*PLONK*

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:23:46 -0500, "Arf! Arf!"
wrote:
IF WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ASSHOLES, HOW ABOUT GEORGE BUSH!!
Is Michael a ham? I think not.

GOT DRUGS???

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/BN=03058540


http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa.../URL?bn=030585
40&name=DALE,JOHN%20MICHAEL&race=W&vex=UYGPYIXIGBG I

http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/pub/defa...sp/bn=03035679


http://www.hcso.tampa.fl.us/BookPhot...rieveImage&WCE
=F03035679&WCU


Kim W5TIT wrote:

"Jim Hampton" wrote in message
...

Kim,

There is a lot of ongoing coverage of the problems with the Church.
What

I

don't understand is how Michael Jackson keeps having kids over at
Neverland - and he has admitted having them in his bed (which is not a

crime

in itself, but raises a lot of doubt).



Yes, but Jim, don't you think there is a potential for an inordinate
amount
of fanaticism from both sides of the fence on the Michael Jackson
story?
For instance, true or not I can't tell ya, but when they were
interviewing
Jackson on that special back a few months ago, with one of those kids
who
visits him all the time, he was asked about the kids sleeping "with"
him.
Even his initial answers were far too direct for me. Openly stating
that he
always sleeps with kids, etc. BUT, something finally clicked with
Michael
when something was said about the whole thing and he "caught on" to
question
was the interviewer talking about kids being *in bed* with him. The
kid
next to him *and* Michael both stated that they never were in bed
together.
Michael lets the kid up into his bed, and he (Michael) sleeps on the
floor--not much different than having a sleep-over, if you will. Now,
both
of them may be lying through their teeth, I don't know. But all I have
to
go on is what I heard.

Yes, that raises doubt by the way. I am even doubtful. BUT, I don't
think
any of us has the right to indict through having doubt...goodness
imagine if
we did that with everything we doubt? Jackson probably "deserves"
whatever
he gets for living life as he lives; but it's uniquely his choice to
live as
he sees fit. He *does not* uniquely have the right to hurt anyone or
even
to do anything illegal (to cancel out any misery from Larry or others
about
me supporting Michael Jackson raping kids--SIGH), but I don't any of
us
knows for sure whether he has done anything illegal or not.

Also, I see nothing wrong at all with kids being in bed with adults. I
wouldn't like it myself, never even let my own kids in bed with me--but
only
because that was beyond *my* comfort level. I have no problem with
kids and
adults sleeping together. We've become overtly sensitive to the issue.
And, I am speaking from the perspective even of having been raped on
more
than one occasion as a child--so it's not because I "haven't been
there" so
to speak. Been there, done that, threw away the tee-shirt because
who'd
want a souvenir?


Priests are not known for being rich; Michael Jackson is.



I'm not sure why you brought this up.



Yes, problems
were swept under the carpet for a long time as the Church is big, but
the
individual parashes and priests didn't have the wherewithal to keep it
hidden forever.



Hmmmm, not sure I'm grasping the introduction of this train of thought.
Neither has Michael Jackson been able to sweep things under the carpet.
While I've not paid much attention, hasn't there been news stories
about
Jackson and this for the past 3-4 years anyway; and even a court trial
that's already happened once?


I also don't think the individual priests would have kept
their 'secrets' for any length of time had they had the visibility that
Jackson has.



Ah, duh. I could've read that before I made my comment above, but I'll
still leave it in. BUT, would people be so inclined to be as
vociferous on
the topic of the Catholic Church? I think I mean by that, that we jump
on
the bandwagon quicker with the Jackson story because of the reasons I
mentioned above: fanaticism. Love 'im or hate 'im, you know what I
mean?


Speaking of news stories - whatever happened to that pharmacist that

diluted

the cancer drugs down to 1% and got rich doing it? Sure didn't hear
about
that much more, did we? Personally, I'd trust drugs out of Canada more

than

drugs in the USA. Too much leeway and welfare for big business. I
notice
that the drug companies can force the government as to how they buy
drugs.
Let a small company try that LOL. Just my opinion.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA



I wish I could figure out a way to get my prescriptions from Canada. I
won't do things illegally and if there is even the slightest chance
that
it's illegal, I don't want to even try. 'Cause I am with you, I trust
the
drugs coming from there just as much as I do from here--they are all
the
same companies (for the most part). There isn't another "recipe" just
because it's a Canadian drug.

Kim W5TIT