You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Michael Jackson: Agree with the Verdict?

Michael Jackson: Agree with the Verdict?

Yes49%[ 27 ]
No51%[ 28 ]

Total Votes : 55

Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:49am

Post 1 of 47

wdy

Force: 1700 | Joined: 30th Dec 2002 | Posts: 1258

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member



Well today was the announcement of the verdict.... I was actually very surprised. I was pretty sure he wouldn't be guilty for all the charges although... "Not Guilty" for all of them. Apprently there just wasn't enough evidence. I really think the media and what others say about michael really makes him sound that much worse. But I must say he does "love" children and he seems to some what close... What all your thoughts? Everyone's entitled to their own opinion... participate in the discussion if your willing to accept others opinions.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:56am

Post 2 of 47

The Artur

Force: 563 | Joined: 21st Aug 2004 | Posts: 517

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I new from the start he was innocent.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:58am

Post 3 of 47

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

He is innocent of all the charges. It was pretty obvious that it was the true result if you look at all the evidence or followed the case.

One things for sure. He isn't as 'Bad' as we thought, you know it...
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 1:20am

Post 4 of 47

jstow222

Force: 970 | Joined: 28th Oct 2002 | Posts: 1146

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Unless we have been in the courtroom we really can't agree or disagree. I am however, glad that he was found to be innocent. I dig some of his music and now we know the children are safe. Hopefully he will learn that his childlike lifestyle isn't the best way to go about things and perhaps he will opt for a more mature image now.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 1:40am

Post 5 of 47

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Here's my opinion: I think he did it - if not to this kid, then to others. With that said, I'm not surprised that he was acquitted. There just wasn't enough evidence to convict him and this case should have never gone to trial. The main witnesses in the prosecution's case were the kid and his mom, and a simple background check on the mom would have shown the prosecutors that no one would ever believe anything she said - she's way too shady. I especially liked how she accused George Lopez of swiping $300 from the kid, after he helped the kid out with money and comedy benefits, etc. That was classy. eek

So yeah - I think he's guilty, but he wasn't proven guilty. And now for the civil suit...


At the moment, the only thing that's been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that his well of hits has dried up. This thing never would have gone to trial if he was still putting out music people liked.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 2:29am

Post 6 of 47

er-no

Force: 9531 | Joined: 24th Sep 2002 | Posts: 3964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

steeb69 wrote:


At the moment, the only thing that's been proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that his well of hits has dried up. This thing never would have gone to trial if he was still putting out music people liked.
He has the most sold album in the world, which still continues to sell by the thousands upon thousands. Not exactly 'dried up'. His last album sold six million - no massive feat for him, but not exactly appauling.

I imagine if a good PR team get behind him now, he could easily reignite himself as the King of Pop.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 3:05am

Post 7 of 47

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

can you add an option - "I don't really give a flying f*** because its none of my business?"

If not, then at least add a, "I hate how hollywood can get away with anything" button because come on, this is just ridiculous the amount of coverage this has gotten.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 3:16am

Post 8 of 47

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

er-no wrote:

He has the most sold album in the world, which still continues to sell by the thousands upon thousands. Not exactly 'dried up'. His last album sold six million - no massive feat for him, but not exactly appauling.
Hey, I'm not saying he didn't put out great music in the past. I own several of his albums (heh, I actually remember owning an LP of Thriller when I was a little kid) and used to be a pretty big fan of his. I just don't think his music today is anywhere near what it was in his heyday. As for his last album selling six million copies - correct me if I'm wrong, but that was his greatest hits album, called Number Ones, right? That's six million copies of old hits that people love. I'm hard-pressed to come up with a decent song of his since his Dangerous album. I'm sure many will argue that there were great songs on History or on later releases, but I wasn't a huge fan.

I do agree that a good PR team could easily turn this around. There are plenty of people willing to believe he's innocent and give him another shot. Hell, OJ's dating one blonde Nicole Simpson-lookalike after the other. People (including a few women I used to work with) still get their picture taken with Mike Tyson (and he was actually convicted!) People love celebrities enough to forgive an awful lot.

Meanwhile, on a remote island in the South Pacific, Michael Jackson strokes his llama and cackles wildly...

biggrin
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 3:47am

Post 9 of 47

webhog421

Force: 403 | Joined: 27th Jul 2003 | Posts: 142

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Ok I realized how messed up my post here was. Ill just say I'm glad he got aquitted. I don't feel theres a fair way to try a celebrity!
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 5:17am

Post 10 of 47

The Artur

Force: 563 | Joined: 21st Aug 2004 | Posts: 517

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Im a big fan of MJ since i was 3 years old and got a " Dangerous" casette.
Yeah, i like his newest album to "Invincible", i pretty much like all his music, and im not a big fan of pop.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 7:47am

Post 11 of 47

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

couple of interesting and sometimes correct comments on here. Firstly as we weren't in the courtroom it's impossilble to have a real informed opinion on whether he's guilty or not. I'm not convinced either way. All I know is that anyone that spends time with kids leaves themselves open for accusations of child abuse, it's just a symptum of the lynch mob society we live in these days.

Evman I agree that this has got far too much coverage but thats inevitable with who he is, once a again it's the celebrity culture at work. It's kind of hard to accept that you don't give a flying f*** though if you take the time to post on this thread. It's more safe to say that you disagree with all the covereage, so you do care, you just care about a different aspect of it is all and I agree with you on that whole heartedly but sadly a large number of people don't , i think I'll call it crazy frog syndrome
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 8:40am

Post 12 of 47

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rating: +2

man, I didn't like Michael Jackson before he molested children. That's how hardcore I am.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 9:43am

Post 13 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I say good for him.

I doubt he did what they accused him of - even if he does have oddly close relationships to children, that's not a crime unless there's some actuall abuse going on, and I don't think there ever was.

I hope he manages to sort out his life though.

Arktic.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 10:11am

Post 14 of 47

DPUMA8

Force: 230 | Joined: 1st Dec 2004 | Posts: 181

EffectsLab Lite User

Gold Member

Well I don't know. I voted 'yes' because I feel that the parents should be put on trial. If he was suspected of being a child molester, what parent would decide that it is a good idea for their kids to stay overnight at the Neverland Ranch?
I kind of feel that Mike does molest kids. He doesn't date anyone, male or female. He has a ranch so that kids can visit him on his huge private property.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 10:33am

Post 15 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I disagree with the verdict, simply because I think it gave the wrong message.

He may have fiddled some kiddies, he may have not, but either way - being aquitted of absolutely everything still sends out the dubious message that its tolerable and 'OK' for a grown man to sleep with other people's children in his bed.

Eccentricity is no excuse for exposing children of an impressionable age, to situations which are socially and morally questionnable. As a parent, all of your child's life is surrounded by layer upon layer of social politics - controlling what a child should or shouldn't do, see, learn, or hear. Its there for a reason and of course what better example of the results of questionnable parenthood, than MJ himself.

Its 'in' to blame the parents who sent their kid's to MJ's house, but frankly whilst they are guilty of being deeply naive in their tolerance of MJ's damagingly immature values, they can't be blamed for assuming MJ would have at least had some minders to excercise a degree of responsibility and ethics.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 10:52am

Post 16 of 47

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Xcession you make an interesting point...but also something critical you say in your post does make the opposite point. "He may have fiddled some kiddies, he may have not," thats a very clear point that says therefore he must be aquitted. Reasonable doubt thats how the justice systems works, or at least is supposed to. It would send a much worse message if he was convicted while not proven guilty just because someone wanted to send a message to others that might actually be guilty. I personally am undecided on his guilt so have to accept the verdict as the right one. It just shows how the media can create a situation where someone that enjoys spending time with kids is branded a pedophile, evidence or not. It's true an eye should be kept on him from now on but part of the problem here is that MJ is little more than a child himself in some repsects. Not so many years ago a child sharing a bed with an adult wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in most cases, now it's guilty until proven innocent thanks to media indoctrination. If he's guilty then fine he should go down, but if he's not the "sending a message" at his or anyones expense just because something offends anothers sensibilities is totally wrong
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 11:06am

Post 17 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Yeah, unfortunately there are no laws concerning "messing up children's minds through prolonged exposure to a total nut".

I guess thats the root of my problems with the entire trial - the fact that there was no 11th, lesser charge of "sending deeply confusing signals to children".

Of the charges that he WAS tried on, i'd agree that he was found totally innocent, but my main worry is that since those charges were far more scandalous and serious, the more deep-seated and subtler issue of him behaving how he does around children, has been glossed over and ignored.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 11:15am

Post 18 of 47

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

yeah i understand that point but then what about the mother....possibly bring false allegations and using her child as part of that ? Since he was aquitted surely her role in screwing up at least one of the kids should also be looked at ? It's possilbe that MJ needs help metally for sure but i dont think personally its anything to to with pedophillia in the common sense of it. I personally believe he still sees himself as a child and is trying to get back the childhood he never had because of the disruption brught about be the fame pretty much forced on him by his family. He may do things that in some peoples eyes are questionable, but i have strong doub;ts that there is any malicious motivation behind his actions
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 11:20am

Post 19 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Oh i'm sure there are no malicious intentions - I honestly don't believe he is mentally developed enough to harbour evil intent.

Thats still not the point though. Manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a person. There should be a similar offense for the unintentional warping of impressionable minds.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 11:26am

Post 20 of 47

jotoki

Force: 1855 | Joined: 28th Dec 2001 | Posts: 630

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

you might be right though manslaugher still has to have some violent intent doesn't it, or at least deliberate negligence. Otherwise it would be accidental death
...
isn't there some laws reguarding mental cruelty ?
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:38pm

Post 21 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Xcession wrote:

There should be a similar offense for the unintentional warping of impressionable minds.
But the problem there, Xcession, is that when you kill someone, it's very clear - either they're dead or they're alive. The courts will then argue over wether your actions were intended to cause that outcome (murder) or not (manslaughter).

However, 'warping an impressionable mind' isn't quite so black and white - what would have been regarded as warping a child's mind in terms of, say violence or sex on TV twenty or thirty years ago would probably be considered commonplace now. On top of this, it's nigh on impossible to know how an experience has affected a person - even if you ask them, you don't acctually know if they've been affected, or if they're putting it on for attention etc. And because people have such wildy varied personal values and beliefs anyway, it would be impossible to draw up a standardised definition of what counts as 'warping a mind', let alone the difficulties involved in establishing wether the damage caused was intentional or not.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:44pm

Post 22 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

True. Its vague to say the least, but i don't deny that my hypothetical conviction could stand some tweaking razz
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:45pm

Post 23 of 47

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Arktic wrote:

Xcession wrote:

There should be a similar offense for the unintentional warping of impressionable minds.
But the problem there, Xcession, is that when you kill someone, it's very clear - either they're dead or they're alive.
When you kill someone, they're almost always dead.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:51pm

Post 24 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Ok, ok, when you're accused of killing someone, then razz
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 12:54pm

Post 25 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

When you kill someone, they're almost always dead
So if they're almost always dead, care to divulge in which situations a killed person isn't? razz
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 2:26pm

Post 26 of 47

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Xcession wrote:

When you kill someone, they're almost always dead
So if they're almost always dead, care to divulge in which situations a killed person isn't? razz
When the doctor is mistaken.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 3:43pm

Post 27 of 47

bnahrwold

Force: 200 | Joined: 25th Jan 2003 | Posts: 18

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I say it is really the parents who should be held responsible. What kind of parent would let their kid go to a private ranch with some nut job. There's my two cents.
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 4:04pm

Post 28 of 47

pzgamer825

Force: 140 | Joined: 2nd Jan 2005 | Posts: 194

Windows User

Member

I say the man was guilty as all get out.

But now that he got off, let him go, but make him close his Neverland Ranch for Lost and Wayward Boys.

biggrin

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Michael_Jackson
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 4:50pm

Post 29 of 47

LilCaesars

Force: 480 | Joined: 27th Dec 2004 | Posts: 530

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I hope that he didn't do it, but I think he might have. All I know is Thriller was the best album ever released.
I wish he'd done the moonwalk out of the courthouse. sad
Posted: Tue, 14th Jun 2005, 5:55pm

Post 30 of 47

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

evman101 wrote:

"I hate how hollywood can get away with anything"
Have you noticed how many people have jumped to his defense in this forum? You can't fix a problem in the jusicial system if the populace isn't behind it.

That said, the guy's a freak. I think the accusation of molesting a kid is bit of a serious matter, at least enough so that the quality of his music shouldn't play into it.

And keep in mind this is his second accusation. He may not have sexually molested a kid, but he's not just some big kid with good intentions being demonized by the media. I wouldn't be so quick as to assume all his intentions were pure like many of you have.
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 3:18pm

Post 31 of 47

Chrislad

Force: 50 | Joined: 13th Apr 2002 | Posts: 176

Windows User

Member

I think people are going to believe what they want to believe.
Personally, I think that if two of the best lawyers go head to head, all thats left is the facts to the jury.
I don't even care of he's innocent or guilty, I'd rather worry about 1 third of the world having no clean water to drink than sit and watch closely to see if some idol has been fiddling with kids.
SO much more important issues... wink
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 5:25pm

Post 32 of 47

sidewinder

Force: 4937 | Joined: 5th Aug 2001 | Posts: 2453

FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Do you worry that 1/3rd of the world doesn't have clean water to drink?
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 6:04pm

Post 33 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I often wake in a cold sweat after a recurrent nightmare that somewhere, there is a country which isn't a ........... democracy.
Posted: Wed, 15th Jun 2005, 6:55pm

Post 34 of 47

Remco Gerritsen

Force: 578 | Joined: 4th Mar 2005 | Posts: 517

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I don't think that boy would said all that kind of stuff if it wasn't true. I think that the people not must think that teenagers R stupid, it R the best people on the world (heheheh... sorry razz)

I think he was not guilty on all the charges. But I think there were some things that where truely happend. Well, let's wait on the reaction of the family of that boy...

RRF Productions
Remco Gerritsen
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 12:36pm

Post 35 of 47

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

He was not found "innocent". He was found "not guilty"
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 6:41pm

Post 36 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

And if one is not guilty of the charges put before them, then can rightfully be declared 'innocent' of those charges. This is the way the legal system works.

So - what's your point?
Posted: Fri, 17th Jun 2005, 6:59pm

Post 37 of 47

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Mixed feelings about the verdict - at least he's taking note of the fact that it's not right to sleep with little boys. A lot of blame rests with the parents, either utterly awful parenting or ruthless mercenaries. No one will know for sure though about whether he's innocent or not - he's been declared so by the law though, and treating him like he's not would set a dangerous precedent for other people found "not guilty".
Posted: Sun, 19th Jun 2005, 1:50pm

Post 38 of 47

drspin98

Force: 470 | Joined: 14th May 2005 | Posts: 438

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

From the inteviews I have heard, the jurors said that the state failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That is hardly saying that he is "innocent".
Posted: Sun, 19th Jun 2005, 4:33pm

Post 39 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Then I think you've failed to grasp the basics of the legal system...

Someone is 'innocent' untill they can be proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that they are guilty of the charges brought before them. Hence, as I've said, if they are found 'not guilty', then they are innocent, as nothing has been proved otherwise.
Posted: Sun, 19th Jun 2005, 5:48pm

Post 40 of 47

Bugclimber

Force: 1305 | Joined: 7th Jul 2004 | Posts: 635

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't know. I wasn't there for any of the witnesses, evidence, etc. I think the verdict was correct. Look at what that mother has done in the past. She should be put up on trial for all those lies. But the system isn't perfect. Look at OJ Simpson. He got off... Did MJ do it? The world will never know.
Posted: Sun, 19th Jun 2005, 7:28pm

Post 41 of 47

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

there should be "dont care as it doesn't affect me in anyway whatsoever" option.
Posted: Sun, 19th Jun 2005, 7:31pm

Post 42 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

there should be "dont care as it doesn't affect me in anyway whatsoever" option.
Yeah, there is one - just don't click the thread razz
Posted: Sun, 19th Jun 2005, 7:48pm

Post 43 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

I think drspin98's point is that the law is a fuzzy-edged sword at the best of times.

Although legally - in the eyes of the law, and lawfully - in the eyes of the constitution, and technically - the definition of the dictionary, MJ is "innocent" .... there should be more descriptive sub-states of "innocence".

"Innocent until proven guilty" is there to protect the genuinely innocent from punishment. Unfortunately, it also prevents the un-provably guilty from being punished too. Although we all swear by the innocent until proven guilty line - we are all aware of far more personal, microscopic situations in which you know someone is guilty, but are unable to prove it.

The sad truth is that in some situations, the law itself prevents the guilty from being punished. Similarly it often punishes the innocent. The problem is, however, that while people can be found innocent after or during punishment... criminals rarely provide the opportunity to be found guilty after aquital.
Posted: Mon, 20th Jun 2005, 11:42pm

Post 44 of 47

Buddy

Force: 24 | Joined: 9th Mar 2005 | Posts: 11

Windows User

Member

can we get a big "what the hell was the jury thinking"?

he sleeps with kids

takes bathes with kids

blah blah blah...

i did think at once he was innocent, but there is too much evidence against him.
Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2005, 12:19am

Post 45 of 47

Arktic

Force: 9977 | Joined: 10th Nov 2003 | Posts: 2785

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

there is too much evidence against him
Quite blatantly not, as he was found not guilty through a lack of evidence!
Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2005, 12:51am

Post 46 of 47

Cypher

Force: 3050 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2002 | Posts: 2126

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 4 Pro User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

man, none of you know the truth, neither do i, so lets stop pretending like we do
Posted: Tue, 21st Jun 2005, 8:38am

Post 47 of 47

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Heh. Debate 101

Lesson 1: Qualify all wildly inaccurate statements with foolproof evidence of why you support the statement.