Tater48
Well-Known Member
I do not like MJ as an entertainer.
I do not like MJ as a person.
And I do not like MJ as the star of an attraction in Disney parks.
I LIKE your way of thinking.
I do not like MJ as an entertainer.
I do not like MJ as a person.
And I do not like MJ as the star of an attraction in Disney parks.
I don't get your first part. His controversial past isn't anywhere in WDW. The only thing about MJ that's in WDW is a 3D sci-fi film he did in the 80s and maybe a photo of him somewhere in MGM. It's not as though Disney has erected a museum to MJ chronicling his life similar to Walt Disney in One Man's Dream.
I'm horribly offended by that statement. All I'm trying to do is have a civil conversation and express my concern for the growing number of similar threads relating to MJ. God forbid someone come forth and say "Hey, you guys are bringing up the same points in numerous threads." If you don't like my posts why do you keep reading and responding? Is someone not allowed to bring up a true statement because you do not approve of its point?
I simply don't have time to read over 100+ replies, so all I got to say is this. The 1st accuser has admitted that nothing inappopriate went on, and Michael was found not guilty when it came to the second accuser, and I think there's a reason he was found not guilty.
Now, guilty or not, the fact is, Michael Jackson, love him or hate him, is probably the greatest entertainer to ever live. Again, he was found not guilty, and I think he should be honored.
I simply don't have time to read over 100+ replies, so all I got to say is this. The 1st accuser has admitted that nothing inappopriate went on, and Michael was found not guilty when it came to the second accuser, and I think there's a reason he was found not guilty.
Now, guilty or not, the fact is, Michael Jackson, love him or hate him, is probably the greatest entertainer to ever live. Again, he was found not guilty, and I think he should be honored.
Honor your mother and father....honor the lord....DO NOT honor someone of the ilk of Michael Jackson. :brick:
Reread your post. You didn't say anything about one of the top 10 entertainers, now did you? No you didn't, you said probably the greatest ever. Not by a long shot. And, yes, I say this Honestly.
:lol: maybe i'm biased, cause ill be honest, im a huge MJ fan, so like I said, i'm biased, but still, made me laugh
First, if MJ is being used at WDW all his baggage comes with it and is is reasonable to discuss that.
Second, you weren't trying to have a civil conversation. You were chastising posters for expressing their views. You were trying to drag down a vibrant interesting conversation.
Third, I didn't say you couldn't post, I only asked why you keep jumping in, not to actually participate, but to just berate.
Fourth, your fact was absolutely false, this is the only thread actually dedicated to this topic.
Finally, if you are offended by anything posted on these boards, especially the absolutely civil and banal comments I made, I feel sorry for you.
No. "The man" didn't.You realize the man molested children (plural), right? You find that funny?
No. "The man" didn't.
.... you cannot state that as fact.
Krack runs over old ladies with her car.I just did.
Watch, it's a two'fer: OJ killed his wife. I didn't personally witness that one either.
EO doesn't belong in Epcot because a park dedicated to the future shouldn't be reviving 25 year old films. That's the extent of it for me.
Krack runs over old ladies with her car.
There. I don't need evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to state things as fact anymore so I said it: Krack is an old lady killer.
In both cases the jury could not decide beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occured. It doesn't mean that it didn't, but if a jury couldn't decide then there was something there that pointed the jury in the other direction. The way I think of it, if the doubt was there in the court room, that should transfer to the real world.
Whether the accusations of molestation is enough to tarnish a reputation so much that a person shouldn't be represented in WDW is a valid arguement, but I don't think that any of us are in a position to definitively say that a crime occured.
Now, I eagerly await: "Judicial system is corrupt." "I don't care, I've made up my mind." and possibly "Blah blah blah HORIZONS!"
EO doesn't belong in Epcot because a park dedicated to the future shouldn't be reviving 25 year old films. That's the extent of it for me.
No. "The man" didn't.
He was accused and exonerated. Unless you were personally present to witness otherwise [which would make you as deplorable as you accuse him of being] or, God forbid, was a child actually molested by him [which makes you pitiable], you cannot state that as fact.
I feel like you skip reading every two posts. I don't care about the alleged actions. I care about the confirmed, confessed actions. Google Living With Michael Jackson to see what the man admitted to in his own words.
EDIT: I wouldn't have to say "alleged" anyways. I'm not an attorney, judge, politician, columnist, or reporter.
You realize the man molested children (plural), right? You find that funny?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.