PaceMioDolceCuore
Proud Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,325
- Points
- 0
The 'broad' public doesn't know Cascio and they don't know Gest. To pretend that these are the issues that drove the final nail into MJ's reputational coffin is simply silly. Person xyz also has a brain and can access google.com the same way I am capable of finding out for myself that MJ is not the sinister druggie in an alley. If person xyz chooses to believe so, than no Frank Cascio will be able to change that.
I think people spend too much time online to understand that the jury members most likely aren't trying to violate judge's orders on purpose, ripping David Gest's documentary and every Tito Jackson interview off youtube. These people just spent something like 6 weeks in court, away from their jobs (every wondered if a juror is more concerned about their income perhaps?)- they most likely go home and sleep exhausted to the core. I thought I saw 'guilt tripping' in other shape- but to suggest that everyone who dares to speak their mind they way they see things are (purposefully or not) is tainting the jury- guilt tripping much?
Of course they have iPhones and facebook- the online tarring and feathering of Murray especially on social networking is more than obvious.
People hurt, Michael is gone. Outrage and petitioning is what's left. There will never be a convenient time to discuss any of these issues. You want the greatest entertainer, the most influential artist of the century, the ground breaker and the ultimate legend? MJ doesn't become smaller just because some narrow minded women on HLN spew their vitriol. (...)
Michael is one of the strongest artists and human beings to have graced this planet. It is not 'pissing on his grave' to talk about the ways this amazing man had to cope with enormous pain that most of us will never know. To acknowledge this issue is not equal to disrespecting him. Neither now, nor 5 weeks from now.
This ongoing vilification without mercy is exactly what was done to Michael- that it was done to Michael in this way, without pause, no mercy and all the time- does not give anyone carte blanche to do the same to anyone else. The fact that Michael might have referred to some as leech doesn't qualify anyone to refer to his friends as such. Unless you know more than the usual internet folklore- other than that it just comes across as hypocrisy.
Those that Michael chose to associate with also have a right to deal with their pain in the way they deem appropriate. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Before the trial fans slammed anyone for anything, now the trial deliberations are being used as welcome excuse.
There is such a thing as lynch mob mentality and we've gotten pretty close to that.
It's good you brought that up since 'looking it up in a dictionary' happens to be one of my very favorite pastimes. Perhaps the NY Times editors use 'vitriol' very much incorrectly- in that cause, "vitriol" should be indeed examined by the "New Yorker" magazine that has an EXCELLENT section on recurring words and their use in American English.
vit·ri·ol
   [vi-tree-uh
l] 
Show IPA noun, verb, -oled, -ol·ing or (especially British
) -olled, -ol·ling.
noun
1.Chemistry. any of certain metallic sulfates of glassy appearance, as copper sulfate or blue vitriol, iron sulfate or green vitriol, zinc sulfate or white vitriol, etc.
2.oil of vitriol; sulfuric acid.
3.something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vitriol
If "leeches sucking of a dead man" (and that's only half the quote because the rest is simply too vulgar among adults, unless they are of shock-jock mentality) isn't "highly caustic"- please let me know.
Perhaps you should have looked it up first, but then again, I usually trust that native speakers know better.
I think people spend too much time online to understand that the jury members most likely aren't trying to violate judge's orders on purpose, ripping David Gest's documentary and every Tito Jackson interview off youtube. These people just spent something like 6 weeks in court, away from their jobs (every wondered if a juror is more concerned about their income perhaps?)- they most likely go home and sleep exhausted to the core. I thought I saw 'guilt tripping' in other shape- but to suggest that everyone who dares to speak their mind they way they see things are (purposefully or not) is tainting the jury- guilt tripping much?
Of course they have iPhones and facebook- the online tarring and feathering of Murray especially on social networking is more than obvious.
People hurt, Michael is gone. Outrage and petitioning is what's left. There will never be a convenient time to discuss any of these issues. You want the greatest entertainer, the most influential artist of the century, the ground breaker and the ultimate legend? MJ doesn't become smaller just because some narrow minded women on HLN spew their vitriol. (...)
Michael is one of the strongest artists and human beings to have graced this planet. It is not 'pissing on his grave' to talk about the ways this amazing man had to cope with enormous pain that most of us will never know. To acknowledge this issue is not equal to disrespecting him. Neither now, nor 5 weeks from now.
This ongoing vilification without mercy is exactly what was done to Michael- that it was done to Michael in this way, without pause, no mercy and all the time- does not give anyone carte blanche to do the same to anyone else. The fact that Michael might have referred to some as leech doesn't qualify anyone to refer to his friends as such. Unless you know more than the usual internet folklore- other than that it just comes across as hypocrisy.
Those that Michael chose to associate with also have a right to deal with their pain in the way they deem appropriate. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Before the trial fans slammed anyone for anything, now the trial deliberations are being used as welcome excuse.
There is such a thing as lynch mob mentality and we've gotten pretty close to that.
Memefan;3530441 said:
It's good you brought that up since 'looking it up in a dictionary' happens to be one of my very favorite pastimes. Perhaps the NY Times editors use 'vitriol' very much incorrectly- in that cause, "vitriol" should be indeed examined by the "New Yorker" magazine that has an EXCELLENT section on recurring words and their use in American English.
vit·ri·ol
   [vi-tree-uh
Show IPA noun, verb, -oled, -ol·ing or (especially British
noun
1.Chemistry. any of certain metallic sulfates of glassy appearance, as copper sulfate or blue vitriol, iron sulfate or green vitriol, zinc sulfate or white vitriol, etc.
2.oil of vitriol; sulfuric acid.
3.something highly caustic or severe in effect, as criticism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vitriol
If "leeches sucking of a dead man" (and that's only half the quote because the rest is simply too vulgar among adults, unless they are of shock-jock mentality) isn't "highly caustic"- please let me know.
Perhaps you should have looked it up first, but then again, I usually trust that native speakers know better.
Last edited:
