Rights. Who cares if he fiddled kids, look at his FACE! It's an outrage that someone would want to change themselves to such a degree.

He had acne, a big nose and vitiligo... the natural thing to do is become a scary looking white woman.

lol I am and I do agree that just because you are found innocent in a court of law doesn't necessarily mean you are innocent BUT in Michael Jackson's case, people are so quick to judge him and make their own assement about what they really think happened when they don't know a damn thing. If people exactly followed the trial INSTEAD of what the media said and all these fake ass experts that don't know what their talking about maybe they would have a different opinion. All I'm basically saying is when it comes down to Michael Jackson people judge him because of all the ish his been through over the years and the controversy. That IS understandable but how can you judge somebody you don't even know? The same thing applies with the case. People weren't there when it happened so how can they say he did something when they don't even know or have evidence? They look at Michael and just assume that EVERYTHING folks say about him is true which is sad but that is what it has came down to because of the controversy. Michael is talented and makes great music thats all that matters period but I feel you and respect how you feel. I just focus on the music all that other mess doesn't matter.

So in other words people can do what they like on condition they make a few tunes you like :rolleyes:

this can go in circles all day... how can you say he's innocent? you don't really know him, right? ;)

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter what any of us think... the man is free, if he puts out an album I'll check it out. If I think it could have been better, I'll voice my opinion about it. If another kid comes forward and says Michael touched me... I'll think "not again!!!".

Thats more or less my opinion. Maybe not in those words exactly but this debate about MJ and whether or not he molested kids just bores the crap out of me now. I don't see anything wrong with taking the opinion that whether hes guilty or not he used to make great music. That music doesnt suddenly become **** if hes a despicable human being.

Where are you reading these things? are you in an alternative Michael Jackson thread that nobody else knows about? who ever said his past work sucks now because he was accused of stroking little penis? also, If the debate bores you... why engage in it? For the record... MJ is an extremely talented man who kicked ass in the 60's/70's/80's and part of the 90's. His reputation as a human being was tarnished... his reputation as a musician still stands as a positive but if the man doesn't put out anything worth listening to soon people will wonder if he still has it.

Touchy, much?

So your point is that MJ is a talented musician with a tarnished reputation but that as of this moment in time his reputation as a musician still stands despite it? Funny, I'm sure thats what I just said.

Also I'd like to point out that no one here said his previous work sucked because of what hes been accused of. Nor did I suggest that they did. Thats a presumption you made and then slated me for. This thread and the people in it arent the only people to have this same discussion, you know? "This" Michael Jackson debate does not mean the MB Michael Jackson debate.

yes.
his reputation as a man who created a lot of memorable music in his lifetime still stands... his last release not so much, and his future releases will determine whether or not he is capable of making "memorable" music again.
oh no? why did you say this then...Just going by what you said... perhaps I misunderstood?I guess.

How can you assume his guilty? the same thing applies... I BELIVE his innocent based on exactly following the trial. There was no evidence to prove that he did do what he was accused of doing BUT like you said nobody knows.