Only Adults Can Stop Pedophiles by Diane Dimond - We need to stand against her vicious lies

[qbee]

Enough is enough !!
We need to stand against the Lies of Diane Dimond. We cant let her continue without speaking against it. She seems to have a vendetta. Please leave a comment on this dispicable article by Diane Dimond who once again is attcking Michael Jackson with her vicious lies. Once again trying to compare Michael and his case to that of Sanducky. This woman is evil though and through. Please keep it civil and intelligent for the sake of the MJ Fan community. We want the world to know we are not rabid fans but concerned and intelligent people.

http://www.creators.com/index.php?p...sZXMsc2VjdGlvbj1kb2NzfQ==pz_&md=comments&inst

Only Adults Can Stop Pedophiles
by Diane Dimond


It was the most raw and emotionally brutal court cases I've ever sat through — the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Jerry Sandusky. Eight young men ranging in age from 18 to 28 testifying about their utter loss of innocence at the hands of a serial pedophile who plucked his prey out of the ranks of his own charity. The powerful and often tearful testimony came at us rat-a-tat-tat so that observers felt smacked in between the eyes at the end of every day.

In the end, Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of 48 charges of sexually abusing young boys. I suppose you could call it a victory for the damaged young men who climbed into the witness box and sobbed while, literally, gasping for breath as they told their gut-wrenching stories. But really no one wins. Not even if the victims get a monetary settlement from Penn State University, the institution that first learned of Sandusky's proclivities back in 1998 and still let him roam its campus and locker room showers with his young targets in tow. Talk about enablers!

I began reporting on high-profile suspected pedophiles 19 years ago when I became the first to tell the world that California police had targeted Michael Jackson as a possible molester of boys. I followed the Jackson story for more than a decade, and as I sat in the Sandusky courtroom I marveled at the parallels.

Although a jury found Jackson not guilty on all counts, in my opinion, his behavior and that of Sandusky are classic case studies of how a serial predatory pedophile acts.

Both men were famous — one admired on an international stage, the other within his community and the world of sports. Both men projected an aura of truly caring about children. Jackson outfitted his Neverland Ranch to be the quintessential child magnet, with its full-scale amusement park, zoo and movie theater.

Sandusky, as we learned through testimony, designed his own boy-cave in the basement of his home, with games, a dartboard, pool table, air hockey table, television and water bed. Both men focused on boys from single family homes where beleaguered mothers were grateful to have what they saw as a positive "father figure" for their boys.

When questioned about their constant proximity to other people's young sons, both Jackson and Sandusky professed the world did not understand their actions, that they "truly loved" all children, and they made a point to sprinkle a few girls among the crowd of boys to cover up their secret lust.

And when their actions with children were exposed, both men very publically turned on the very thing they claimed they loved so much — the children — calling them liars, money-grubbers and conniving manipulators out to hurt a great man for some unexplained reason

It was sickening to watch years ago and even more sickening to sit in that courtroom the last couple of weeks and realize the general population still doesn't realize how to spot a pedophile on the prowl.

I get weary wondering how long it will take to convince people that pedophiles are really the very people you think they could never be. They are the most charming, personable, charitable and kid-friendly people you would ever want to meet. They pay their taxes, go to church, often have respectable jobs and cloak themselves in acts of charity. They say they just want to help you raise your child by being a positive influence in their lives.

Remember, pedophiles are on the hunt all the time, and it is their charm that gets them past the parent so that they can then prey on the child. When they get caught, they rely on authorities to look at their "upstanding lives" and compare it to the life of the single parent and troubled kid who is making the allegations against them. Too often detectives have believed the perpetrator's version of events, and they are left alone to violate again.

I don't want to make parents into monsters of suspicion, but the only way to stop pedophiles from targeting children is for grown-ups to learn how to identify them. If the overly friendly person has a "special place" they take kids, if they are always surrounded by one gender of child, if the suspect takes kids home to watch movies (a typical grooming tool is to 'mistakenly' show pornography to a child to gauge their reaction), if the child comes home in an uncharacteristically somber mood or with wet hair or clothes — get suspicious. The warning signs are often there if adults just pay attention.

Parents can educate our children about "good touch/bad touch," but again, these serial predators are so masterful at what they do, your child will already be victimized by the time they realize what kind of touch they've just gotten.

Look, we know the damage childhood sexual abuse causes. Victimized kids grow into angry, troubled adults. So when do we break the cycle? How do we let every child know they must never keep such a secret? We've launched successful campaigns to get people to fasten their seat belts or quit smoking. We set up a nationwide system to make sure terrorists don't board airplanes. So why can't we come up with a cohesive plan to educate people to stamp out predatory pedophiles?

The answer is: We can — if we make it a priority.
Visit Diane Dimond's official website at www.dianedimond.com for investigative reporting, polls and more. To find out more about Diane Dimond and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
http://www.creators.com/index.php?p...sZXMsc2VjdGlvbj1kb2NzfQ==pz_&md=comments&inst

 

[Rhilo]

OMG...someone please make her shut her filthy trap. How dare she attempt to draw parallels between Michael and convicted child molester Sandusky, pass off her opinions as fact and generally hoodwink the uninformed public against Michael. It's time we do something big to stop her. Commenting on the article alone, unfortunately isn't enough to stop her behaviour...we need to do something more :mat:

 

[qbee]

Well if we do it on every article the public will see the outrage against her lies and the true facts being posted. We are armed with the truth and can show up her lies. There isnt much more we can do as she legally has a right to print what she wants. For those interested there will be a twitterthon with fans posting against her adding the hashtag #StopLyingDimond to bring attention to her lies and the outage of many. I wish there was more we could do but we have the facts to stand against her lies. So that everyone who reads her articles sees though her agenda and her lies. The pen is mightier than the Sword.. Check out the replies to her article .

 

[Rhilo]

^Yes, I agree there is not much we can do, and will reply on that article. I've read the responses and love the support for Michael. I'm afraid it won't make her stop though; her hatred and prejudice is so deep-seated that even if presented with facts that refute every single claim of her's, she will continue to believe and promote the lies she chooses to. People like this need a thorough shake-up. Can't someone organise and invite her to a video stream debate? It can be similar to the Q&A on MJJC with Frank Cascio, only this will be a debate where she will be put to test, her lies exposed.

 

[HIStory]

Every time Dimond writes an article mentioning Michael and calling him a pedophile, people in the comment section call her out on her lies and 99% of the comments are negative on her, but this has not stopped her. She will never stop, she's obsessed. Besides she has a vested interest to keep up the myth that Michael was a pedo, since she built her whole career on this lie. Remember she was never an impartial bystander either. She used to pay people (Blanca Francia, bodyguards) to come up with lies about Michael. This is a proven fact. As well as many of her lies, such as the lie that she created together with Victor Gutierrez and for which Michael sued them and also the lie that the prosecution had love letters by Michael written to Gavin.

The moment I saw Dimond will report from the Sandusky case I knew she only does it to somehow drag Michael's name into it. But take note how she never talkes about the true facts of Michael's trial. Instead she uses the typical fallacies: that Michael had Neverland, that he was around children, that he was famous - this according to her above article means that Michael was a pedophile. Ridiculous. And besides she also makes up lies again like "Both men focused on boys from single family homes where beleaguered mothers were grateful to have what they saw as a positive "father figure" for their boys".

Erm, no, Diane. Many of Michael's child friends had a father - actually Jordan Chandler even had two fathers (Evan Chandler and David Schwartz). Frank Cascio, Macaulay Culkin, Damion Stein etc etc. - they all had fathers and it's simply not true that Michael picked out boys from vulnerable, single mom families. Some of his friends were raised by a single mom, but that was not a pattern as Dimond likes to suggest. There were also many who lived in normal families with a father.

And when their actions with children were exposed, both men very publically turned on the very thing they claimed they loved so much — the children — calling them liars, money-grubbers and conniving manipulators out to hurt a great man for some unexplained reason

Nothing was "exposed" in Michael's case besides the fact that his accusers truly were money-grubbers. And in Michael's case their motive wasn't some "unexplained reason". It was very clear that their motive was money - and also some kind of revenge.

Just two quotes from Ray Chandler's book, All That Glitters. It's about when Michael refused to pay them off before they went public:

"Fields and Pellicano already knew Evan was willing to negotiate. Why not pay him off and nip the nightmare in the bud while you've got the opportunity? Especially when you know your man is guilty of sleeping with little boys, at least. Not only do you avoid a civil suit, but also, more important, you buy your way around authorities by removing their star witness. Ten, twenty, thirty million? Money's no object. The deal could be a fait accompli within hours. And if it doesn't work, you can always come out swingin' anyway."

“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world's most famous entertainer, instead of the world's most infamous child molester.”

How would Diane explain this away and how could you NOT call the Chandlers money-grubbers? This is in their own words!

 

[Lucilla]

Every time I read Diamond I have to stop in the middle, count to 10, take a deep breath and continue reading.
This woman is never going to give up. So we have to continue fighting against her lies. I agree that it's probably the only thing we can do now.

 

[Kingofpop4ever3000]

I'm only talking about Michael's case here. But in my opinion, when the Chandlers took that settlement, they lost their right to claim that they wanted "justice". Personally, that tells me they did that whole mess for nothing but money. What sensible reason would any decent parent have to level such serious charges against somebody, whether the accused person is famous or not, and then take the person's money and run instead of bringing the person into court to face the consequences of their alleged actions without a second thought? And if a person is put on trial and found to be innocent, than they should be treated accordingly. It was/still is an unexcusable mockery of the justice system to keep dragging Michael's name through the mud after his trial just because he was famous and for what he was accused of. Why is that so difficult for this woman, and others like her, to understand? And also, I would find it funny if it wasn't so serious that she acts like Michael should have just kept quiet and not called these people out for saying crap things about him, especially considering how the 1993 and 2005 cases eventually ended up.

 

[Severus Snape]

She serves no purpose. None of these wastes of space serve any purpose whatsoever in this world, and only usurp our much-needed resources. She makes me sick. It wouldn't at all surprise me if -she- were a pedophile, or at the very least some sort of sexual deviant who vicariously lives through pedophilic exploits either in hypothetical situations or in actual events, like the Sandusky case. She seems to really relish in all the filthy details, instead of reporting things in the decent manner they ought to be reported... but who expects anything but that from a worthless skank who slept her way into her pathetic tabloid career? You know you're the sleaziest when you have to sleaze your way into sleaze.

Not only that, but Sandusky didn't "sprinkle in" girls as far as I know. None of the victims mentioned any girls in the Grand Jury Testimony. Moreover, we have eight different boys who do not want money and had little to no contact with each other all telling the same story. Boys whom Sandusky sought out through his "charity."

Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was sought out by his extortionists and their parents. He did not seek them out at all, the fact their paths crossed can only be attributed to sheer misfortune on Michael's part. Moreover, do you expect me to believe that, in the 10+ year period the media was relentlessly harassing this man, that he only bothered to mess with two children whose parents, coincidentally, were looking to extort him for money? Out of all the children of both sexes who flooded the gates of Neverland, all thousands of them, he only took interest in those whose parents were sleazebag extortionists? And those children, older than the Sandusky victims when the supposed incidents were to have taken place, could not get their stories straight when push came to shove...

...Perhaps this is because it didn't happen at all, and it was all a thinly veiled extortion attempt, as we know. Unlike the Sandusky case, there were no credible witnesses (in fact, no witnesses to favour the prosecution at all in the Arvizo case) who could testify as to what they saw, and no massive cover-up to try and protect Michael from any perceived wrong-doing.

In fact, it all was the exact opposite of the Sandusky case... a highly publicized media circus based on no real facts, propped up only by the flimsy foundation of tabloid fodder and a malicious D.A. who clearly had blood lust when it came to Michael (considering he chose to ignore the very serious matter of pedophile priest activity in an area under his jurisdiction-- one can safely deduce child welfare wasn't very high on his list of priorities). There was not even an effort to cover anything up because no wrongdoing had been done. All they had was disgruntled thieves (former employees) who sold stories to the tabloids (curiously after their termination) rather than, oh, I dunno...report such incidents to the police like a normal human being would do, extortionist parents with past histories of wrongdoing, false allegations, and attempted extortion (shoplifting at JCPenney by the very classy Arvizos) and even an audio-recorded extortion plot regarding the defendant on tape by Evan Chandler.



When you put the two set of cases together, you can see the differences are vast. Sandusky's case is more similar to the countless cases regarding pedophilia in the Catholic church, where wrongdoing clearly took place and there are numerous victims who could not have possibly had contact with each other (or each other's stories) and whose only connection is the association to the perpetrator (and who are not seeking money, but conviction and justice, more importantly), and years, sometimes decades, of cover-up on a massive scale on part of the organization which housed the abuser, aka Penn State and the Catholic Church.

If Dimond had two brain cells to rub together [which she clearly does not, hence her profession and her, ahem, "career qualifications"], she would have written an article based on the parallels between Sandusky and the average Catholic pedophile priest, a far more credible piece for those of us intelligent enough to read firsthand sources instead of listening to a drastic distortion/misrepresentation of the events (or in some cases, a complete fabrication) by some underqualified slut who, again, positioned herself into her current position, so to speak. But nope, she's completely braindead and only serves one use, of importance to only one person, so she failed to make the obvious connection

...and so we have this.

P.S. And, as far as I know, they did not humiliate Sandusky by forcing him to strip so they could photograph his genitals to see if they matched what the numerous boys described his member to be, nor did they desecrate his (arguably already desecrated) home to search for "evidence" and whatnot with a team fit to break into an Al Quaeda base, despite the mountains of evidence/credible witnesses pointing to the overwhelming likelihood of this man's guilt and Penn State's attempted cover up of the events.

So, if any abuse, sexual or otherwise, ever went on in regards to Michael Jackson, it was the abuse done to him done by those in authority, those who are by the very definition of their profession supposed to be just and to protect all citizens from harm. And those men failed their profession by doing what they chose to do, as did Sneddon, who abused his power to torture an innocent man for sh-ts and giggles.

May they all rot, every last one of those pathetic, worthless maggots.

Nothing was "exposed" in Michael's case besides the fact that his accusers truly were money-grubbers. And in Michael's case their motive wasn't some "unexplained reason". It was very clear that their motive was money - and also some kind of revenge.

I would also like to add (and this likely did not penetrate Ms. Demon's thick skull) that Michael made a point to NEVER blame either Gavin or Jordan for the trials he had to endure due to their cowardice. He even explicitly said it was -not- the children, but their parents, who were the ones behind it all, and largely it holds true...although I would personally argue that Gavin Arvizo is a lying piece of s--t clearly fallen from the same rotten tree as his skank of a mother and the rest of those lowlives. But that's just me, because I refuse to delude myself with the "children are all innocent and incapable of wrongdoing" crap that made Michael so vulnerable to these leeches.

I'm willing to grant Chandler the benefit of the doubt in that he is at least estranged from his parents and clearly angry at them for some reason, but he's still a coward for not admitting the truth and hiding like a little b--ch.

But reverting to the original point--Michael NEVER blamed either of them for what he was forced to undergo, never held any ill will towards them. If there is any (clearly justified) spite towards either of them, it comes from us, the fans, who have more common sense and aren't as naive in regards to people and the f--kery they are capable of as Michael was. And that is why he was the eternal scum-magnet.

Unlike Sandusky, who was a conniving and calculating predator who knew who to ally himself with to keep things hushed up for years, Michael was a naive person who trusted too eagerly in the goodness of others. A naivete which ultimately cost him his life.

[size=-2]Lesson of the Day: people are scumbags.[/size]​

 

[Bubs]

Diane :evil: Dimond at it again
:ranting:tickingtimebomb:devil:errin:banghead:ranting::she_devil:



Come to think of it, she and Murray are like two peas in a pod, both narcissistic sociopaths who doesn't see any wrong doing on their part :angry:

 

[Bubs]

She serves no purpose. None of these wastes of space serve any purpose whatsoever in this world, and only usurp our much-needed resources. She makes me sick. It wouldn't at all surprise me if -she- were a pedophile, or at the very least some sort of sexual deviant who vicariously lives through pedophilic exploits either in hypothetical situations or in actual events, like the Sandusky case. She seems to really relish in all the filthy details, instead of reporting things in the decent manner they ought to be reported... but who expects anything but that from a worthless skank who slept her way into her pathetic tabloid career? You know you're the sleaziest when you have to sleaze your way into sleaze.

Not only that, but Sandusky didn't "sprinkle in" girls as far as I know. None of the victims mentioned any girls in the Grand Jury Testimony. Moreover, we have eight different boys who do not want money and had little to no contact with each other all telling the same story. Boys whom Sandusky sought out through his "charity."

Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was sought out by his extortionists and their parents. He did not seek them out at all, the fact their paths crossed can only be attributed to sheer misfortune on Michael's part. Moreover, do you expect me to believe that, in the 10+ year period the media was relentlessly harassing this man, that he only bothered to mess with two children whose parents, coincidentally, were looking to extort him for money? Out of all the children of both sexes who flooded the gates of Neverland, all thousands of them, he only took interest in those whose parents were sleazebag extortionists? And those children, older than the Sandusky victims when the supposed incidents were to have taken place, could not get their stories straight when push came to shove...

...Perhaps this is because it didn't happen at all, and it was all a thinly veiled extortion attempt, as we know. Unlike the Sandusky case, there were no credible witnesses (in fact, no witnesses to favour the prosecution at all in the Arvizo case) who could testify as to what they saw, and no massive cover-up to try and protect Michael from any perceived wrong-doing.

In fact, it all was the exact opposite of the Sandusky case... a highly publicized media circus based on no real facts, propped up only by the flimsy foundation of tabloid fodder and a malicious D.A. who clearly had blood lust when it came to Michael (considering he chose to ignore the very serious matter of pedophile priest activity in an area under his jurisdiction-- one can safely deduce child welfare wasn't very high on his list of priorities). There was not even an effort to cover anything up because no wrongdoing had been done. All they had was disgruntled thieves (former employees) who sold stories to the tabloids (curiously after their termination) rather than, oh, I dunno...report such incidents to the police like a normal human being would do, extortionist parents with past histories of wrongdoing, false allegations, and attempted extortion (shoplifting at JCPenney by the very classy Arvizos) and even an audio-recorded extortion plot regarding the defendant on tape by Evan Chandler.



When you put the two set of cases together, you can see the differences are vast. Sandusky's case is more similar to the countless cases regarding pedophilia in the Catholic church, where wrongdoing clearly took place and there are numerous victims who could not have possibly had contact with each other (or each other's stories) and whose only connection is the association to the perpetrator (and who are not seeking money, but conviction and justice, more importantly), and years, sometimes decades, of cover-up on a massive scale on part of the organization which housed the abuser, aka Penn State and the Catholic Church.

If Dimond had two brain cells to rub together [which she clearly does not, hence her profession and her, ahem, "career qualifications"], she would have written an article based on the parallels between Sandusky and the average Catholic pedophile priest, a far more credible piece for those of us intelligent enough to read firsthand sources instead of listening to a drastic distortion/misrepresentation of the events (or in some cases, a complete fabrication) by some underqualified slut who, again, positioned herself into her current position, so to speak. But nope, she's completely braindead and only serves one use, of importance to only one person, so she failed to make the obvious connection

...and so we have this.

