Fuck Peter king!

[Lancemc]

Yeah I called him a troll mockingly, in response to Gabriel's emotional and irrational reaction to calling Slapnutz a troll simply for giving his opinion.

Well I think you either need more winky faces or more irrational exaggeration in your parody.

Yes, that's what I'd prescribe.

 

[corianderstem]

Hug it out, bitches.








I said, HUG IT OUT!

 

[BoMac]

Well I think you either need more winky faces or more irrational exaggeration in your parody.

Yes, that's what I'd prescribe.

Duly noted.




By the way, I thought my use of his full username, rather than just calling him Peef or whatever, was a dead giveaway.

 

[Lancemc]

Hug it out, bitches.








I said, HUG IT OUT!

Spoiler

 

[impy13]

"Hey, guys."

 

[gvox]

Yeah I called him a troll mockingly, in response to Gabriel's emotional and irrational reaction to calling Slapnutz a troll simply for giving his opinion.

Uh, dude, you know my emotional and irrational responses are real doozies when I'm ready. I'm leaving them out of this thread. The joke was tasteless and the follow up to it got personal. That's not an opinion, that's baiting for a nasty response in return.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Was actually going to say this, but you beat me to it. Plus Slappy had a nice point with the butcher thing.

Besides, the guy's music wasn't that good anyway.

If Slappy's Butcher's delicious meats touched us all in the same way they did slappy (that really wasnt meant to sound that way), then I'm sure we would all have a candle lit vigil for him. As it stands, MJs music has touched far more people and thus, the media coverage/outpouring of emotions. Doesnt make the butchers death any less significant in the grand scheme of things, he just wasnt as well known by as many people.

 

[impy13]

I think MJ's meats touched enough to warrant the same response, if you get my double meaning.

 

[Lancemc]

There's way too much "slappy" "meat" and "Michael Jackson" going on in the same posts here.

Spoiler

 

[BoMac]

Uh, dude, you know my emotional and irrational responses are real doozies when I'm ready. I'm leaving them out of this thread. The joke was tasteless and the follow up to it got personal. That's not an opinion, that's baiting for a nasty response in return.

How did it get personal, exactly? Did he attack you personally? Did he, because I cannot, for the life of me, find out where he attacked you personally.

 

[Slapnutz]

If Slappy's Butcher's delicious meats touched us all in the same way they did slappy (that really wasnt meant to sound that way), then I'm sure we would all have a candle lit vigil for him. As it stands, MJs music has touched far more people and thus, the media coverage/outpouring of emotions. Doesnt make the butchers death any less significant in the grand scheme of things, he just wasnt as well known by as many people.

Thanks, Jive. I'm sure my dead butcher would be touched by this. I can still taste his red meat like it was yesterday.

 

[Jive Turkey]

Spoiler

hahahahahahaha clever monkey

 

[Jive Turkey]

I think MJ's meats touched enough to warrant the same response, if you get my double meaning.

i knew i shouldve edited that

 

[gvox]

How did it get personal, exactly? Did he attack you personally? Did he, because I cannot, for the life of me, find out where he attacked you personally.

You should probably let this go. If you don't agree with me, it won't change my respect for you or make me change my view that he is attempting to belittle and bait people who respect MJ for more than just the music.

 

[phillyfan26]

Still can't get past the books of nude child photos. Pretty hard to reconcile that with wanting to be in the same bed with them.

And that's factual evidence.

Bingo. Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid can piece these two pieces of evidence and "ridiculously high priced attorneys employed by a famous person" together to find the answer.

 

[Sicy]

I'm going to close this thread if it continues like this. I shouldn't have even left it open in the first place.

gvox why dont you go back to the other thread. You say you're going to 'stop feeding the trolls' yet you continue to respond.

 

[impy13]

It's always all about you, gvox.

 

[Lancemc]

But where's the EVIDENCE Peef? I need MJ's slappy meats in my own hands before any of this can begin to be relevant!

 

[gvox]

Bingo. Anyone not drinking the Kool-Aid can piece these two pieces of evidence and "ridiculously high priced attorneys employed by a famous person" together to find the answer.

Really? The entire jury was drinking the kool aid? The prosecutor was drinking the kool aid? You're showing an incredible lack of grasp of the actual evidence that was heard. Kindof surprising me, actually. Maybe you should read up a bit more.

 

[BoMac]

You should probably let this go. If you don't agree with me, it won't change my respect for you or make me change my view that he is attempting to belittle and bait people who respect MJ for more than just the music.

Well, that's the thing. Michael Jackson is a very polarizing figure, so there always will be detractors no matter what. And I think those of us that enjoy his music and not the person behind the music are entitled to our opinion.

Why do you feel the need to try to defend Michael at every turn? You loved him? That's great. But there are those that don't, for a variety of reasons, and you should be the one letting it go.

And you still haven't answered my question.

 

[phillyfan26]

Really? The entire jury was drinking the kool aid? The prosecutor was drinking the kool aid? You're showing an incredible lack of grasp of the actual evidence that was heard. Kindof surprising me, actually. Maybe you should read up a bit more.

1. Have you ever heard of OJ Simpson?

2. The prosecutor? What?

3. I'm well read on the issues of the criminal justice system, and I have read up on both Jackson trials before, more the 2005 one than the 1993 one.

 

[gvox]

I'm going to close this thread if it continues like this. I shouldn't have even left it open in the first place.

gvox why dont you go back to the other thread. You say you're going to 'stop feeding the trolls' yet you continue to respond.

I'm not responding to the person who I felt was baiting. The second I feel like others are baiting me I will cease to respond to them also.

At the same time, I deliberately left these types of debates out of the other thread, out of respect for what the thread was. But I've just as much right as the next person to challenge false or misleading statements.

If that causes you to feel as if the thread needs to be closed, so be it.

It's always all about you, gvox.

You're right. Keep smiling

 

[Jive Turkey]

I'm going to close this thread if it continues like this. I shouldn't have even left it open in the first place.

To be honest, I wouldnt mind having an actual discussion about some of these things if people can be mature about it

 

[gvox]

1. Have you ever heard of OJ Simpson?

2. The prosecutor? What?

3. I'm well read on the issues of the criminal justice system, and I have read up on both Jackson trials before, more the 2005 one than the 1993 one.

1. Irrelevant. Not everyone acquitted is now secretly guilty because of OJ. Going there, however, it is interesting to note that he was found responsible in a civil trial. He was guilty.

2. Yes, the prosecutor. Read up on what the charges were.

3. You're showing a glaring lack of perception as to the credibility of the accusers and you're making a judgement call as if you're smarter than the entire jury and the people who were actually in the court room. That leads me to believe you haven't heard everything, or you are willfully ignoring parts that don't fit your belief.

 

[deep]

1. Have you ever heard of OJ Simpson?

2. The prosecutor? What?

3. I'm well read on the issues of the criminal justice system, and I have read up on both Jackson trials before, more the 2005 one than the 1993 one.

if you understand how the criminal justice systems works
then you should agree the O J jury reached the correct verdict based on the evidence and testimony presented.

 

[Sicy]

To be honest, I wouldnt mind having an actual discussion about some of these things if people can be mature about it

It would be fine if people could have a mature discussion about it. But clearly some people cant. If its not personal attacks being made towards other members, its the consistent immature 'jokes' that seem to always pollute threads like this.

 

[phillyfan26]

Fuck this.

1. Irrelevant. Not everyone acquitted is now secretly guilty because of OJ. Going there, however, it is interesting to note that he was found responsible in a civil trial. He was guilty.

2. Yes, the prosecutor. Read up on what the charges were.

3. You're showing a glaring lack of perception as to the credibility of the accusers and you're making a judgement call as if you're smarter than the entire jury and the people who were actually in the court room. That leads me to believe you haven't heard everything, or you are willfully ignoring parts that don't fit your belief.

Riiiiiight. So if people disagree with you, they're either uneducated or ignoring things! Gotcha! That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your open-mindedness on the issue.

 

[phillyfan26]

if you understand how the criminal justice systems works
then you should agree the O J jury reached the correct verdict based on the evidence and testimony presented.

I understand that the verdicts do not always match the reality, for a variety of reasons, and that was my point in bringing up OJ.

 

[Lancemc]

if you understand how the criminal justice systems works
then you should agree the O J jury reached the correct verdict based on the evidence and testimony presented.



tell us about the trial in 1993.

American criminal justice system... speaking of spin...

 

[impy13]

Knock it off, Peef.