To: ER_in_OC,CA
But don't you think it's eerie or dangerous for Whacko to have photos of bare-chested children in a secret room behind his walk-in closet? Why didn't he put those photos up in his living room?
27 posted on
11/20/2003 3:46:20 PM PST by
jimbo123
To: jimbo123
Friend, I think you're mistaking my adding of information on the Culkin picture for defending Jackson and the items reported to be in the room.
I'm not sure how you leapt to that conclusion, but it's erroneus.
To: jimbo123
Ew, ew, ew. It's beyond wierd.
Shhh... Listen, can you hear it? Yep, that's the sound of all the people (read - wierdo's) voicing their support of pooooor MJ. It will be interesting to see who supports him and justifies each newly uncovered layer of wierd. Eeewwww.
46 posted on
11/20/2003 3:59:10 PM PST by
fortunecookie
(still having computer problems...)
To: jimbo123
The description of "Bare chested children is a little vague.
Bare chested children performing indecent acts? or Bare chested children as in any shot of children at a swimming pool?.
I am sorry but the medias ability to twist and turn anything makes me sceptical until it gets to court.
49 posted on
11/20/2003 4:00:26 PM PST by
KiaKaha
To: jimbo123
But don't you think it's eerie or dangerous for Whacko to have photos of bare-chested children in a secret room behind his walk-in closet? Can someone tell me what is wrong with photos of bare chested children? ....and who in america does not have any? Children and men being bare chested has been legal since the 1930's.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson