迈克尔·杰克逊中国网  - 歌迷论坛

 找回密码
 加入MJJCN

QQ登录

只需一步,快速开始

搜索
查看: 2369|回复: 4

世界社会主义网站:谴责媒体对伪纪录片的偏向性报道

[复制链接]

1

主题

5

帖子

167

积分

普通会员

Rank: 2

积分
167
发表于 2019-3-7 11:23:52 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式
本帖最后由 婳晴儿 于 2019-3-7 11:28 编辑

(注:下文为长文谷歌翻译版本,标题机翻的意思不对所以自己翻了一下   来源:https://www.wsws.org/en/articles ... .html#disqus_thread
   英文原文稍后贴在回复区)

为什么媒体几乎对《离开梦幻岛》及其对迈克尔·杰克逊的指控没有任何怀疑态度?
作者:David Walsh,
2019年3月6日
3月3日和4日,美国有线电视和卫星电视网HBO 分两部分播放了由英国电影制片人丹·里德执导的236分钟纪录片“ 离开梦幻岛”。这部电影是HBO与英国广播电台4频道合作制作的电影。它于1月下旬在圣丹斯电影节首映。

离开Neverland 主要由两个男人Wade Robson和James Safechuck组成,详细描述了他们声称流行歌手Michael Jackson在20世纪80年代和90年代多年来对他们进行了性虐待。其各自直系亲属的其他成员是纪录片中唯一的其他受访者。

杰克逊是有史以来第三位最成功的音乐艺术家,也是美国娱乐业的悲剧受害者,于2009年6月因药物过量而死亡.Robon和Safechuck在年轻时曾与杰克逊度过了相当长的一段时间,他们都是杰克逊的强力捍卫者。这位歌手在他还活着的时候。

罗布森是一名舞蹈家和编舞家,两次宣誓证明杰克逊没有做错任何事。2005年5月杰克逊就儿童性虐待指控进行了审判期间,他是一名辩方证人(最终,该流行歌手在所有14项罪名中被判无罪)。在检察官持续烧伤案件的情况下,罗布森坚持认为杰克逊的行为从来就不合适。在流行歌星去世后,他还强烈谈到杰克逊。

罗布森在2013年突然发起了抨击,当时他对杰克逊庄园提起诉讼,指控他被系统地骚扰。由于他等待太长时间才采取法律行动,该案件被抛弃了。随后对杰克逊在他活着时拥有的两家公司实体的诉讼也被驳回。2014年,Safechuck将自己的名字加入罗布森的诉讼中。他以前一直坚持与杰克逊的友谊无辜。Robson和Safechuck正在诉讼解雇他们的诉讼,由同一家律师事务所代理。杰克逊庄园的一名律师在2013年将罗布森的诉讼称为抢钱,“透明......令人愤慨和悲伤”。

里德离开梦幻岛,在四个小时的过程中,并没有为任何人提供机会反驳罗布森 - 富查克克的指控。只有两个简短的承认“故事的另一面”存在:一个字幕揭示了布雷特·巴恩斯和演员麦考利·库尔金,他们在电影中被称为与杰克逊成为朋友的其他男孩,继续否认任何不当行为,以及一个简短的视频2005年杰克逊的律师托马斯·梅瑟罗(Thomas Mesereau)在2013年评论罗布森的“非常非常可疑”的改变。

除了在采访中提到的各种城市和地点的许多不相关的空中拍摄之外,大部分无休止的,幽闭恐怖的Leaving Neverland,大概是为了帮助减轻单调乏味,由Robson和Safechuck提出他们的主张。他们以耸人听闻和半色情的细节来表达。事情已经发生了这样的过程,这种偷窥和苛刻的练习被描述为“强硬”和“铆接”。这里提供的是迈克尔·杰克逊床上发生的事情的看法,好像这可能是有启发性的或以任何可能的方式有价值。
即使杰克逊是一个恋童癖者,而且这部电影的“第一手资料”并没有提供任何证据,那些制作“ 离开梦幻岛”和那些宣传它的人在道德上是令人遗憾和无耻的。他们正在寻求从这部电影中获利并利用这些活动来推动他们的事业和赚钱。

导演丹里德是一个可疑的人物。他的电影制作生涯体现了小报新闻,“全球反恐战争”和#MeToo竞选活动的不吸引人的融合。

“ 2016年太平洋标准 ”杂志标题为一篇关于里德的文章,“与重新组织HBO恐怖袭击的电影制片人见面。”这篇文章令人窒息地解释说,里德专门“负责制作关于现代恐怖事件的非小说类电影。在美国的HBO这些纪录片空气,全部由一个恰当恐吓声明,他们被称为(为了通过年)之前的恐怖在莫斯科恐怖在孟买,并在商场恐怖。”他接下来的努力,这也播出在HBO,是三天的恐怖:查理周刊攻击。(其他影片包括来自俄罗斯的现金前线战斗:战斗ISIS恋童癖猎人。)在任何问题上,他的所有作品都没有偏离官方政府路线,也没有任何表现出对推动美国和英国在中东,中亚和其他地方干预的地缘政治和社会问题的丝毫兴趣。

离开梦幻岛的一切都会产生难闻的气味。

里德,奥普拉温弗瑞和其他人坚持认为这部电影不是对杰克逊的起诉,而是打算“就儿童性虐待和相关问题展开讨论”。如果是这样的话,为什么这部电影不包括精神科医生,恋童癖专家或其他任何真正有资格解决这些问题的人?肮脏的,耸人听闻的动机表现在电影本身的结构和整体感觉上。离开梦幻岛并不是为了教育,而是为了麻木,恐吓和污染。

在2019年2月7日,致HBO首席执行官Richard Pepler,代表Jackson庄园的律师Howard Weitzman的一封信称,他的客户“花了数年时间与Robson和Safechuck一起提起诉讼,并且被这两个人解雇四起诉讼有偏见。(今天,Robson欠了庄园近七万美元的法庭费用,而Safechuck也欠了几千美元的房产。)在这些诉讼案中,庄园发现了大量有关Robson和Safechuck的信息,这些信息明确表明他们没有任何可信度。“

Weitzman继续说道,“Robson和Safechuck现在正在呼吁解雇他们数百万美元的诉讼。并非巧合的是,他们的呼吁可能会在今年晚些时候被听到。HBO的“纪录片”只是他们诉讼剧本中的另一个工具,他们显然是在(非常误导)的努力中以某种方式影响他们的诉求。“

在谈到2005年的审判时,他强有力地指出,“迈克尔·杰克逊遭受了长达十年的调查,他受到了圣巴巴拉县一位过度热心,道德挑战,最终被耻辱的检察官汤姆·斯内登的调查,他随处可见被认为是杰克逊的“受害者”。然而,他从未找到那些“受害者”。事实上,2005年对杰克逊的刑事审判是一场彻底的闹剧,迈克尔杰克逊完全被无罪释放。

“任何研究过该审判的人都知道,陪审团彻底否定了检方的案件。杰克逊的律师Tom Mesereau在他的开场和闭幕发言中采取了不同寻常的步骤,告诉陪审团他们应该取消Jackson,因为Mesereau和他的团队证明了Jackson无辜。换句话说,他没有将此案视为“合理怀疑”案件。Mesereau先生审理案件的目的和目的是证明杰克逊是无辜的。他就是这样做的。就在2017年,根据罗布森的表情,几名陪审员被重新采访了这个案子,并且他们都同意他们今天仍将无罪释放杰克逊。陪审员多次接受采访; 他们是清晰明亮的人,而不是丹·里德试图在他的“纪录片”中描绘他们的轻信白痴。然而,HBO依赖于两个被承认的伪装者的未经证实的故事,超过了美国司法系统的重要性。“

Weitzman得出结论:“我们知道HBO [现在由AT&T拥有]正面临来自Netflix,亚马逊和其他更现代化的内容提供商的严重竞争压力,但屈服于这一水平以重获观众是不光彩的。我们知道HBO及其合作伙伴在这部纪录片上不会成功。我们知道这将成为HBO历史上最可耻的一集。“

仍然存在“性卖”的情况,并且为了观众人数和利润的利益,HBO官员更愿意通过对纪录片的这种歪曲来降低自己。

WSWS多次撰写“迈克尔杰克逊的悲剧”,从2003年12月开始,并在2009年6月继续他的死亡和纪念活动。

在2003年因猥亵儿童罪被捕时,我们注意到“在演艺界茧中度过的生活”严重损害了他(“彼得潘”情结,不成熟,可疑的婚姻等): “当迈克尔杰克逊显然不知道自己是谁时,会有什么其他人呢?”

我们坚持杰克逊有权享有无罪推定,并认为即使他“被证明犯有这样的罪行,以证明他与社区分离的理由,一个人道的社会会以悲伤甚至同情的态度看待他,而不是蔑视和“我们认为”帮助创造杰克逊,操纵他的吸引力并培养他的个人怪癖“,该机构现在将利用他作为替罪羊或牺牲羔羊。

在2003年的WSWS另一种意见一一验证了预言,“但迈克尔·杰克逊的官司证明,一个有悲伤,甚至是悲剧性的命运掌握在商店表演的感觉。关于美国社会及其娱乐业的一切,尤其是他既是着名人物又是受害者,似乎都指向了这个方向。“

事实证明,即使在死亡中,鲨鱼和拾荒者也不会让他休息。

目前情况的一个显着特征是几乎普遍接受美国媒体对Robson-Safechuck的主张。两个人多年来一直在杰克逊庄园寻求金钱补偿,这个词被视为福音。为什么会有这么少的怀疑,为什么这么少的问题被问到?这并不是“流行观点”的反映。在各种“非权威”网站和博客上发现严重的,有时是对离开梦幻岛的有见地的批评并不难。

甚至在2003年至2005年期间,在杰克逊的审判期间,这也是控方的一次失败,并且在其后果中,对自由派和左翼界的歌手表示了普遍的同情。我们在2003年评论说,“圣巴巴拉当局反对杰克逊的运动具有反动的政治和社会色彩。县地方检察官Tom Sneddon的是一个保守的共和党与别有用心的。” Sneddon的是与布什的力量相关联,显然把自己看作‘在文化和道德战争斗士。’笔者应邀讨论在Jackson案威斯康星州公共广播节目于2003年12月播出,其中包括听众的电话。

事情变了。民主党内部和周围的中产阶级层次,由于股市繁荣和其他不义之财而大大丰富,已经向右移动了很多。#MeToo运动是社会转变的一种反映。对基本民主规范的敌意在这些层面中“蓬勃发展”。他们进一步区别于一般人口。在富裕的小资产阶级中,强烈的自我主义和傲慢占主导地位,同时也蔑视群众。他们计算出金钱来自智慧,他们的话应该是法律。原告“必须被相信”现在是口号,无罪推定和正当程序被定罪。

对Robson和Safechuck的指控不容置疑或甚至审查,因为这会让整个#MeToo的追捕行为受到质疑。

亿万富翁奥普拉温弗瑞每次张开嘴时都会说出另一个平庸,是这场运动的精神金融领袖,纽约时报是其知识分子的“支柱”。

时报 “莫琳多德,我们这个时代的精神支柱之一,写了恶心列谴责迈克尔·杰克逊于2月16日,‘流行和变态之王。’这是来自这充分说明了纽约市的报纸超级富豪过去二十年来,美国帝国主义的每一次血腥罪行都得到了提升。

多德写道,“由于离开梦幻岛显示,迈克尔·杰克逊度过了他一生的形状改变,从最好的朋友,父亲般的人物和慈善偶像进入残酷的,操控强奸犯。”这部电影,在现实中,不显示任何内容。它传递了两个人未经证实的未经证实的断言。该专栏作家继续说道,“几十年来,杰克逊的棉花糖巢穴显然是含硫的。但与其他怪物一样,哈维·温斯坦,比尔·科斯比,R。凯利,伍迪·艾伦,杰弗里·爱泼斯坦和布莱恩·辛格等人对此视而不见。“
Dowd的反动,McCarthyite涂抹 - 仅仅是类似线条中主流媒体中的几十个之一 - 是一个精神错乱,越来越右翼的产物。

将杰克逊视为“怪物”是不诚实和应受谴责的。他的困难和特点并非突然出现。他的生活是什么?正如我们在16年前指出的那样,“从一个不正常的,工人阶级家庭的几乎不可思议天赋的男孩,杰克逊被美国​​娱乐界的骨粉碎机械风靡起来。”这种或那种方式,他的准幼稚是有联系的缺乏一个真正的童年。

现在,这种社会和心理上的考虑比以往任何时候都更加消失,被轻视,蔑视。媒体报道中没有一丝同情或基本的人性。“怪物”​​,性侵犯等的创建已成为民主党在特定的操作和议程必不可少的,完全没有能力解决美国潜在的社会腐烂和痛苦的。

迈克尔杰克逊已经死了近十年。现在他被侮辱,再次被践踏 - 为了什么?整个事业已经退化为对金钱和职业发展的肮脏追求。我们谴责它。




回复

使用道具 举报

1

主题

5

帖子

167

积分

普通会员

Rank: 2

积分
167
 楼主| 发表于 2019-3-7 11:26:47 | 显示全部楼层
World Socialist Web Site wsws.org
Why is there so little media skepticism about Leaving Neverland and its allegations against Michael Jackson?
By David Walsh
6 March 2019
On March 3 and 4, US cable and satellite television network HBO aired Leaving Neverland, a 236-minute documentary directed by British filmmaker Dan Reed, in two parts. The film is a co-production between HBO and UK broadcaster Channel 4. It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in late January.

Leaving Neverland consists principally of two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, detailing their claims that pop singer Michael Jackson sexually abused them as children over the course of many years, in the 1980s and 1990s. Other members of their respective immediate families are the only other interviewees in the documentary.

Jackson, the third most successful musical artist of all time and a tragic victim of the American entertainment industry, died of a drug overdose in June 2009. Both Robson and Safechuck, who spent considerable time with Jackson when they were young, were strong defenders of the singer while he was alive.

Robson, a dancer and choreographer, twice testified under oath that Jackson had done nothing wrong. He was a defense witness in May 2005 during Jackson’s trial on child sexual abuse charges (at the end of which the pop star was found not guilty on all 14 counts). Under sustained grilling by the prosecutor in the case, Robson was adamant that Jackson’s conduct had never been inappropriate. He also spoke strongly about Jackson following the pop star’s death.

Robson made a sudden volte-face in 2013, when he filed a lawsuit against the Jackson estate alleging that he had been systematically molested. That case was thrown out on the grounds that he had waited too long to take legal action. A subsequent suit against two corporate entities owned by Jackson when he was alive was also dismissed. Safechuck added his name to Robson’s lawsuit in 2014. He too had always previously insisted on the innocence of his friendship with Jackson. Robson and Safechuck, who are appealing the dismissal of their suits, are represented by the same law firm. An attorney for the Jackson estate in 2013 termed the Robson lawsuit a money-grab, “transparent … outrageous and sad.”

Reed’s Leaving Neverland, over the course of four hours, does not provide the opportunity for anyone to rebut the Robson-Safechuck charges. There are only two brief acknowledgements that “another side of the story” exists: an intertitle revealing that Brett Barnes and actor Macaulay Culkin, who are referenced in the film as other boys whom Jackson befriended, continue to deny any impropriety, and a brief video clip of Jackson’s attorney in the 2005 case, Thomas Mesereau, commenting in 2013 on Robson’s “very, very suspicious” change of heart.

The vast bulk of the interminable, claustrophobic Leaving Neverland, aside from the many irrelevant aerial shots of the various cities and locales mentioned in the interviews, intended presumably to help relieve the tedium, consists of Robson and Safechuck setting out their claims. They do so in lurid and semi-pornographic detail. Things have come to such a pass that this exercise in voyeurism and prurience is described as “hard-hitting” and “riveting.” On offer here is a purported view of what went on in Michael Jackson’s bed, as though that could be illuminating or valuable in any possible fashion.

Even if Jackson were a pedophile, and the film’s “first-hand account” provides no substantiation whatsoever of that claim, those who made Leaving Neverland and those promoting it are morally deplorable and shameless. They are seeking to profit from the film and exploit the events to advance their careers and make money.

Director Dan Reed is a dubious figure. His filmmaking career embodies the unattractive confluence of tabloid journalism, the “global war on terror” and #MeToo campaigning.

The Pacific Standard magazine in 2016 headlined an article about Reed, “Meet the filmmaker who recreates terrorist attacks for HBO.” The piece explained breathlessly that Reed specialized “in helming non-fiction films about modern terrorist events. These documentaries air in the United States on HBO and are all preceded by a fittingly intimidating disclaimer—they are called (in order by year) Terror in Moscow, Terror in Mumbai, and Terror at the Mall.” His next effort, which also aired on HBO, was Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks. (Other films include From Russia with Cash, Frontline Fighting: Battling ISIS and The Paedophile Hunter.) None of his works strays from the official government line on any issue and none indicates the slightest interest in the geopolitical and social concerns driving US and UK interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia and elsewhere.

Everything about Leaving Neverland produces a bad odor.

Reed, Oprah Winfrey and others insist that the film is not meant as an indictment of Jackson, but intended to “open a discussion” on child sexual abuse and related questions. If that is so, why does the film not include a single appearance by a psychiatrist, an expert on pedophilia or anyone else genuinely qualified to address such issues? The sordid, sensationalized motives are expressed in the structure and overall feel of the film itself. Leaving Neverland is not designed to educate, but to numb, intimidate and pollute.

In a February 7, 2019, letter addressed to HBO Chief Executive Officer Richard Pepler, attorney Howard Weitzman, representing the Jackson estate, asserted that his client had “spent years litigating with Robson and Safechuck, and had four different lawsuits by these two men dismissed with prejudice. (Today, Robson owes the Estate almost seventy thousand dollars in court costs, and Safechuck owes the Estate several thousand dollars as well.) In those litigations, the Estate discovered troves of information about Robson and Safechuck that made it unequivocally clear that they had no credibility whatsoever.”

Weitzman went on, “Robson and Safechuck are now appealing the dismissal of their multi-million dollar lawsuits. Not coincidentally, their appeals are likely to be heard later this year. HBO’s ‘documentary’ is simply just another tool in their litigation playbook, which they are obviously using in a (very misguided) effort to somehow affect their appeals.”

Referring to the trial in 2005, he argued forcefully, “Michael Jackson was subjected to a decade-long investigation by an overly-zealous, ethically-challenged, and ultimately disgraced prosecutor in Santa Barbara County, Tom Sneddon, who looked anywhere and everywhere for supposed ‘victims’ of Jackson’s. Yet, he never found those ‘victims.’ Indeed, the 2005 criminal trial of Jackson was a complete farce, and Michael Jackson was completely exonerated.

“As anyone who has studied that trial knows, the jury utterly repudiated the prosecution’s case. In both his opening and closing statements, Jackson’s attorney, Tom Mesereau, took the unusual step of telling the jury that they should acquit Jackson because Mesereau and his team had proven Jackson innocent. In other words, he did not try the case as a ‘reasonable doubt’ case. Mr. Mesereau tried the case with the purpose and goal of proving Jackson innocent. And he did exactly that. As recently as 2017, several jurors were re-interviewed about the case in light of Robson’s about-face, and they all agreed that they would still acquit Jackson today. The jurors have been interviewed many times; they are articulate bright people, not the gullible idiots that Dan Reed tries to paint them as in his ‘documentary.’ Yet HBO is relying on the uncorroborated stories of two admitted perjurers over the weight of the American justice system.”

Weitzman concluded, “We know that HBO [now owned by AT&T] is facing serious competitive pressures from Netflix, Amazon and other more modern content providers, but to stoop to this level to regain an audience is disgraceful. We know HBO and its partners on this documentary will not be successful. We know that this will go down as the most shameful episode in HBO’s history.”

It remains the case that “sex sells,” and HBO officials were more than willing to degrade themselves with this travesty of a documentary in the interest of audience numbers and profits.

The WSWS wrote a number of times on “Michael Jackson’s tragedy,” beginning in December 2003 and continuing through his death and memorial in June 2009.

At the time of his arrest on charges of child molestation in 2003, we noted that “a life spent in a show business cocoon” had seriously damaged him (the “Peter Pan” complex, the immaturity, the questionable marriages, etc.): “What are other people to make of Michael Jackson when he obviously has so little idea of who he is himself?”

We insisted that Jackson was entitled to the presumption of innocence and argued that even if he “were proven guilty of such crimes as to justify his being separated from the community, a humane society would view him with sadness and even sympathy, rather than scorn and hatred.” We argued that “having helped create Jackson, manipulated his appeal and nurtured his personal eccentricities,” the establishment would now make use of him as a scapegoat or sacrificial lamb.

Another observation on the WSWS in 2003 proved all too prophetic, “However Michael Jackson’s court case turns out, one has the feeling that a sad, perhaps even tragic fate lies in store for the performer. Everything about American society and its entertainment industry in particular, of which he is both a celebrated figure and a victim, would seem to point in that direction.”

Even in death, it turns out, the sharks and scavengers will not let him rest.

A striking feature of the present situation is the almost universal acceptance of the Robson-Safechuck claims by the American media. The word of two individuals, who have been seeking monetary compensation from the Jackson estate for years, is taken as gospel. Why is there so little skepticism, why are so few questions being asked? This is not a reflection of “popular opinion,” as it were. It is not difficult to find on various “non-authoritative” websites and blogs serious and sometimes insightful criticism of Leaving Neverland.

Even in the 2003–2005 period, during Jackson’s trial, which was a debacle for the prosecution, and in its aftermath, there was a general sympathy for the singer in liberal and left circles. We remarked in 2003 that the “campaign by Santa Barbara authorities against Jackson has reactionary political and social overtones. County district attorney Tom Sneddon is a conservative Republican with an ax to grind.” Sneddon was associated with the Bush forces and evidently saw himself as “a crusader in a cultural and moral war.” This writer was invited to discuss the Jackson case on a Wisconsin Public Radio program in December 2003, which included calls from listeners.

Things have changed. Upper middle class layers in and around the Democratic Party, immensely enriched by the stock market boom and other ill-gotten windfalls, have moved farther to the right. The #MeToo movement is one reflection of a social shift. Hostility to elementary democratic norms has “blossomed” among these layers. They have further differentiated themselves from the general population. Intense egotism and arrogance predominate among the affluent petty bourgeois, along with contempt for the masses. They calculate that with money comes wisdom, and their word should be law. The accuser “must be believed” is now the watchword, and presumption of innocence and due process be damned.

The allegations of Robson and Safechuck cannot be doubted or even scrutinized, because that would throw the entire #MeToo witch-hunt into question.

Billionaire Oprah Winfrey, who utters another banality every time she opens her mouth, is the spiritual-financial leader of this movement and the New York Times is its intellectual “backbone.”

The Times’ Maureen Dowd, one of the moral pillars of our time, penned a disgusting column denouncing Michael Jackson on February 16, “The King of Pop—and Perversion.” This is from the newspaper that speaks for New York City’s super-rich and has promoted every bloody crime of American imperialism for the past two decades.

Dowd writes, “As Leaving Neverland shows, Michael Jackson spent his life shape-shifting from best pal, father figure and beneficent idol into cruel, manipulative rapist.” The film, in reality, does not show anything. It passes on the unsubstantiated, unproven assertions of two individuals. The columnist continues, “It was apparent for decades that Jackson’s cotton-candy lair was sulfurous. But as with other monsters—Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, R. Kelly, Woody Allen, Jeffrey Epstein and Bryan Singer—many turned a blind eye.”

Dowd’s reactionary, McCarthyite smear—merely one of dozens in the mainstream media along similar lines—is the product of an unhinged, increasingly right-wing layer.

To present Jackson as a “monster” is dishonest and reprehensible. His difficulties and peculiarities did not come out of the blue. What was his life? As we noted 16 years ago, “An almost preternaturally talented boy from a dysfunctional, working class family, Jackson was swept up by the American entertainment industry’s bone-crushing machinery.” One way or another, his quasi-infantilism was linked to the lack of a genuine childhood.

Now, more than ever, such social and psychological considerations are simply wiped away, dismissed with contempt. There isn’t a trace of sympathy or elemental humanity in the media coverage. The creation of “monsters,” sexual predators and the like, has become essential to the operations and agenda of the Democratic Party in particular, utterly incapable of addressing the underlying social rot and misery in America.

Michael Jackson has been dead for nearly a decade. Now he is being excoriated, trampled upon once more—for what? The whole business has degenerated into a squalid pursuit of money and career advancement. We condemn it.

Copyright © 1998-2019 World Socialist Web Site - All rights reserved
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

465

主题

6644

帖子

20万

积分

超级版主

妖道大变身

Rank: 10Rank: 10Rank: 10

积分
209483

特别贡献奖

发表于 2019-3-7 11:38:40 | 显示全部楼层
感谢翻译和分享!
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

15

主题

2694

帖子

1001万

积分

圣殿骑士

Rank: 9Rank: 9Rank: 9

积分
10014808
发表于 2019-3-7 13:36:09 | 显示全部楼层
楼主赞一个。。。
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

27

主题

2603

帖子

3万

积分

至尊天神

Rank: 8Rank: 8

积分
33614
发表于 2019-3-7 15:43:30 | 显示全部楼层
辛苦了,文章最后一句真相了!
虚伪的眼泪的会伤害他人,虚伪的笑容会伤害自己!
回复 支持 反对

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 加入MJJCN

本版积分规则

Archiver|手机版|小黑屋|迈克尔杰克逊中文网(Michael Jackson Chinese Fanclub)[官方认证歌迷站] ( 桂ICP备18010620号-7 )

GMT+8, 2024-3-29 01:38

Powered by Discuz! X3.4

© 2001-2017 Comsenz Inc.

快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表