|
Post by jaywonder on Dec 31, 2017 21:22:41 GMT
Also, her posts are hard to even want to read. Not just because of the content, but because there is no actual cohesion to the posts. It's one paragraph of going off on a tangent, then another paragraph of going off on a tangent about something else. The posts are so needlessly long winded that all I can do is give them a quick browse and then just not bother to browse any further. Which is ironic considering she accused AlwaysThere of going in 100 different directions as a tactic when he posted lol
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Dec 31, 2017 21:30:15 GMT
There's no objectiveness to her either. The whole 'who am I going to believe MJ and Lisa Marie or a detective'. Lol, the prosecution lied constantly. Sneddon told Maureen Orth for Vanity Fair in 1995 this regarding the alarm on MJ's hallway and bedroom: Fast forward to 2005 and all of a sudden the sophisticated alarm he described didn't alert MJ to the presence of Star Arvizo entering his room and witnessing him molest Gavin. Also lol at the floor being wired. He also told Maureen Orth regarding the strip search and MJ denying markings: 'Regarding the markings'. Yet in his 2005 motion there was 'one dark marking'. P.S. LOL at Sneddon 'was upset enough after watching Sawyer's interview to speak to me on the record'. He'd happily speak to any media source about anything. Also fellow prosecutor Ron Zonen tells a bare faced lie when he says Gavin looked like Jordan in a bid to prove MJ has a 'type' if you will. Jordan: ![](https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/pri_46116315.jpg?w=620&h=699&crop=1) Gavin: ![](http://dianedimond.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/GavinasaKidwithMom.jpg) Wow, they could be brothers. /s --- Edit: Here is the prosecution lying to children while interviewing them: On Corey Feldman. The same Corey Feldman who denied he was abused:
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 1, 2018 4:53:14 GMT
People try to be civil. People try to be respectful, but then she turns and goes on the attack because they don't agree with her.
And people call Michael Jackson fans weird....
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 1, 2018 5:23:08 GMT
It is very much telling how easily she gives a pass to the Chandlers on settling ("they got what they wanted") as if it is normal THAT is what a sexually abused child's parents want: money instead of putting the perpetrator in jail. And it wasn't even an "either/or" choice. They could have taken the money AND put MJ in jail. That they were publicity-shy is nothing but a lie, considering their efforts to put out a book right after the settlement, Ray's touring of the media (Evan only could not do it because of the settlement). That they were shy of court is nothing but another lie, considering they would not have been shy of a civil court (only a criminal) and then Evan was not shy to sue MJ again (for money, again) in 1996.
The argument that they had MJ's career destroyed and that was enough for them is one of her most ridiculous arguments yet. Does she understand what the hell child molestation is or is this just all entertainment for her? A child molester won't stop, it is a progressive condition. If someone molests your child you don't only want revenge for your child but you will be very motivated to stop the guy so that he will never be able to hurt other children. To represent the Chandler's behavior as something normal, something that the parents of many abuse victims would do is just laughable. No. Parents of real abuse victims would go lengths to put the guy in jail. In this case the prosecution was hell-bent on going on with the case, the Chandlers had all the support of authorities, it was not a prosecution biased for a celeberity and reluctant to properly investigate him - it was the other way around, a prosecution heavily biased and prejudiced AGAINST the celebrity and all supportive of the alleged victim. The Chandlers had the possibility of a criminal case served on a silver plate. They refused. That they "got what they wanted" is no good argument for them, considering what they wanted was money and ONLY money.
And MJ's career wasn't actually destroyed either. It might have taken a blow, but he continued to produce #1 records, so I would not call that desctruction.
Yet, with MJ's reasons to settle she continues to erect strawman arguments. While MJ's stress was certainly one of the reasons for him to settle, it was not the ONLY reason. The main reason was the thing with the criminal vs. civil lawsuit as explained a million times, but she keeps on ignoring it (and either deliberately or unintentionally obtuse - but she doesn't seem to understand the difference between a civil and a criminal case).
And you know, haters are the most ridiculous with the "anyone not guilty would have fought for his reputation tooth and nail" argument when they turn around and refuse to accept, for example, the result of the 2005 trial. That shows right there that they give lip service to it all that had MJ gone on with the Chandler case and won on all platform then his reputation would have been saved. No. Once you are just accused of such a crime your reputation is over. Even if you win in Court (like MJ did in 2005) many people will continue to believe that you did what you were accused of - just like you saw in 2005 in the post-trial polls. Having a slam-dunk victory in Court did nothing for MJ's reputation. It would not have been any different in 1994. Once you are accused it is over with this type of allegation, the stigma is always there. Whether you settle or you go to court and win.
Or see MJ's lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez. It was a total victory, but did the media care when they continued to use stories from Gutierrez and they continued to work with him as an "MJ expert"? No. So much about what a court victory can do in terms of public perception. Very little if there is constant media propaganda against you.
In 2005 much of the media bitterly went on about the "celebrity justice" nonsense instead of giving a fair representation to their audience about what actually wend down in court. What makes anyone think it would have been any different in 1994?
And I think AlawysThere is actually spot on: she is a narcisstic personality. She doesn't appreciate being called a narsissist but she is extremely condescending to others. (She keeps reminding me of the Queen Bee of haters in style and narcissism. I don't think it is her, there are some differences too, but the narcissistic language is very similar.)
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Jan 1, 2018 6:48:07 GMT
She wants to believe Michael was guilty no matter what, even if what she believes is completely refutable and flat out wrong. I've never lurked on "MJfacts", I heard about her posting there and she's supposedly being blasted for continuing to be a fan but she doesn't despite believing he was guilty, unless she wants to "play for both crowds to troll the fans or she genuinely doesn't care to be criticized but she's the most revolting "fan" I've ever emcountered.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 1, 2018 7:12:57 GMT
It is very much telling how easily she gives a pass to the Chandlers on settling ("they got what they wanted") as if it is normal THAT is what a sexually abused child's parents want: money instead of putting the perpetrator in jail. And it wasn't even an "either/or" choice. They could have taken the money AND put MJ in jail. That they were publicity-shy is nothing but a lie, considering their efforts to put out a book right after the settlement, Ray's touring of the media (Evan only could not do it because of the settlement). That they were shy of court is nothing but another lie, considering they would not have been shy of a civil court (only a criminal) and then Evan was not shy to sue MJ again (for money, again) in 1996. The argument that they had MJ's career destroyed and that was enough for them is one of her most ridiculous arguments yet. Does she understand what the hell child molestation is or is this just all entertainment for her? A child molester won't stop, it is a progressive condition. If someone molests your child you don't only want revenge for your child but you will be very motivated to stop the guy so that he will never be able to hurt other children. To represent the Chandler's behavior as something normal, something that the parents of many abuse victims would do is just laughable. No. Parents of real abuse victims would go lengths to put the guy in jail. In this case the prosecution was hell-bent on going on with the case, the Chandlers had all the support of authorities, it was not a prosecution biased for a celeberity and reluctant to properly investigate him - it was the other way around, a prosecution heavily biased and prejudiced AGAINST the celebrity and all supportive of the alleged victim. The Chandlers had the possibility of a criminal case served on a silver plate. They refused. That they "got what they wanted" is no good argument for them, considering what they wanted was money and ONLY money. And MJ's career wasn't actually destroyed either. It might have taken a blow, but he continued to produce #1 records, so I would not call that desctruction. Yet, with MJ's reasons to settle she continues to erect strawman arguments. While MJ's stress was certainly one of the reasons for him to settle, it was not the ONLY reason. The main reason was the thing with the criminal vs. civil lawsuit as explained a million times, but she keeps on ignoring it (and either deliberately or unintentionally obtuse - but she doesn't seem to understand the difference between a civil and a criminal case). And you know, haters are the most ridiculous with the "anyone not guilty would have fought for his reputation tooth and nail" argument when they turn around and refuse to accept, for example, the result of the 2005 trial. That shows right there that they give lip service to it all that had MJ gone on with the Chandler case and won on all platform then his reputation would have been saved. No. Once you are just accused of such a crime your reputation is over. Even if you win in Court (like MJ did in 2005) many people will continue to believe that you did what you were accused of - just like you saw in 2005 in the post-trial polls. Having a slam-dunk victory in Court did nothing for MJ's reputation. It would not have been any different in 1994. Once you are accused it is over with this type of allegation, the stigma is always there. Whether you settle or you go to court and win. Or see MJ's lawsuit against Victor Gutierrez. It was a total victory, but did the media care when they continued to use stories from Gutierrez and they continued to work with him as an "MJ expert"? No. So much about what a court victory can do in terms of public perception. Very little if there is constant media propaganda against you. In 2005 much of the media bitterly went on about the "celebrity justice" nonsense instead of giving a fair representation to their audience about what actually wend down in court. What makes anyone think it would have been any different in 1994? And I think AlawysThere is actually spot on: she is a narcisstic personality. She doesn't appreciate being called a narsissist but she is extremely condescending to others. (She keeps reminding me of the Queen Bee of haters in style and narcissism. I don't think it is her, there are some differences too, but the narcissistic language is very similar.)
OMG yes I absolutely agree. When people were being respectful and civil to her, she'd act like they were attacking her and when they'd ask simple questions, she'd try to turn it around to accuse others. I was respectful and even tried to be nice since she and I first interacted back in September but EVERY SINGLE TIME, she'd take what I say, either twist to use to try to belittle what I said, or completely pull something out of the blue. One of these days I'm gonna be a jerk and do screenshots of those back and forths because it got to the point where I started thinking "Okay, I'm not being a jerk. She's doing it on purpose."
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 1, 2018 8:57:14 GMT
She even private messaged me asking for my real name, my usernames on other forums so she could read what I said elsewhere. I was CREEPED OUT Wow, that's more of Deseree vibes right there. She too had the habit of trying to find out the private, real life details of MJ fans. She also harrassed them in e-mail. David Edwards of Vindicate MJ once shared e-mails that she had sent to him (I think he shared them on VMJ as well, but I still have them in my e-mail account). If anyone ever had any doubts about that woman's mental state, those e-mails leave no doubt: seriously narcisstic and even psychopathic. ETA: Oh yes, he shared those mails on VMJ, so I can post it here too. (She calls David "Blaine" after a gay character on Living Color - obviously suggesting, as a slur, that he is gay.) These are not the full e-mails, she keeps going on and on and on in a narcissisitc "I am smarter than all of you stupid fans" tirade, but you already get the idea of the serious psychosis this person has. What kind of child abuse victim's advocate goes on gleefully about how she imagines an alleged perpetrator penetrated an alleged victim and how the alleged victim enjoyed it? Full e-mails here: michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-blog-wars/And Dani actually reminds me of the other D in many ways. Maybe not quite as extrem as Desiree. Although Desiree can also sound not extreme and fairly "rational" to someone who is clueless about these cases, when she wants to. She doesn't always give herself away as this person with serious psychological issues, but when you know her history it is clear. Other haters have other serious psychotic behavior. Mental issues seem to be common in their community.
|
|
|
Post by dancingmjsdream on Jan 1, 2018 9:13:56 GMT
They sure like to fantasize about it, god I feel sick now 😓
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 1, 2018 9:18:25 GMT
Yes, it is sickening. But people need to realize what kind of people run MJFacts and the hater community.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 1, 2018 11:09:30 GMT
I can't see myself focusing that much on someone I think is a evil person. You don't see me making a website about Taylor Swift! lol
|
|
Huey
Wondering Who
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Celebrating life !
Posts: 65
|
Post by Huey on Jan 1, 2018 11:23:33 GMT
She even private messaged me asking for my real name, my usernames on other forums so she could read what I said elsewhere. I was CREEPED OUT Wow, that's more of Deseree vibes right there. She too had the habit of trying to find out the private, real life details of MJ fans. She also harrassed them in e-mail. David Edwards of Vindicate MJ once shared e-mails that she had sent to him (I think he shared them on VMJ as well, but I still have them in my e-mail account). If anyone ever had any doubts about that woman's mental state, those e-mails leave no doubt: seriously narcisstic and even psychopathic. ETA: Oh yes, he shared those mails on VMJ, so I can post it here too. (She calls David "Blaine" after a gay character on Living Color - obviously suggesting, as a slur, that he is gay.) These are not the full e-mails, she keeps going on and on and on in a narcissisitc "I am smarter than all of you stupid fans" tirade, but you already get the idea of the serious psychosis this person has. What kind of child abuse victim's advocate goes on gleefully about how she imagines an alleged perpetrator penetrated an alleged victim and how the alleged victim enjoyed it? Full e-mails here: michaeljacksonvindication2.wordpress.com/2015/04/08/the-blog-wars/And Dani actually reminds me of the other D in many ways. Maybe not quite as extrem as Desiree. Although Desiree can also sound not extreme and fairly "rational" to someone who is clueless about these cases, when she wants to. She doesn't always give herself away as this person with serious psychological issues, but when you know her history it is clear. Other haters have other serious psychotic behavior. Mental issues seem to be common in their community. Wow. Just wow ! I already knew something was wrong with Dani. But this kind of behavior is an all other level of f**ck**y. I am not so fond of using that word (I think people use that word way too much and too wrongly), but what Dani has done/is doing is something a psychopath would have done. Faking concern/disgust about something heinous, but fantasizing about it in reality. She scares and disgusts me 🤢.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 1, 2018 11:50:22 GMT
Wow. Just wow ! I already knew something was wrong with Dani. But this kind of behavior is an all other level of f**ck**y. I am not so fond of using that word (I think people use that word way too much and too wrongly), but what Dani has done/is doing is something a psychopath would have done. Faking concern/disgust about something heinous, but fantasizing about it in reality. She scares and disgusts me 🤢. To be clear, the e-mails are not from Dani. They are from one of the main haters running MJ facts. She is called Desiree. She also used to run a hater blog with the very narcissistic title "Desiree Speaks So Listen", but I think that is now defunct (I am not sure though). Her pet topics were how MJ was gay and also a pedophile - as if the two correlate. For example, she wrote blog posts supporting Jason Pfeiffer's gay claims - even though Jason Pfeiffer is a big, hairy man, not one bit resembling a young boy. So I don't know how in her mind the two things are correlated. I think she simply loved to get the rise out of MJ fans so she posted anything that she hoped would rile up fans. Then she teamed up with MJFacts. Why I mentioned her is because I see a lot of similar tendencies with Dani. New, post-death MJ "fan" - or so she claims. Desiree started out as one as well, and she initially had some comments in comment sections defending MJ against the allegations. Then she realized that her narcissistic needs get more fed if she stands on the other side - ie. claims to have "seen the light" and become a hater. The reasons she has given over time about what made her turn are ridiculous which would not actually turn any rational thinking person. For example, on VMJ she once gave the reason what made her "see the light" is some tabloid story about MJ supposedly taking medication to suppress his lust for young boys. It was a ridiculous story, no rational person would be turned by such unsupported, unproven tabloid claims. And as I understand she gave other reasons elsewhere. So I think her real reason is simply that she realized she could get more attention if she was a hater and she could also have more fun by riling up fans etc. Just where your usual Internet trolls and bullies get their kick from. And I think this is similar with Dani. And also her condescending attitude towards other fans. I see a lot of echoes of Desiree in her.
|
|
|
Post by jaywonder on Jan 3, 2018 3:47:14 GMT
These are a small handful of back and forths she and I had. I don't know if I come off as a jerk but I'd like to think I was completely civil and even nice in these disputes i.imgur.com/jU16NNQ.pngi.imgur.com/evUbvch.pngi.imgur.com/hbySYQJ.pngi.imgur.com/KNG5Fo9.pngI've been accused by other fans of being a "know it all" so I kept that in mind every time I engaged with her. (BTW if you wondering how I had so much time to do those screenshots....it's my day off LOL) I'm glad ggbbffbb4455445544 became member here and because they had a different viewpoint, Dani seemed to make it her mission to bully her. Pretty narcisstic
|
|
|
Post by Thriller on Jan 3, 2018 8:40:54 GMT
Deary me does she go on.
I don't know the full context of the conversation, but saying Quincy should have gotten five times the amount he did in the recent trial is ridiculous. What on earth is 'five times' more based on? I'm figuring it's because she thinks Quincy played a gigantic role in the albums, but that's not how things work.
Also, lol, at when Jay asks for a source, and she can't give it, she turns it around and claims Jay won't listen to complaints from the brothers.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Jan 3, 2018 10:34:52 GMT
You were absolutely civil. She on the other hand has a condescending attitude all the time and it's easy to spot what she is doing there, when she is caught in lies or being wrong she shifts the discussion to something else. For example, when you pointed out to her that Quincy never claimed that it was MJ who did not pay him (she is trying hard to make it MJ's fault, which again just showcases her agenda that it is all about trashing MJ to her) - you bring quotes from Quincy's own lawyer, then she shifts to that "but MJ didn't pay a lot of people". Maybe he didn't pay other people but it is not what your point was about. The point was about Quincy's case. She is just trying to change direction because she is being proven wrong about Quincy's case, but instead of just admitting it she tries to shift the conversation.
When asked for a source she acts offended as if you have attacked her when you didn't. (And I guess she never provided that source ever since. LOL.)
She has all the trademarks of a narcissist with this "I am better than stans" attitude that she always goes out of her way to emphasize. Being better than stans simply means to her believing crap about MJ and going on about his "dark side". Or even making up crap about him.
And what is her actual point about Ebony/Jet vs. other mainstream publications? That somehow the latter are more trustworthy because they cover "more serious subjects" such as international politics? Does she realize that a paper can be trustworthy about one thing but untrustworthy about another? For example, I don't care how much international politics The Guardian covers when they quote The Sun or the Mirror as a source of MJ stories in their celebrity columns then I won't take that any more seriously than a tabloid. After all a tabloid is their source. And it is not the same journalist writing the whole paper. Celebrity columns aren't usually written by the most highly regarded journalists in any paper. Just because you have a good team on politics, economics and other serious subjects, you won't necessarily have a great celebrity gossip team too. Those are usually written by very different journalists.
And I don't care which paper claims a thing when it is provably false then it is provably false - even if it is in the New York Times.
|
|