Child Stars- were they all controversial

Yes, you are correct Jimbo I should have not used a word like ALL. However if you read my post carefully you will see that I say "All the ones I can think of". I would believe that even your professor would agree I am entitled to use ALL in these circumstances - unless, somehow he could see into my mind & dispute the fact.. I would, however, suggest that a great many more end up with a miserable existence than a happy one from early fame & fortune.
I will mind my English in future & take it you will be happy for a minuscule examination of what you post also....
Seymourbutts if you can find anywhere in my words that I believed that Mr. Jackson was of sane mental health or should have ever been left alone near children then I will be interested to know. As far as I am aware I have NEVER suggested either of these two things. I have suggested that he was badly failed by people who should have been role models & should have taught him that actions like this were unacceptable.
Saint, you are entitled to respect just whom you feel you should respect & nobody is asking you to do differently. However, as my parents always said to me "If you can't say something good do not say anything at all". I feel this is particularly important at the time of someone's' demise.
To express commiserations to surviving family members or not to comment is a reasonable response to make fun of the event is callous.
The thread was locked for one reason only - so the moderation team could remove posts about "Child Stars" (which I had started & agreed should be moved) to a new thread. I am often amazed by the lack of tolerance shown by some members on on this site & an automatic response to blame the moderation team for censorship whenever anything happens on the forum. I can only reiterate (again) that if all members always showed a little self restraint & applied the forum rules to their posts then moderation would not be needed. After the thread was re-opened it again reverted to jokes & so another moderator re-locked it.
This is not censorship it was plainly stated that there was a place for jokes & where they should be pasted.
As for other threads having jokes on them....have people not heard of the expression that two wrongs do not make a right??? The moderators do not wish to spend their lives moving comments about on threads and have better things to do. RJ saw the way that the Michael Jackson thread was going & felt it was insensitive to his family & requested that people post Jokes in the correct place - a heinous crime for certain....
As for the "Robin Hood" thread, yes the jokes should have been deleted however I cannot see that they would/could cause offence to anybodies family & so I had better things to do that kill them, especially as the original poster (who has never posted again) was only trying to get a bit of free publicity for a pub....

How can it be censorship when you are allowed to post this material??? Which part of the word censorship are you confused about.
I would believe that telling a joke about anyone dying, is by its very nature in bad taste. I am surprised that you may even mention that it might be a matter of "personal" taste.
You say (yet again) that this man was a paedophile, but have zero supporting evidence. Were you part of some police collecting agency that found this out - or is it what you believe to believe from things you have read somewhere??
If this is your attitude towards the death of a person who I imagine you never met or talked to then I think you need to look very carefully into your motives & examine why you feel a need to say these things. Especially why you need to say these things only on one particular thread and why another section of the Forum would not suffice....

Jack & neither would it be normally my style to comment on what posters have said after the event....but in this case I will make an exception.
I imagine that you are referring to Arjay....His first (highly controversial) remark asking poster to pay a little respect to the dead was this....

Let's please retain some respect for the deceased - whoever. If you wish to make jokes, post them on the jokes forum. That's what it's there for.

Yes, a real rant isn't it - can see why people were manning the barricades to defend their freedom of speech.
Despite that polite request some posters could not help themselves but complain about this request & carry on posting jokes.
Why???? In no place has anyone said do not post jokes about Mr. Jackson just put them in the correct place.
Up to anyone what they thought of his personal & professional life whatever happened to just plain old good manners or can people disregard that now that they can post anonymously????

seymourbutts wrote:ok bob if you believe he is not a perverted child molestor then i and the majority of the world have no more to say to you on this subject....

and of course OJ was innocent too!!

I believe in justice and the law, rather than mob rule or guilty by insinuation often used by the popular press , yes. Both the people you mention were tried by the laws of their country and were found innocent of the crimes they were charged with. That may have been for many reasons - the evidence was not strong enough, their lawyers were far to smart or they were innocent. the process of law was carried through & a verdict given. Or, is everybody who is ever charged with any criminal offence to be automatically treated as a convict whatever the outcome???? I have no personal knowledge of all the evidence presented to the courts in either case. Those that were there with that charge (the jury) returned not guilty, therefore they ARE not guilty - that is the way the law works....

beer monkey wrote:So Ron Howard wins the day

Yes, would certainly get my vote BM.
Successful in business & personal life & seeming a thoroughly all round nice guy (bas*tard ).
I, obviously, remember him from Happy Days but didn't realise before that he was 'an old hand' to the business when he started that.....