and
> "child molester" for the sole reason that he was *accused* of being one.
>
>   Now, I'm not saying he wasn't. I have no way of knowing if he was guilty
> or not. However, I find it rather outrageous that people just condemn him
> without any kind of proof, and even though he was never found guilty. That
> should never be done. That kind of thinking is despicable, IMO. That kind
> of thinking has ruined innocent people's lives.

True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that kind
of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who were
victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was not
revealed to the community he was released into.

More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot and
should not expect people to think like automatons with their judegement
circuits indexed to the legal system. Legal system operates on a different
principle: Conviction is proof of guilt (ideally), but acquittal is not
proof of innocence. And it's no secret that rich and famous get benefits
that the commoner does not. If a poor, no-name construction worker had faced
the same accusations and testimonials/evidence, he'd be rotting behind bars
as we type.

Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended) as
the legal system's. Did Michael Richards get convicted due to his racial
outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous. But
a glimpse into the uglier sides of the minds of public figures can forever
taint their accomplishments. I was a big fan of Seinfeld before that, but
hardly feel like watching a rerun, let alone with the same level of
enthusiasm. Like it or not, feelings are not switches that one can turn on
or off at will, neither do I wish that were the case.

>   It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
> that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
> or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
> least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
> man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
> absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
> considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
> will be completely ok, though.

Not as much as it used to be, after some highly publicised cases of sexual
abuse of minors by women, (mostly) teachers. That said, I do believe there
are major biological/hormonal/evolutionary...etc differences between the
sexes regarding feelings towards children: Put a baby in a stroller in a
shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men (unless the mom happens to
have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a blind
man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not to
come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let alone
"passionately love them in a completely and absolutely non-sexual way". Are
there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company of
children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment from
that.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/27/09 13:43, John VanSickle wrote:
> reportedly was), and don't surround yourself with sycophants (which MJ
> clearly did).

	Kind of like listening to only talk shows for news & analysis.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

On 06/27/09 16:22, somebody wrote:
> True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
> thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
> thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that kind
> of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who were
> victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was not
> revealed to the community he was released into.

	I'm quite sure Warp was well aware of this when he wrote it.

> More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot and

	Highly misleading. More often than not, where there's smoke, *and no 
one finds a fire*, there was no fire.

> proof of innocence. And it's no secret that rich and famous get benefits
> that the commoner does not. If a poor, no-name construction worker had faced
> the same accusations and testimonials/evidence, he'd be rotting behind bars
> as we type.

	Yes, but that does not imply that the poor construction worker was 
guilty, or that this fact made MJ statistically more likely to be guilty.

> Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended) as
> the legal system's.

	Which is what Warp is complaining about. Are you suggesting that if two 
individuals accuse you on separate occasions of things you didn't do, 
it's OK for someone to think you did it? If you did, then I think Warp 
was talking about you...

> outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous. But

	It would be ridiculous, because it was not a crime. What MJ was accused 
of is a crime, hence the need to find him guilty if he actually was 
guilty. Your example is not analogous.

> a glimpse into the uglier sides of the minds of public figures can forever
> taint their accomplishments. I was a big fan of Seinfeld before that, but

	Yes, they can. Which is what Warp complained about. Everybody has a bad 
day, and that day may have been Richard's. That outburst alone is a very 
poor indicator of any racial biases he may or may not have had. If it 
is, then almost everyone I know is a racist, including some people on 
this newsgroup.

	And again, his case is irrelevant. There's *no* doubt that Richards 
said what he did. OTOH, there's a lot of doubt that MJ did what he was 
accused of.

> enthusiasm. Like it or not, feelings are not switches that one can turn on
> or off at will, neither do I wish that were the case.

	I believe Warp's point is that feelings *are* switched on and off very 
easily - regardless of will. I believe his point is that people should 
be a bit more mature on how they control their feelings.

	It seems you saw a clip of Richards, and your feelings switched quite 
quickly.

> have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a blind
> man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not to
> come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let alone

	Or rather, people like yourself try to find any sign of "feigning" 
among them, in order to fit your world view. It's a known phenomenon in 
many disciplines.

	Your whole paragraph about the strollers and the differences between 
men and women is ridiculous. You're basically attributing the 
differences to physical/physiological reasons because that's what you're 
used to observing (i.e. invoking a phenomenon to explain that very 
phenomenon).

> there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
> balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company of
> children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment from
> that.

	Yes, this is precisely what Warp's complaining about - people like 
yourself being incapable of realizing that the difference in behaviors 
between men and women towards children may be mostly cultural, and 
almost none of it physiological.

-- 
Do Not Attempt to Traverse a Chasm in Two Leaps...


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Anyway, RIP, Michael.  "Billie Jean", "Beat it", "Don't Stop 'til You
> > Get Enough" and "Smooth Criminal" will never leave my "stereo"... :)
>
>   He was indeed a really talented singer (and dancer!)

very friggin' much!  I don't usually "watch" music, but in his case, much of the
kick comes from his electrifying performance.

>   I find it sad that some people dislike his music primarily because they
> dislike him as a person.

All genius are disturbed individuals.  Wagner, Beethoven... I know how to enjoy
the work separate from the author.

>   MJ was also a sad victim of people's twisted notion of inverted burden
> of proof in child molestation charge cases: The accused is assumed to be
> guilty until proven innocent.

well, in his case I do believe he was indeed a child molester... as well as was
molested when a child.

It doesn't change the fact that his performances and some of his hits were
completely top-notch and a hallmark of the 80s.  A great artist, a petty human.

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > well, someone had to do it.
>
> And let us all learn from it:  Don't be a s**t to your kids (MJ's dad
> reportedly was)

were Beethoven's or Mozart's fathers any better?  Too late to ask and doesn't
matter anyway...

I believe well-adjusted individuals express themselves solely by raising a
family rather than by seeking artistic expression.  Those who do otherwise are
never as successful as the tortured souls in bringing up unknown emotions to
the public.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/27/09 19:29, nemesis wrote:
> All genius are disturbed individuals.

	Nope. Common misconception.


-- 
What kind of electricity do they have in Washington? D.C.


                     /\  /\               /\  /
                    /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                        >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message

"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a469d11$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/27/09 16:22, somebody wrote:

> > True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
> > thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
> > thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that
kind
> > of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who
were
> > victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was
not
> > revealed to the community he was released into.

> I'm quite sure Warp was well aware of this when he wrote it.

Are we only allowed to write things that you are not absolutely sure that
Warp was not well aware?

> > More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot
and

> Highly misleading. More often than not, where there's smoke, *and no
> one finds a fire*, there was no fire.

Legal system does not look for likely explanations of fire, it looks for
provable (beyond reasonable doubt) of fire. Thus fire may be much more
likely than not, but not provable (as stated).

However, my judgement will always be based on (what I perceive to be) the
most likely explanation.

Thus, Warp's implied suggestion that we should base our judgement only on
the legal outcome is rather, well, naive. It's too much of a binary and
top-down-dictated worldview.

> > proof of innocence. And it's no secret that rich and famous get benefits
> > that the commoner does not. If a poor, no-name construction worker had
faced
> > the same accusations and testimonials/evidence, he'd be rotting behind
bars
> > as we type.

> Yes, but that does not imply that the poor construction worker was
> guilty, or that this fact made MJ statistically more likely to be guilty.

Correct.

> > Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended)
as
> > the legal system's.

> Which is what Warp is complaining about. Are you suggesting that if two
> individuals accuse you on separate occasions of things you didn't do,
> it's OK for someone to think you did it? If you did, then I think Warp
> was talking about you...

The more accusations, the higher the likelihood, ceteris paribus. Now, it
may be a planned attack, coincidence... whatever. Sure. But given that even
observing a white dove increases the probability of correctness of the
statement that all ravens are black, let's not pretend that smoke can be
ignored until one sees the fire.

> > outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous.
But

> It would be ridiculous, because it was not a crime. What MJ was accused
> of is a crime, hence the need to find him guilty if he actually was
> guilty. Your example is not analogous.

I'm not sure you understood. The point is, there are varying degrees of
societal judgement. I can judge fellow humans poorly even if what they did
was not criminal in the eyes of the law (speaking of MR, I suggest you watch
the last dual episode of Seinfeld, where this very subject is the theme).

MJ may not technically have had sexual relations with children. But Bill
Clinton defense/terminology is a technicality for the courts to decide. I
will shape my opinion by the overall picture that emerged. That that
particular accusation was proven or not is not the only or even the major
criteria for personal judgement. This is my main disagreement with Warp. He
seems to claim that since he was cleared of the charge, we should all wipe
our memories clean of what else came about during that process.

Here's an example: A mugger holds a gun to your head and pulls the trigger.
Gun doesn't fire for some reason, and the police apprehend him. As far as
legal system is concerned, there's no manslaughter. He gets of on a lesser
charge. But as far as you and I are concerned, the technicality means
nothing, he attempted to murder you. Whether he ultimately succeeded or not
due to some random happenstance will not change my evaluation of his
character. This is another case where I am not bound strictly by the
conclusions of the legal system to shape my own opinions.

Likewise, had it been the case that Bill Clinton made open sexual advances
to "that woman" but was rejected, would our opinion of him have to be higher
than now? I don't understand the obsession with being found guilty of "the
crime". Yes, it matters greatly from the viewpoint of the legal system. It
has to. We need the legal system to be highly regulated, predictable,
repeatable, objective... etc. But legal proof of crime is sometimes a mere
technicality and pretty much irrelevant as far as my moral judgement is
concerned. MJ's case, to me, is one of those times.

> > a glimpse into the uglier sides of the minds of public figures can
forever
> > taint their accomplishments. I was a big fan of Seinfeld before that,
but

> Yes, they can. Which is what Warp complained about. Everybody has a bad
> day, and that day may have been Richard's. That outburst alone is a very
> poor indicator of any racial biases he may or may not have had. If it
> is, then almost everyone I know is a racist, including some people on
> this newsgroup.
>
> And again, his case is irrelevant. There's *no* doubt that Richards
> said what he did. OTOH, there's a lot of doubt that MJ did what he was
> accused of.

Yet, there's no doubt that MJ did a lot of things that may not strictly be a
crime (or *the* crime prosecutor tried to prove), but exposed an ugly side
of his character. Nothing MR did was a crime, yet, I judge him poorly. A lot
of things that MJ seems to have done came much closer to an actual crime,
even if not proven. I will of course judge him poorly too.

> > enthusiasm. Like it or not, feelings are not switches that one can turn
on
> > or off at will, neither do I wish that were the case.

> I believe Warp's point is that feelings *are* switched on and off very
> easily - regardless of will. I believe his point is that people should
> be a bit more mature on how they control their feelings.
>
> It seems you saw a clip of Richards, and your feelings switched quite
> quickly.

What's wrong with that? Sure, he was having a bad day/time. But isn't that
the sign of character? Real character seems to come out when shield are
down. It's easy to be nice on a good day, I am sure even Mussolini was a
delight to be with on a good day.

I've had many bad days, and I've seen many others have bad days. I don't buy
that as an excuse.

> > have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a
blind
> > man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not
to
> > come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let
alone

> Or rather, people like yourself try to find any sign of "feigning"
> among them, in order to fit your world view. It's a known phenomenon in
> many disciplines.
>
> Your whole paragraph about the strollers and the differences between
> men and women is ridiculous. You're basically attributing the
> differences to physical/physiological reasons because that's what you're
> used to observing (i.e. invoking a phenomenon to explain that very
> phenomenon).

Well, it's an observation. I don't need to explain it, just note it as a
difference between men and women regarding children.

> > there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
> > balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company
of
> > children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment
from
> > that.

> Yes, this is precisely what Warp's complaining about - people like
> yourself being incapable of realizing that the difference in behaviors
> between men and women towards children may be mostly cultural, and
> almost none of it physiological.

I've seen many cultures, and even in non-stuck-up/non-western cultures, men
don't normally have an affinity towards children. In fact, children and
teenagers remain in matriarchial domain until quite late by western
standards, and even the father-son bonding is weaker and father-daughter
bonding may be virtually non-existent, not to say anything about
relationships between unrelated men and children. If you still say it's
cultural, feel free to provide an example of a society in which MJ would
have felt right at home.

Post a reply to this message