Okay, Ivy...here I go...I'll join a debate with ya this once and I'll lose embarrassingly enough, I'm sure. I'm not one who is strong at debating. Would you like me to give it a go though, for fun?
ivy;4044287 said:
don't worry about it because the mention of "Jacksons" name hardly raise any interest both in this and the past auctions. and it's not about Jackson's popularity, it's about items nature.
Just because the name Jackson isn't getting the attention and results that Vacarro and the auctioneers would hope for doesn't mean they aren't intentionally throwing the Jackson name out there and attaching certain items to certain Jacksons also in hope to stimulate interest. Has it worked for them thus far...yeah, I agree, hasn't seemed to much.
You add, "It's not about Jackson's popularity, it's about items nature"
The fact that the nature of the items are so mundane, is why it could cause those involved to feel the need to peek the interest of potential buyers, And I'm saying it feels to me that possibly they are taking advantage of certain items nature, and banking that attaching Janet's name to a bra (and it's nature), Michael to size 28ers (and their nature) and La Toya to sex toys and their nature, to cultivate interest in order to make that sale. Might not be the case; it could be the case. I don't think it's totally illogical to think it could be the case.
Ivy said:
So don't worry about anyone adding their own random stuff to the mix and making millions, it ain't gonna happen.
When some feel they need to make money for any amount, large or small, or whatever reason, some go to underhanded and/or strategic means to accomplish it. Any one that knows the not so pretty side of human nature knows that to be true.
Now, Ivy, I said "some," doesn't mean I am saying I believe for sure that this is what is going on in this case. I think you missed maybe, or passed over too quickly, (for I thought one of my posts addressed this) that even though I am bringing up other possibilities it does not mean I discount that how things look are exactly how they are, or how you are seeing things can't possibly absolutely be how things are. You could be seeing things perfectly clearly. I know, from what you've posted, you've had it "up to here" with conspiracy theories, but I do not think that by my presenting other possibilities, nor my not taking things automatically at face value, puts me in the category of one promoting, or having, a conspiracy theory. I'm open to any possibility here...including that all is what it seems in all of this, including the sex toys, or... that all is -not- what it seems. Would you be okay with either way, yourself, or would it blow a fuse for ya? haha. I think by the time I complete this post I will have blown a fuse!
Ivy said:
and excuse my language almost looks like a garage sale.
haha, I agree. It makes one shake their head that this is even going on. But it's going on because someone thinks money must be made off of this stuff. What are they willing to do to help achieve that end? Dress things up a little bit, or put things out there in the most saleable light? Consider one's market? Let's think marketing.
Ivy said:
Lisha said:
So you think it's not so hard to swallow that sex toys could be among all these things and there is some logical reason why someone would have their sex toys placed in this storage unit? That must be a curious story.
a lot of people put a lot of stuff in storage units. I have a storage unit with baby clothes, barbie dolls, night gowns, household items etc. Would it look like a weird collection of items to some, probably. But I find nothing "curious" in it. Same goes with the sex toys. How is it having sex toys in a storage any different than having sex toys in your room? or do you think sex toys cannot be stored and must be thrown away.
True, people put a lot of odds and ends in storage. Usually, as I posted earlier one places things that have sentimental value, or can be used at a later time, if not needed presently, etc. Also, if there is a time restraint, a bunch of random stuff might be scooped up and hastily stashed in a box without proper thought going into it at all. This does sound like what may have gone on with the collection of performance items..like one, two, three, get them in a box and taken care of, off to the storage they go to be forgotten for quite some time. Other than that, you mention the things in your storage, which sounds like a cute collection of things to me
, but maybe you did the more typical thing and these things have meaning to you or will be used at a later date but were taking too much space up in you living quarters, so off they went to a storage space.
I'm just thinking that if someone has sex toys, aren't they for the here and now...not an item you'd think sentimentally about or think that you might be needing at a later date so you'll pack it away. Could be possible, but it just seems odd to me... if that was someone's thought process regarding their sex toy. If they were discarded/forgotten about and left with other things along with let's say the performance gear, then they could have been scooped up, too, and thrown in a box for storage....meaning the actual owner of the item/s was not there for the decision making and the one making the decision just looked at it, shrugged, and said "In ya go, I guess." (Yes, Ivy, I have fun with creative license when making my points; I am little more right brain than left brain...just using examples, though, to illustrate, which are not staying completely aligned with logic and facts. I must be a nightmare to debate with!!!).
But I am with the understanding that these performance items were from the Jackson Vegas gig...do I have that wrong? Anyway, the time frame still seems to put La Toya, pre-Jack Gordon, and during her naïve, sheltered and conservative years. It does not seem therefore in her character to have sex toys in a dressing room during a performance or in a bedroom at Katherine's home. You may say I am making an assumption; I am saying it does not follow. But I will say anything is possible...the sex toys could be hers, but it makes no sense, to me personally, based on where I believe she was coming from at the time.
Let me clarify regarding the "derogatory" statement. We all see from our own grid. There are celebrities we may all be familiar with who we could totally imagine being into sex toys (won't name any names), and if they are hanging with others who use sex toys or into other stuff that might be found in Adult bookstores, meaning "like-minded people" hanging together, none of them would find this derogatory. And with a celebrity such as that, it would make sense to me that they could be into sex toys, and I would not put any effort to suggest that if someone attached a sex toy to them, that it may not actually be theirs (although, even then it might not be...example, a joke, someone elses). But when talking about someone who it would not be in character for them, and therefore, it may not be theirs, and they are closely associated with others who are ultra conservative and would not like the idea that it is theirs, then it is implying something derogatory from their perspective. If it is not theirs and they are getting pinned with it, it is a derogatory thing to say for them. The other example of the celebrity who is totally into them and their circle of friends and family, too, or any one in the public who is like-minded with them on this, it may not be viewed as derogatory at all. And there may be those out there who are neutral and really wouldn't assign anything derogatory or non-derogatory to it.
But I think it would be safe to say Katherine, and Rebbie, and La Toya, too, at that time period, and if these are not hers, as it being a derogatory thing to be said about her. However, La Toya these days doesn't seem to get bent out of shape about anything said about her...I think she's learning to find her peace amongst negative opinion thrown her way. We all could use more of that inner-strength. I'm sure Playboy is thrown up to her all the time, and she deals with that. Playboy, also, would fall in the same category: some would find her association with it derogatory, others would not. Depends on one's perspective.
Ivy said:
So I guess the question is what else do you need or expect? Janet signing "this is my vibrator Janet"? Or is that even realistic?
Gosh, I don't need anything. You're making me seem so needy! Just kidding. Oh, you mean to be satisfied that it actually belongs to her? I guess, no, it probably isn't realistic to think that any information at this point will come forward to make me think, "Oh, okay, I guess it really is Janet's, or, La Toya's". At this point, I can believe it is possible that they are either of theirs, but also believe it is possible they are one, or neither of theirs. But I don't think, from what I'm hearing so far from you, that you think it is possible that the sex toys belonged to neither of them. True? I'm not talking about what you personally believe...I'm talking about what you think could be possible.
Bubs said:
Lisha, I think you didn't read to link I posted earlier. There were 2 storages, Tito's and KJ's that Vaccaro got his hands ...
Hi, Bubs. Yeah, I am so busted. I have my nerve coming in here without having done all of my homework. I couldn't resist, I guess.
I hope people will give me some slack for posting some thoughts without having down all of the facts. I just jumped in, didn't I?
Ivy said:
This isn't about Sneddon and you missed my point.
I didn't miss your point, actually...but, yeah, I was trying to side-step ya there, but you are not going for it. ha!
Ivy said:
Vaccaro invited Dimond to his storage room. Dimond saw the underwear, called Sneddon, Sneddon searched the storage room, removed some items, some were DNA tested, nothing was found, nothing was used. After the trial Vaccaro filed a motion to ask the items returned to him and they did.
Oh, geesh, bringing up Dimond doesn't put me more at ease that no tampering or strategy could be involved here.
But I agree, that information supported by a long history could give things more credence.
Bubs said:
if you think these items are not necessary belong to Jacksons, why do you think they wanted to stop the sale, MJ and Janet put up the fight to get their stuff back? KJ struck a deal with Mann and Mann gave some items back to KJ that were considered embarrassing to her and Joe.
Well, I think I thought it was because they felt the whole injustice of the situation, and no matter what the items, felt they were their personal things and it wasn't right for them to be out there for all to see or be auctioned off. What a vulnerable feeling. Just like Taj must be feeling...it doesn't necessarily have to do with trying to hide anything that could be viewed as unsavory ( I see you mention the word embarrassing, but that may not be something unsavory; lot's of different things embarrass us)...it would be thought of perhaps as "it's the principle of the thing!" And, of course, with Taj, it is sentimental attachment to his Mother's things. Understandable.
Ivy said:
So aren't you the one that's making an assumption based on what you think and nothing else?
I'm sure I make my good amount of assumptions but I think in this case I am staying open to other possibilities and presenting those possibilities. I hope I don't offend by doing so.
Oh boy, this was probably boring to read, sorry everyone. I did my best, Ivy, to respond to you. This took so long to do! How do you guys do it? I'm exhausted now, lol. I'm sure you will counteract some, if not a good deal, of my responses, with your typical finesse. I'm not sure if I'll have the energy to give this another go, though. But thanks for letting me play a little bit with ya. :hugs:
And as always, all, keep the friendly-toned debate going, and try not to let buttons be pushed or to have an attacking tone when responding with each other.
This shouldn't be personal; just objective as much as possible.
