Re: Micheal Jackson - innocent?
OhPinchy said:
Clubman why oh why do you feel the need to lecture almost everyone that posts an opinion that differs to yours?
I'm not lecturing anybody - I'm merely contributing my opinion to the discussion.
It has become truly predictable and I firmly believe that your overbearing comments are directly related to the sharp drop in the number of users in the non-financial sections of AAM.
You're entitled to your opinion but I would be interested if you could back that claim up and maybe provide other examples of where people objected to me expressing my opinions. I must check the site stats again but I'm pretty sure that there has
not been any reduction in the amount of activity on the site lately in spite of what you claim.
Can you explain how my allegedly overbearing comments here in a forum called
Letting Off Steam designed for the discussion of current affairs and other off topic non financial subjects is supposedly scaring people out of the core financial forums?
I was discussing this with some friends recently and all agree that their interest in AAM has waned as they know that if they post something that you perceive as controversial in any way you will pop up to tell them off soon after.
It's a discussion forum. Get over it!
In this particular case just because a man is found not guilty in a court of law does not mean that he is an innocent man.
Er - can you explain that please!?
The original poster may well hold the belief that MJ is guilty of molesting some children, maybe even the children involved in this case and that the prosecution are to blame for the innocent verdict due to their mistake in making the charges too specific. MJ is innocent of these particular charges but the poster is well entitled to feel that he may well still be a child molestor.
I'm sure that
fobs can spreak for him/herself. For what it's worth I never suggested that
fobs was accusing
MJ of molesting any children.
Judge Curtin got off the hook on a technicality and somehow Haughey has avoided prosecution - I think that both of these men are guilty of different crimes and am entitled to feel that.
At the risk of being accused of lecturing you, you might want to be careful what you say about matters that are still ongoing and not fully resolved. To state that somebody got off on a technicality in such a sensitive case could be dodgy for you and
AAM as a whole.
Maybe if you stuck to airing your views as opposed to admonishing others for theirs people would feel less intimidated about posting here.
Where exactly did I admonish or intimidate anybody?
It's a little unfortunate that you don't seem to like my style or contributions or assume that these have scared some people off or impacted the activity on the site but this will not prevent me from continuing to participate in discussions as I see fit. In fact you seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about me for some reason but that's not my problem. To be honest I think that you underestimate the ability of others to engage in discussion (with me and others) and, where they disagree with me, to rebut my opinions. In doing so I think that you are crediting me with more influence on the site that I can reasonably lay claim to. I think that it's very noble of you to assume the mantle of spokesperson for all those who are allegedly too scared of me to contribute to
AAM any more. However, if you really want to discuss me or my overall contribution to the site (good, bad, ugly and indifferent) then feel free to open a new thread on this rather than us hijacking this one.
Cheers!