I agree with the article's argument, but find it strange that @Zigmanfreud would condemn the documentary makers for deeming MJ guilty without evidence, while admitting that he also believes MJ is "very likely" guilty (without evidence).
Chill out. You claimed yourself you believe he is "highly likely" (80%? 90%?) to be a paedophile. This is what I have an issue with. And the explanation you gave me did absolutely nothing to assuage my concerns that it's incongruous with your condemnation of the filmmaker.
-
-
If you admit that by "very likely" you actually meant to write "very possibly", then suddenly it will fit perfectly with the rest of your article, such as your line a couple paragraphs down: "I have no problem accepting the probability that he was indeed a pedophile".
-
It's a minor quibble, yes, which is why I only mentioned it in passing, and didn't want to argue about it. As I have said previously, I am largely in agreement with you on everything else in the article.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.