>We both described the same thing in two very different that
>have very different implications and connotations. But that's
>my point. Why is there description of the alarm system more
>accurate than mine?

Come on. You were intentionally oversimplifying to fashion a narrative that all of this is overblown.

>
>Yeah you can interpret the alarm system as part of a scheme
>for abusing children, or you can interpret it as a man who was
>very concerned about home security. I don't know why one
>interpretation should be given more weight than the other.

*I* wasn't interpreting it either way. In fact, I can accept that the biggest star in the world has over the top crazy security. I actually don't see anything about that that specifically supports the sexual abuse charges.

>I mean we can think it's strange to have that sort of
>security, but none of us are international billionaire pop
>stars with tons of stalkers so its hardly definitive to me.
>
>shrugs.

But all you had to do was say that. The way you framed it was as if they were calling him a child abuser because he got an ADT system. Like, c'mon. I took issue with how you were attempting to reframe and oversimplify it. That's completely disingenuous, and you know it. Make the case that this labyrinth security system was because he was MJ, not because he tried to shield himself from being caught, and to include that in a list of 'facts' about him, unto itself, is disingenuous. That's a completely credible and reasonable argument. Not this other thing you're doing. That's just weird.

>
>And I think almost all of the claims here can be seen that
>way.
>
>Don't get me wrong. MJJ was stupid to hang out and share beds
>with kids. If not for the most basic reason as avoiding claims
>like this, but that he shared a bed with kids doesn't prove
>that he was diddling them and that's the conflating of facts
>that folks are doing to prove that he was a molester.

Here is where I kinda have to leave you. Of course 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2, in this case. But there is nothing acceptable, healthy or 'normal' about a grown man sleeping in the bed with young children (that aren't his own). In my mind, through that lens, it is not at all an unrealistic assumption that there may have been abuse. And if you combine that with what was clearly an deliberate and pointed campaign to keep the parents 'on the hook' and under his control with gifts and access, while deliberately separating the kids from them, I have a really hard time believing that the reason for that wasn't wholly sinister. Any quasi-professional will tell you that that is textbook grooming and to suggest anything different is.... disingenuous? Cognitive dissonance? Denial? Something...