[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 Jackson is probably guilty of worse stuff on a whole host of levels, but asserting some sort of 1984/Brave New World/Stalinist machination to it all is a bit much, IMO.

Why?

Quote:

Anyway, my sources tell me that Head-Fi is currently independent, but the Trilateral Commission/Bilderberg Conference is bidding to take control.

Actually, HeadFi is closely tied to their sources of money. Look at Ray Samuels, Eric of Audigeek, Headphile, etc etc. "Sponsors" more like business partners

It's not something they like to admit, but in some ways HeadFi is a business organization like any other, and yes, there have been "conspiracies" of a sort, with people getting canned for simply voicing their opinion. With people getting canned for just selling a product or offering opinion about another product. etc. There are "heads" of this "business", and if you disagree with the heads, you are gone. If you don't support the goal of the heads (their continued existance, power, and monitary support) you are gone. Or what about the distributers that make shoddy products and rip people off by overcharging them? Some businesses of such nature are in bed with HeadFi. But I guess that's okay with you too. Or didn't you know? Maybe you should do your homework; nothing is as nice and fluffy as you'd apparently like to believe.

 

[james__bean]

I honestly didn't feel like the guy was guilty on this occassion. You just have to ask yourself, what kind of parent would let their kid go to neverland ranch after the 93' accusations surfaced? Then you have this history of a family that likes to sue people and ask celebrities for money. If I was on that jury I probably would have voted not guilty as well. The other cases are an entirely different story though. For someone like Jackson, $20 million probably would not have been a big deal. But it certainly hurt his reputation and ability to sell records. I just question how anyone would be willing to settle for that kind of money if they truly were innocent, or even if they weren't but they could probably win a case.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by james__bean I honestly didn't feel like the guy was guilty on this occassion. You just have to ask yourself, what kind of parent would let their kid go to neverland ranch after the 93' accusations surfaced? Then you have this history of a family that likes to sue people and ask celebrities for money. If I was on that jury I probably would have voted not guilty as well. The other cases are an entirely different story though. For someone like Jackson, $20 million probably would not have been a big deal. But it certainly hurt his reputation and ability to sell records. I just question how anyone would be willing to settle for that kind of money if they truly were innocent, or even if they weren't but they could probably win a case.

Exactly. An innocent man fights to the death. Only a guilty one settles for that much

 

[perplex]

maybe he didnt want the hassle and thought it was worth it

i mean, would you pay $20M or spend 20 years in jail? just kidding...

 

[james__bean]

Quote:

Originally Posted by perplex maybe he didnt want the hassle and thought it was worth it i mean, would you pay $20M or spend 20 years in jail? just kidding...

If the role was reversed and someone was going to pay me $20M for 20 years...

I'd have to think about it

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek Actually, HeadFi is closely tied to their sources of money. Look at Ray Samuels, Eric of Audigeek, Headphile, etc etc. "Sponsors" more like business partners It's not something they like to admit, but in some ways HeadFi is a business organization like any other, and yes, there have been "conspiracies" of a sort, with people getting canned for simply voicing their opinion. With people getting canned for just selling a product or offering opinion about another product. etc. There are "heads" of this "business", and if you disagree with the heads, you are gone. If you don't support the goal of the heads (their continued existance, power, and monitary support) you are gone. Or what about the distributers that make shoddy products and rip people off by overcharging them? Some businesses of such nature are in bed with HeadFi. But I guess that's okay with you too. Or didn't you know? Maybe you should do your homework; nothing is as nice and fluffy as you'd apparently like to believe.

This is a bit OT for the current thread. It is also not the sort of thing that one should discuss. Head-Fi provides a gently-moderated place for decent audio advice, reviews, and general chitchat. That is as far as I am interested as probing into the matter. I doubt it could be as sinister as all that.

As to the real business at hand, I honestly didn't know what to think of the charges. The parents were grifters and the kid was a menace. Even if Jackson did get too close, they weren't the sort of "victims" that a reasonable person would believe.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 This is a bit OT for the current thread. It is also not the sort of thing that one should discuss. Head-Fi provides a gently-moderated place for decent audio advice, reviews, and general chitchat. That is as far as I am interested as probing into the matter. I doubt it could be as sinister as all that.

I agree that it's not exactly prudent for a discussion (i.e. i understand i am skirting the line of what is and isn't allowed), but I don't like how you phrased that... "Something that one should not discuss". So if we feel offense at something, we should silently take it? What ever happened to the idea of Rock N Roll? Stickin' it to The Man.

If I have a problem with something, I make it a point to let people know. I make it a point to be as educated as possible, and be as free as possible. I make it a point to use my intelligence as a weapon against those who try to take my freedom.

Also, as far as "gently-moderated" that is pure fallacy. I don't mean this as an attack! Simply ask rickcr42

He will tell you they are constantly editing, deleting, moving, etc people's posts so as to keep HeadFi nice and fluffy. Like I said to you earlier, what your eyes see is not the truth. You, like most people, are not interested in the truth. You are interested in feeling safe and secure through denial of the truth. There is tons of work going on behind the scenes to make HeadFi look nice, and I would never call it gently moderated. The only way in which that phrase is true is banning, they do not tend to ban lightly here. But, that is becaues if you post anything "bad" it's gone within seconds

Like it never existed. And there is no reason to ban someone for what they never said

Now what were you saying about this not being like 1984?

 

[Distroyed]

Does this mean there's a new opening for Jackson's catamite???

/me books tickets to CA.

 

[PSmith08]

In some of my other online forum experiences, there has been moderation I can only call jackbooted-thuggery. Heavy-handed doesn't describe it. What makes it worse was that the moderators were flagrant and proud. Here, they are quiet and polite. I assume the troublemakers are dispatched in short order. In other words, they moderate the forums. Good, it is their job, you know.

When they start behaving irresponsibly, then I'll speak up. I think that they do a good job and keep a place where emotions can and do run high calm and collected.

 

[TenaciousO]

Some of you seem to be forgetting that the standard is reasonable doubt. This family was simply too sketchy and the evidence was too insufficient to convict Michael Jackson. Maybe some of you personally think that Jackson was guilty, but that's really irrelevant. What matters is whether Jackson was legally guility, and based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution, there was only one verdict that could have been reached: not guilty.

 

[10068]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSmith08 In some of my other online forum experiences, there has been moderation I can only call jackbooted-thuggery. Heavy-handed doesn't describe it. What makes it worse was that the moderators were flagrant and proud. Here, they are quiet and polite. I assume the troublemakers are dispatched in short order. In other words, they moderate the forums. Good, it is their job, you know. When they start behaving irresponsibly, then I'll speak up. I think that they do a good job and keep a place where emotions can and do run high calm and collected.

Yes, things can always be worse, but things can always be better as well. Why settle if you don't have to?

I prefer fighting to the death for an impossible idealism to settling for a pseudo-acceptable realism.

Anyways i'm getting a bit too philosophical and political today, so I think i'm done here

 

[Jahn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TenaciousO Some of you seem to be forgetting that the standard is reasonable doubt. This family was simply too sketchy and the evidence was too insufficient to convict Michael Jackson. Maybe some of you personally think that Jackson was guilty, but that's really irrelevant. What matters is whether Jackson was legally guility, and based on the evidence proffered by the prosecution, there was only one verdict that could have been reached: not guilty.

yes, obviously the DA didn't do his homework and was sloppy- might have been pissed at MJ for getting off the hook before and thus had the wool pulled over the eyes a bit during the trial.

it doesn't mean MJ wasn't guilty tho. like OJ, the DA got a bit too greedy and ended up introducing that damn glove. you had the DNA, why do the glove thing? idiots.

but that's beside the point. the DA was lax enough, and the defense was prepared enough (best money can buy!) where the case presented to the jury introduced enough reasonable doubt. case closed.

 

[acs236]

I'd be more concerned if people had applauded a guilty verdict.

 

[rickcr42]

Quote:

Also, as far as "gently-moderated" that is pure fallacy. I don't mean this as an attack! Simply ask rickcr42 He will tell you they are constantly editing, deleting, moving, etc people's posts so as to keep HeadFi nice and fluffy.

yes I am and it is called making the joint suitable for a wide ranging audience and not just a couple of extremists.
If I was a beat cop and someone was stripping on the sidewalk , using vulgar language on main street in broad daylight I would arrest that person.

If I worked in a resturant and one of the patrons thought it would be cool to have a food fight while spoiling the dinner of others that person would be firmly persueded to leave,and here I edit or delete anything I think may be offensive to others.

For a single person to think they have the right to say and do as they please is a very selfish human who never thinks of others but solely what they want.

Usually this is called being childish until it is an adult doing these things then there are other less savory terms for this type of behavour.Think of me as the cop walking the beat.I may not catch everything and some things I may decide to let slide but do something enough or force me to notice and


WHAMMO !

Incarcerated or at least our Head-Fi version of jail.That is where you are not locked in but locked out as punishment

 

[Distroyed]

Not so much chidlish, rick, but unintelligent. Ie, they lack the ability to recognize the alterity of others, and as a result think that that whatever appropriation they enact is apposite.