By the same token, I have never met Tom Sneddon. I do not, and have never, worked for Sneddon (as at least one moron on the forum has claimed). I am not a paid member of the press or the media, and I have no financial interest in this case whatsoever.
I am not an electrical engineer and have never claimed to be.
This website is not intended to assert whether Michael Jackson is innocent or guilty of the current charges against him (that's the jury's job). In fact, if you actually read the content, this website really isn't about Michael Jackson at all. Rather, it's a response to flawed logic, misinformation and outright fabrications being desseminated by that (hopefully) minority of fans that I've termed "apologists".
The purpose of the website is to counter the comments and arguments that frequently appear in any forum where the topic is Michael Jackson. These same bad arguments and logical fallacies tend to be reiterated everytime there is a new story surrounding the case. I have also attempted to provide sources, corroboration, and rationale behind my comments--something that the average apologist does not feel any obligation to do.
This is an intellectual exercise, nothing more. Nowhere on this site do I state that I believe Michael Jackson to be guilty or innocent of child molestation
I do believe that Michael Jackson is entitled to due process.
I do believe that it is the jury's responsiblity to decide Michael Jackson's fate.
However I also believe that the public has a First Amendment right to express their opinions on this case.
I welcome your comments, both pro and con (I'd prefer if they were polite, but experience has shown that that is not often likely). Please sign the guestbook.
Footnote: What is an apologist?
Being a fan does not automatically make you an apologist.
Believing that Michael Jackson is innocent after objectively digesting the available information does not make you an apologist.
Reserving judgement until after the trial does not make you an apologist
Presenting your arguments rationally, intelligently, coherently, while respecting others right to do the same does not make you an apologist--whichever side of the argument you are on.
Believing that a child who claims to have been molested automatically makes him a liar because the accused is Michael Jackson does make you an apologist.
Believing that a claim of molestation by a child should have been ignored or dismissed without investigation because the accused is Michael Jackson does make you an apologist.
Endlessly parroting the latest propaganda from from sources such as MJJF, MJEOL, MJSourcem and MJNI without question or a moments thought does make you an apologist.
Applying one set of standards to Michael Jackson while applying a total different and often opposing set of standards to everyone else does make you an apologist.
Believing that Michaels fame, talent, wealth, race, or charitable work places him above the law or excuses illegal or immoral behaviour does make you and apologist.
Employing a double standard while debating the issue, or attempting to stifle any viewpoint that you disagree with for any of the above reasons does make you an apologist.
Being rlty4me, wheeler, railroadingmj or johnlucas does make you an apologist--and an idiot besides:)
If you have any suggestions or sources you'd like to pass along, email them to [email protected]. Thank you and Gods bless:)
Now back to the beginning...