Well said!
You definitely should post this to comments section under that article.

 

[bluetopez]

Demon will never stop until she is no longer. She has made money off of these false allegations against MJ for yrs it's how this witch makes a living. How sick is that?! Never have I seen someone so obessed over a lie that she eventually help create and carries for everyone orginally involved. Y'all notice that?! It's like she made a pack to continue their work in their absense. That is some scary and some crazy shit right there. Sorry to say but I can't wait until she no longer exsist. She serves no purpose accept for evil and to think she is a mother! WTF?!

 

[Severus Snape]

Well said!
You definitely should post this to comments section under that article.

I should, novel though it clearly is. I certainly let her have a piece of my mind in more explicit terms and offered some life advice to her over Twitter.

Her twitter is @didimond for anyone interested.

 

[MJ TinkerBell]

I Posted my Reply to Dirty Dilly :evil: Thanks qbee for the heads up :group:

:angry:I had to calm down , because the rage that this washed-up failure has erupted in me seeing her Post !! :mat: Only EVIL could create this much hatred and pain, HATE is as HATE does Dirty Dilly :mat:

This has been LegacyTeam Facebook-ed !!

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Does dimond include the child abuser from canada that she worked with in the 90's.who she and the man got his son to accuse mj of abuse.problem for them was that the kid had never been outside of canada and mj hadnt been to canada in the kids lifetime. she then claimed ignorance. when in any other country and celeb she would have been up on charges.throwing stones to hide your hands

 

[Severus Snape]

Diane :evil: Dimond at it again
:ranting:tickingtimebomb:devil:errin:banghead:ranting::she_devil:



Come to think of it, she and Murray are like two peas in a pod, both narcissistic sociopaths who doesn't see any wrong doing on their part :angry:

I actually think Dimond is worse than Murray. Murray himself had no ill will towards Michael. He was indifferent, it would seem, and only acted in his own self-interest. He was the typical person, in other words, only interested in what is best for him. Except he was clearly an idiot on top of that, seeing as he obviously did not think things through at any point, and was overtaken by greed and likely desperation, seeing as he was deeply in debt before taking the job.

Dimond, on the other hand, is pure vile venom. She appears to get legitimate enjoyment from writing these lies about Michael, given by her obsession with him. She wasn't even that hard on Sandusky, who is a convicted child molester now. Moreover, she's succeeded in expressing her disdain for the American justice system, over which her own clearly misguided and factually false views appear to be triumphant (in the pathetic world within her mind, anyway). So, a verdict is only valid when she agrees with it, one is to deduce.

I love how all the scarce facts which sprinkle this lousy article came from the PA vs. Sandusky case, lol, and yet she still feels compelled to somehow fit Michael into that sorry equation. And, overall, the article is shoddily written. The majority of pedophiles who do not come from the Internet are figures directly connected to a child's life, that is to say, people like priests, family members, or teachers, who would have been more reasonable targets for this article to address. Emphasis on the priests, since they hold the power by virtue of boundless human stupidity to mindf--k a kid into believing all sorts of terrible things will happen if they don't do as they are told, etc. Even grown people buy into that ish, you'd think that's the first place one would go when talking about pedophilia, considernig pedophilia in religius organizations is a severe worldwide problem.

But nope. No. Gotta tie it to Michael Jackson and the two measly cases which were entirely devoid of facts somehow, because he's Michael Jackson, and he's weird, and she clearly doesn't like him one bit. This whole article was an attack against Michael (you don't say, I know), especially the bit about film-watching. Reading the GJT from the Sandusky case, he did not watch films, pornographic or otherwise, with the children who accused him...and she mentioned the bit about Michael, (a film buff, by the way) having a film theatre in his home. A film theatre where children, THEIR PARENTS, and whomever else, it seemed, could enjoy films, she neglects to state. Moreover, the bit about pornography seemed very random, seeing as that wasn't in the Sandusky case at all, nor was it ever even factually proven in the 05 case. What we -do- have proof of, however, is of Sneddon trying to taint evidence by attempting to hand a bare-handed Arvizo a key piece of evidence, the relevance of which rested solely on whether or not there were fingerprints belonging to Arvizo anywhere on the magazine, to the horror of a juror who stated, "shouldn't that boy be wearing gloves?!" Seems a bit far-fetched to assume that was accidental.

So anyway, Dimond clearly relishes in what she does, she makes a point to do it at every turn she takes, no matter how sleazy or terrible. It is pure malice because she's the scum of the Earth, whereas Murray is simply a selfish coward, something I can at least comprehend because most people are selfish cowards, just not as greedy or stupid as he. But Dimond set out to ruin someone's life, someone she didn't even deal with personally, for no reason other than her own enjoyment, pretty much.

She is as bad as they come, and life unworthy of life, really.

P.S. There are such things as bisexual pedophiles, Ms. Demon., so spending time with either gender isn't a good indicative of pedobear potential.

 

[HIStory]

I agree that if Ms Dimond wants to draw parallels the obvious one would have been a parallel with the Catholic Church priest scandals. With MJ's case there are no parallels. Dimond's "parallels" are things like they are both famous/rich. Erm, excuse me, does that mean then that all famous and rich people are pedophiles? Or she says that MJ had Neverland. He did, so what? How does that make him a pedophile? And I haven't heard Sandusky owning a Neverland type of property, but oh well, if Ms Dimond says there is a parallel there it must be true, right? Her parallels are not even true.

Her article is full of what are called fallacies. For example:

Cherry picking (suppressed evidence, incomplete evidence) – act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

False analogy – an argument by analogy in which the analogy is poorly suited.

Hasty generalization (fallacy of insufficient statistics, fallacy of insufficient sample, fallacy of the lonely fact, leaping to a conclusion, hasty induction, secundum quid, converse accident) – basing a broad conclusion on a small sample.

Association fallacy (guilt by association) – arguing that because two things share a property they are the same

Appeal to emotion – where an argument is made due to the manipulation of emotions, rather than the use of valid reasoning

Incomplete comparison – where not enough information is provided to make a complete comparison

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Among others.

 

[Chamife]

Someone should shut her up. No tweets, no hateful blogs, no.....that only draws attention to her words. Can't the Jackson family sew her or something? No communication with her anymore, but just actions that will shut her for once and for all.

And before someone thinks of violent acts towards her, no..that's not what I mean.

 

[qbee]

No sadly the Jackson Family cant sue her and neither can the Estate. She has right to voice her opinion... and so do we .. Yes it brings attention but to let her words go unchallenged is also dangerous. If you tell a lie often enough people will start believing it. So fron now on when they read her lies they will also see the hundreds of comments that stand against them and they wont be so quick to believe them.

I will say some fans comments could be left out as they do NOT help make our case or the public aware and bring them over our side. The side of truth. The comments with facts to address and counter the many lies and errors in her articles are the best weapons we have. People who are knowledgeable with the facts of the case and her past actions concerning Michael. But the Name calling, insults and personal attacks on her do nothing to help. Thats is not what we want or need. Doing that might give us some satisfaction but it just makes us look like loonies in the public eye. It will not cause them to believe what we say. That Diane's defense, she will bring focus on the Ranting fan comments stating loonies are attacking her and ignore the comment with factual information. It's not about making ourselves feel good about telling her where to go.... Its about intelligently defending Michael's honor.

 

[maral]

^^ Jacksons can't do much even if they wanted to. MJ is deceased so legally they can't do anything.

someone should point out to this lunatic that sandusky case hade everything Michaels case DIDN'T.
1 cooperative victims
2 eye witnesses that made sense
3 victim after victim coming forward
4 EXISTING LOVE LETTERS!

 

[No-Body]

Michael Jackson, on the other hand, was sought out by his extortionists and their parents. He did not seek them out at all, the fact their paths crossed can only be attributed to sheer misfortune on Michael's part. Moreover, do you expect me to believe that, in the 10+ year period the media was relentlessly harassing this man, that he only bothered to mess with two children whose parents, coincidentally, were looking to extort him for money? Out of all the children of both sexes who flooded the gates of Neverland, all thousands of them, he only took interest in those whose parents were sleazebag extortionists? And those children, older than the Sandusky victims when the supposed incidents were to have taken place, could not get their stories straight when push came to shove...

...Perhaps this is because it didn't happen at all, and it was all a thinly veiled extortion attempt, as we know. Unlike the Sandusky case, there were no credible witnesses (in fact, no witnesses to favour the prosecution at all in the Arvizo case) who could testify as to what they saw, and no massive cover-up to try and protect Michael from any perceived wrong-doing.

In fact, it all was the exact opposite of the Sandusky case... a highly publicized media circus based on no real facts, propped up only by the flimsy foundation of tabloid fodder and a malicious D.A. who clearly had blood lust when it came to Michael (considering he chose to ignore the very serious matter of pedophile priest activity in an area under his jurisdiction-- one can safely deduce child welfare wasn't very high on his list of priorities). There was not even an effort to cover anything up because no wrongdoing had been done. All they had was disgruntled thieves (former employees) who sold stories to the tabloids (curiously after their termination) rather than, oh, I dunno...report such incidents to the police like a normal human being would do, extortionist parents with past histories of wrongdoing, false allegations, and attempted extortion (shoplifting at JCPenney by the very classy Arvizos) and even an audio-recorded extortion plot regarding the defendant on tape by Evan Chandler.

P.S. And, as far as I know, they did not humiliate Sandusky by forcing him to strip so they could photograph his genitals to see if they matched what the numerous boys described his member to be, nor did they desecrate his (arguably already desecrated) home to search for "evidence" and whatnot with a team fit to break into an Al Quaeda base, despite the mountains of evidence/credible witnesses pointing to the overwhelming likelihood of this man's guilt and Penn State's attempted cover up of the events.

Unlike Sandusky, who was a conniving and calculating predator who knew who to ally himself with to keep things hushed up for years, Michael was a naive person who trusted too eagerly in the goodness of others.

Extremely well said.

So, if any abuse, sexual or otherwise, ever went on in regards to Michael Jackson, it was the abuse done to him done by those in authority, those who are by the very definition of their profession supposed to be just and to protect all citizens from harm. And those men failed their profession by doing what they chose to do, as did Sneddon, who abused his power to torture an innocent man for sh-ts and giggles.

I have not forgotten that bloody press conference nine years ago tomorrow. His evil grin, the laughter and the accompanying choir of the media eager to know the 'facts of the case'. I have NOT forgotten ANY OF IT.

I have forgotten none of the torture they put Michael and everyone who cared and believed in him ever since August 17[SUP]th[/SUP] 1993, a nightmare which has never truly ended. Not even the verdict in 2005 was enough to silence all of the lies, the venom and the hate.

The criminal codes of countries and international law have clear punishments for killing people. Conrad Murray is in a jail right now for having killed Michael, is he not? How come there isn't any punishment for CHARACTER ASSASINATION? Most of the tabloid media and the so-called serious/mainstream one (the two being almost identical twins, at least when it came to the portrayal of Michael) should be sighing in huge relief. If there was such a punishment, 99% of them would have been in 'character jail' long ago.

No sadly the Jackson Family cant sue her and neither can the Estate. She has right to voice her opinion... and so do we .. Yes it brings attention but to let her words go unchallenged is also dangerous. If you tell a lie often enough people will start believing it. So fron now on when they read her lies they will also see the hundreds of comments that stand against them and they wont be so quick to believe them.

I will say some fans comments could be left out as they do NOT help make our case or the public aware and bring them over our side. The side of truth. The comments with facts to address and counter the many lies and errors in her articles are the best weapons we have. People who are knowledgeable with the facts of the case and her past actions concerning Michael. But the Name calling, insults and personal attacks on her do nothing to help. Thats is not what we want or need. Doing that might give us some satisfaction but it just makes us look like loonies in the public eye. It will not cause them to believe what we say. That Diane's defense, she will bring focus on the Ranting fan comments stating loonies are attacking her and ignore the comment with factual information. It's not about making ourselves feel good about telling her where to go.... Its about intelligently defending Michael's honor.

Also agree with these as well. Calling her names will serve us no purpose whatsoever except maybe for venting some well-'earned' anger. The general public must be made aware of the truth of Michael's innocence by the RATIONAL EXPOSURE of FACTS, all of which prove beyond doubt the abuse HE suffered at the hands of zealous authorities and blood-thirsty media.

The parallel Mrs. Diamond chose to make between the Sandusky case which has come to what seemed to be an inevitable conclusion - conviction of a pedophile predator - and the allegations brought against Michael is completely and totally unwarranted as most of you have already shown.

It is when hearing about cases like these - about real criminals and true victims of child abuse - that i get not only pissed off, but sooo teribly upset when i think of the crap they all put Michael through for decades. The sheer torture endured by him for decades is simply mind boggling. I really wonder how well many of his detractors would have coped with the pressure they forced on his mind and soul for DECADES.

I don't think anybody can truly imagine the depth and the magnitude of his sorrow. To be the most famous person in the world, someone who only tried to bring joy and serenity to people through their work on and off stage and to be accused of the most heinous crime possible.....

I love him for very many reasons but the bravery and strength with which he faced all these liars is one of the major ones.

The lies concocted by money-hungry parents, lies which the media was more than happy, willing and able to exploit are complete offenses for real child abuse victims. Child abuse is an issue which affects me profoundly and it pains me so much to think how many real pedophiles go unpunished and are free to take away the innocence of children. Most cases of abuse actually go unreported and the ones that do are merely the tip of the iceberg.

Instead of reporting about real abusers it was much more convenient for the media to sell tabloid headlines about Michael's eccentricity which 'of course' translated into his guilt. If i'd have to guess i would say there are pedophiles hiding their crimes behind offices and desks in newsrooms across the world. In certain countries it has been shown to be the case. [The sickly huge scale of the Saville scandal and the cover up at the BBC are scary examples of it.]

It is also horrifying to think of the tens of millions of public funds (wasn't it $40 millions the figure?) Sneddon wasted haunting an innocent man, money which could have been so much better used fighting real crime and real abusers.

May God have a lot more mercy on Michael's abusers than they have shown him and may God protect all victims of child abuse.

 

[mdiegee210]

I think diamond should be investigated, lets see what in her private life.

 

[Aquarius]

The problem is that she's harboring some kind of negativefeelings towards Michael & she will always express it. She will only calm down when something shakesher world.

I don't think she's so worry about children predators. If she were, why sheisn't talking about the man who saw Sandusky with the child in the shower. Hesaw what Sandusky was doing, turned his head, walked away and the big boyinstead of going to the authorities went to his daddy. Seems to me he was a passive abuser, heallowed it to continue.
Where is her outrage for him? He, without knowing,contributed with the molestation and she says nothing about that. In her sick mind, it's only and alwaysMichael.
I believe the media knows the true about Michael butdon't want to acknowledge it. Acknowledging will mean to say "we liedto you" and I don't think they'llever say that.
What she's doing is not journalism and has nothing to dowith protecting the children, it is just pure hate coming from a miserableperson.

 

[rainbow_mj]

She hate Michael Jackson.

 

[jaydom7]

I am glad you all are reacting to her.. May she rot in the depths of hell

 

[teli-mj]

Oh,she knows what she is doing all right.No one would read her junk if MJ's name wasn't on it.But now her trash piece got clicks and publicity thanks to us. Pathetic parasite. Even a mosquitoes life is more valuable than her's.

 

[SoCav]

This woman never fails to disgust me. A horrendous embarrassment to her profession.

 

[marebear]

She and her words are disgusting.

 

[bluetopez]

I had to tweet this DEMON. Iz feel so much better now! :devil:

MJ = a paycheck but the screw job knows he is innocent. At best she just don't like that he admitted sharing his room and bed with kids. So basically she didn't like his behavior and took to that and made it bigger then what it really was because scandal and lies sadly = MONEY!:angry: Just like morons like Nancy Disgrace does. They have no proof he did a damn thing so they just attack his behavior they don't approve of and use it against him! LAME!

But she is a true nut job she has a plaque in her house of MJ that was on her wall behind her. Someone had took a screen shot (pic) of her on her webcam. Now for someone that hates MJ so much the hell does she has a pic of him in her house!? :blink:

 

[MJ TinkerBell]

:ciao:ray::better:

:mat:This came to me last night as I was twisted up with rage at her nerve and brazen arrogance at her importance in the world ! She wants to be HATED by us, she needs it because she knows she will never get us to ever forgive her for what she has done ! So she has chosen the easiest path to famedom and that is to hurt and torture those she can hurt and torture forever because she can ! As long as there is a MJ Fan in the world she will have every opproutinty to do just that. We truly need to STOP responding to every word and every Article every time she sees fit ! There have been people that have gained fame by being the most hated on air ! I think she is joining sites that will invite us with these types of story tactics, just to see how many of us will come and respond so they can attack whoever shows up to challenge or attack her ! It is a brilliant tactic low life fame wh***s use in desperate times calls for desperate measures ! I don't like it when someone tries to play me or my emotions for a puppet or a fool, no not at all !

I enjoyed my life not knowing what she did or had even wrote in the last few years, life moved on with out her ! She is feeling the crunch to prove she is still important enough for 100 people to come there and give her countless views by her one Article !
We are feeding her exactly what she wants and it fuels her to go further and further, this will come as no shock to us.

Imagine if we as MJ Fans do 2 things only ...

1. No one responds to her Articles..
2. No one views her Articles..

In each of the above cases she loses the power to play our emotions against us..and therefore if her superiors can't rely on her to bring us there to Post our defense of Michael and HER sick obsession with Michael she comes in the door empty handed she stays unemployed ! I pray for the day when MJ Fans mobilize as one mind one one force, so that not even Dirty DiDi can move us to give her the very power of which we seek to destroy her with !! I mean seriously I am thinking she told the simpletons at Creator.com that she can guarantee them she can get thousands of Michael Jackson Fans to Post on their Blog, and in that way we the loyal Michael Jackson Fans just made her a success in their books in a way ! No it will not be easy to not respond, it will be so hard, but if in the end our reward is that no one will hire her OLD rabid a** and she will be left to wonder when her one trick lost its spark, to hurt and torture Michael Jackson Fans all over the world !

I loved the outpouring of LOVE there was Posted by people from every walk of life defending Michael and that is what Michael-ing is all about ! There was such conviction and truth there regarding how innocent Michael real IS ! I also saw the Dirty DiDi had Posted this to a new website, and then I figured it out..there was these "other people" Posting defending her on this new website ! Like a think tank per say, so these guys wait to get our reponses, then they come and Post "thought provoking defense comments about hurtful topics" regarding wholesome Dirty DiDi when they are totally innocent and upstanding in this society ! I will not give her the satisfaction of knowing how much she can hurt me and bring me out of my Michael-ing state of peace, ever again ! She will never be that important to me that I would even acknowledged that she even spoke until, she meets the true Judge of her :evil:

I have chosen to no longer allow Dirty DiDi anymore power over me by using Michael to do it. I want to be who Michael taught me to be in LOVE and not what Dirty DiDi wants me to be for her ratings and her validation !

unk:I know the MJ Light Warriors all over the world have enough power to fight her and everything she tries to do to hurt Michael and his Fans she will be repaid 10 fold ! ray:

Turn the station, change the dial..fade to black
* Poof, to me she is gone *

 

[Ashtanga]

:wtf: errin: