The MJ trial.. [Archive] - DreamCatcher Forums

Frag Maniac

06-18-2005, 04:17 AM

I've been going around my local apt building here discussing it a bit, and mentioning how the average poor black man would have already been in prison for it, but then I read spyware's remark, and realized, wait a minute, MJ's got his own race going there!LOL:D

Most if not all the jury thought he was guilty, but couldn't convict without hard evidence, but then MJ appears to be a softy doesn't he?:rolleyes:

Even with things like gay porn mags found in the room where the kids were, they couldn't prove he'd showed it to them.

This country's justice system is full of laws to protect the average citizen from being railroaded by circumstantial evidence, which might be a good thing if the wealthy weren't always taking advantage of it, and the poor always falling despite what it's intended for.

Luigibuddy

06-18-2005, 03:00 PM

Most people think he's guilty because he looks weird, if it was somebody else then I bet that everyone would agree that he's innocent.

Grinder1989

06-18-2005, 06:08 PM

Most people think he's guilty because he looks weird, if it was somebody else then I bet that everyone would agree that he's innocent.

Umm not exactly. I think that most people think hes weird but not guilty because of it. He does have a history of this i remind you.

Grinder

Bjossi

06-18-2005, 09:11 PM

they should have just locked that crazy freak up. People like him make me sick. Rich, ugly, child molesting *****.

Grinder

He´s rich and ugly, but child malesting...? I can´t imagine MJ doing that. The only proof was a strange mom and her kid. Maybe he was let go because of reasonable doubt.

PainKilla

06-18-2005, 09:17 PM

Most people think he's guilty because he looks weird, if it was somebody else then I bet that everyone would agree that he's innocent.

I actualy agree with Luigi (Holy sh*t)
...

I personally think people are overreacting against Michael Jackson, they act like it's the first d*mn child molester the world has ever come across... Maybe they should put every other child molester on trial! Jesus.

Grinder1989

06-18-2005, 09:19 PM

I actualy agree with Luigi (Holy sh*t)
...

I personally think people are overreacting against Michael Jackson, they act like it's the first d*mn child molester the world has ever come across... Maybe they should put every other child molester on trial! Jesus.

I'm sure people try but hes a celeb. so it's a big deal to everyone. I don't think it is, i just think they should have locked him up.

Grinder

PainKilla

06-18-2005, 09:21 PM

Grinder1989

06-18-2005, 09:26 PM

Why?
Why lock him up? If it wasn't Michael Jackson, you wouldn't give a sh*t, you'd just see it on the paper with someone like.. Oh.. A random homeless person and you'd say "Oh whatever" and flip through to a different section.

Well hes guilty, i mean isn't that what you do with people that are guilty? He probably bought out the jury for christ sake. This world is corrupt, remember that.

Grinder

Bjossi

06-18-2005, 10:24 PM

Is he guilty? Where´s the proof?
The world is corrupt, but MJ was let go because of reasonable doubt. Was there any proof of his guilty-ness except that kid saying he was molested?

Frag Maniac

06-19-2005, 12:04 AM

...guilty based on his looks, and defending him because he happens to be a rich child molester?

First off, we that listen to the rock 'n' roll genre of music are plenty used to seeing freaky looking people, that's not at all the issue, as well, I think the entire world is quite accustomed to it by now, and not merely due to rock's influence.

Second, why defend any child molestor, rich or not? Sure there's no actual hard proof that he is, but if you're going to imply that you think he is, why defend him at all? If you had a 10 or 12 year old son, would you want him to be the victim of one, merely because there's plenty of it going on?

Thirdly, no there was no hard evidence of molestation, as I said, but the conduct of having kids in the same room a person stores gay pornography in is I think at least something that warrants restrictions on how he's allowed to invite "guests" over, and cause for a major ongoing investigation.

Did you know that most of the jury thought he was guilty, no not just suspicious, but guilty, but they couldn't prove it based on lack of evidence? Keep in mind that the jury is privy to a LOT more info on the story than we are.

I don't think those appalled by the decision are upset so much at the jury members, as they are at the double standard our system is known for, and they/we have every right to be.

Luigibuddy

06-19-2005, 12:16 AM

First off, we that listen to the rock 'n' roll genre of music are plenty used to seeing freaky looking people, that's not at all the issue, as well, I think the entire world is quite accustomed to it by now, and not merely due to rock's influence.

Second, why defend any child molestor, rich or not?

Thirdly, no there was no hard evidence of molestation, as I said, but the conduct of having kids in the same room a person stores gay pornography in is I think at least something that warrants restrictions on how he's allowed to invite "guests" over, and cause for a major ongoing investigation.

Did you know that most of the jury thought he was guilty, no not just suspicious, but guilty, but they couldn't prove it based on lack of eveidence?

I don't think those appalled by the decision are upset so much at the jury members, as they are at the double standard our system is known for, and they/we have every right to be.

and defending him because he happens to be a rich child molester?
Find me one post were somebody says he/she is defending him because he's rich.

First off, we that listen to the rock 'n' roll genre of music are plenty used to seeing freaky looking people,
Most idiots in the rock industry just use make-up in their faces and/or dress like women. On the other hand Jackson has so many surgeries on his face that he's a freaking mess, add that to the fact that he's a well known pop singer and you've got yourself a lot of people saying he's weird and looks like the kind of person that would sleep with kids.

Second, why defend any child molestor, rich or not?
There's not enough information to officially say that he molested kids.

Shock

06-19-2005, 02:43 AM

There's not enough information to officially say that he molested kids.

Really? But you accused me of molesting babies in another thread. It sounds to me that you are fixated on molestation and people should steer clear of you.

Luigibuddy

06-19-2005, 02:47 AM

Really? But you accused me of molesting babies in another thread. It sounds to me that you are fixated on molestation and people should steer clear of you.
As far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with what we're discussing in this thread. Not sure why you bothered to post that anyways.

T'krau

06-19-2005, 03:04 AM

Consider this - I don't think he's EVER had what we would think of as a normal life; I doubt he's ever had what we would think of as 'friends'; I think it's possible that he's telling the truth when he gives his side of the story (for lack of a more delicate way of putting it, he's trying to buy friends) and it wouldn't surprise me to find out that the accuser, or more accurately, his mother (oh boy... :rolleyes: ) really were trying to blackmail him.

Someone mentioned that he had "...a history..." of what he was accused of - what he has a history of is settling out of court (once, for a large amount of money...) on a similar charge. She thought he'd do it again.

BTW - while I can appreciate the talent, I'm not a fan of his music, and think he's weird as h*ll.

Shock

06-19-2005, 03:06 AM

As far as I am concerned this has nothing to do with what we're discussing in this thread. Not sure why you bothered to post that anyways.

If you don't want thing like this popping up in threads you post in then maybe you should keep your mouth shut. You're the one making the accusations so own up to it. Now, get off my back you stalker.

Luigibuddy

06-19-2005, 03:11 AM

If you don't want thing like this popping up in threads you post in then maybe you should keep your mouth shut. You're the one making the accusations so own up to it. Now, get off my back you stalker.

If you don't want thing like this popping up in threads you post in then maybe you should keep your mouth shut.
Oh no, somebody's taking the internet seriously.

Now, get off my back you stalker.
Considering how you're the one checking the threads were I post and replying to them with the objective of starting a flamewar then I think the only stalker here is you.

Sorry for going off-topic everyone.

Shock

06-19-2005, 03:17 AM

Considering how you're the one checking the threads were I post and replying to them with the objective of starting a flamewar then I think the only stalker here is you.

Sorry for going off-topic everyone.

Yeah, she's sorry she doesn't practice what she preaches. Oh, I mean he.

Frag Maniac

06-19-2005, 04:50 AM

Find me one post were somebody says he/she is defending him because he's rich.
(from Painkilla's post agreeing with you)
"Why lock him up? If it wasn't Michael Jackson, you wouldn't give a sh*t,"

This doesn't say it specifically, but implies that he's being tried because he's in the spotlight being rich, much like OJ I assume you meant Pain? Especially when he goes on to say you'd just be watching it in the newspaper with some random homeless person, if it weren't someone like MJ. That's a definate way of saying he's only being accused by the public because he's a celeb, as far as what I saw in it.

Most idiots in the rock industry just use make-up in their faces and/or dress like women. On the other hand Jackson has so many surgeries on his face that he's a freaking mess, add that to the fact that he's a well known pop singer and you've got yourself a lot of people saying he's weird and looks like the kind of person that would sleep with kids..
Woah, I know and respect that you don't like rock LB, but you're using your distaste for it to make some rather stereotypical blanket statements here. I don't really see MOST rock musicians either wearing heavy makeup, OR wearing dresses, but everyone has their fave type of band I suppose. Even in the glam rock days, it wasn't really MOST bands that were doing that, they just got more than their share of the spotlight because it was trendy at the time.

Where you extrapolate all this into saying MJ is accused of looking like someone that would sleep with kids just because lots of people think he looks weird, is quite a stretch of the imagination too I think.

There's not enough information to officially say that he molested kids.
I didn't say there was, if anything I said there's not enough hard evidence to convict him, read the post again, those words you quoted were in response to this:

"I personally think people are overreacting against Michael Jackson, they act like it's the first d*mn child molester the world has ever come across..."

...and you should have quoted it like this, so as not to take it ouit of context:

"why defend any child molestor, rich or not? Sure there's no actual hard proof that he is, but if you're going to imply that you think he is, why defend him at all?"

PainKilla

06-19-2005, 08:48 AM

If you don't want thing like this popping up in threads you post in then maybe you should keep your mouth shut. You're the one making the accusations so own up to it. Now, get off my back you stalker.

Yeah, she's sorry she doesn't practice what she preaches. Oh, I mean he.

Alright, sorry to jump off topic as well, but when it comes to defending, I'm actualy going to be defending Luigi on this little conflict. We get it now, Luigi has done a few things annoying in the past, I've gotten over it, I don't have a big problem anymore.

I personally think you had no right to post here, Shock. You immidiately went off-topic when you did.

Grinder1989

06-19-2005, 01:05 PM

Shock, i'm not getting into any of this between you and LB, But he didn't really say anything to you after what you said so just let it go. Your not gonna get anything out of it so don't make it worse. Also i'm not trying to be a prick or anything like that i'm just saying....

Grinder

Shock

06-19-2005, 01:49 PM

Alright, sorry to jump off topic as well, but when it comes to defending, I'm actualy going to be defending Luigi on this little conflict. We get it now, Luigi has done a few things annoying in the past, I've gotten over it, I don't have a big problem anymore.

I personally think you had no right to post here, Shock. You immidiately went off-topic when you did.

I had as much right to post here as she, he, or it seemed to have the right to post in my other forum. LuigiBuddy has serious mental issues. Anyone that makes up stories about having sex with babies should be institutionalized. That's not even remotely funny. Then "it" shows up in this thread defending the MJ molestation. People are warped in many ways.

PainKilla

06-19-2005, 03:50 PM

No, "It" showed up in the threads because of YOU.
If you let it go, nobody would have to think or read it again, would they?

Let it go, and drop it. Again, I know you may have some conflict with Luigi, but as far as I've seen, he's not all the big ol' "annoying p*ss" like I've said he was, afterall.

dghillza

06-19-2005, 06:04 PM

I actualy agree with Luigi (Holy sh*t)
...

I personally think people are overreacting against Michael Jackson, they act like it's the first d*mn child molester the world has ever come across... Maybe they should put every other child molester on trial! Jesus.

Should Jesus put every child molester on trial ? OR should Jesus be put on trial for child molesting ? OR are you just asking Jesus if they should put every child molester on trial ?

Luigibuddy

06-19-2005, 06:20 PM

(from Painkilla's post agreeing with you)
"Why lock him up? If it wasn't Michael Jackson, you wouldn't give a sh*t,"

This doesn't say it specifically, but implies that he's being tried because he's in the spotlight being rich, much like OJ I assume you meant Pain? Especially when he goes on to say you'd just be watching it in the newspaper with some random homeless person, if it weren't someone like MJ. That's a definate way of saying he's only being accused by the public because he's a celeb, as far as what I saw in it.

Woah, I know and respect that you don't like rock LB, but you're using your distaste for it to make some rather stereotypical blanket statements here. I don't really see MOST rock musicians either wearing heavy makeup, OR wearing dresses, but everyone has their fave type of band I suppose. Even in the glam rock days, it wasn't really MOST bands that were doing that, they just got more than their share of the spotlight because it was trendy at the time.

Where you extrapolate all this into saying MJ is accused of looking like someone that would sleep with kids just because lots of people think he looks weird, is quite a stretch of the imagination too I think.

I didn't say there was, if anything I said there's not enough hard evidence to convict him, read the post again, those words you quoted were in response to this:

"I personally think people are overreacting against Michael Jackson, they act like it's the first d*mn child molester the world has ever come across..."

...and you should have quoted it like this, so as not to take it ouit of context:

"why defend any child molestor, rich or not? Sure there's no actual hard proof that he is, but if you're going to imply that you think he is, why defend him at all?"

(from Painkilla's post agreeing with you)
"Why lock him up? If it wasn't Michael Jackson, you wouldn't give a sh*t,"

This doesn't say it specifically, but implies that he's being tried because he's in the spotlight being rich, much like OJ I assume you meant Pain? Especially when he goes on to say you'd just be watching it in the newspaper with some random homeless person, if it weren't someone like MJ. That's a definate way of saying he's only being accused by the public because he's a celeb, as far as what I saw in it.
What Painkilla meant with that post was that if it was a Joe everybody then the whole issue wouldn't get so much attention. But since Michael Jackson's so recognized then this is why there's such a huge drama.

Where you extrapolate all this into saying MJ is accused of looking like someone that would sleep with kids just because lots of people think he looks weird, is quite a stretch of the imagination too I think.
Yet it's the truth. I'm sure many of the people that say that he did sleep with kids just say it because he "looks" like the kind of person that would do it.

Frag Maniac

06-19-2005, 10:54 PM

What Painkilla meant with that post was that if it was a Joe everybody then the whole issue wouldn't get so much attention. But since Michael Jackson's so recognized then this is why there's such a huge drama..
Who knows what he meant, it appears we are both defending our interpretation of it? Even the way you say it though makes it sound like he's being mistreated because he's in the public spotlight, which is more or less what I said, and can be interpreted as defending him becasue you think he's a victim of it.

Now I happened to say because he's rich, but if he weren't would he really be famous or in the public eye so much, pretty much the same difference I think.

Yet it's the truth. I'm sure many of the people that say that he did sleep with kids just say it because he "looks" like the kind of person that would do it.
You're sure,....not you know it to be true based on surveys or facts? Your own words indicate that you are speaking for the public, not asking their opinions, pure speculation my friend.;)

PainKilla

06-19-2005, 10:59 PM

Who knows what he meant

I don't see how hard it is to see what I meant...

All I'm saying, is people make it a big deal ONLY because it's Michael Jackson. They think he's weird because of his plastic surgery, and it goes on to that subject. If he didn't have plastic surgery, what would their opinion be then? Half the people wouldn't care about it, only people who know Michael Jackson would.

On the other hand, if it were someone less known, like for example a person off the street (like I said) it'd just be another "Who gives a sh*t" kind of thing.

I personally would rather support Michael Jackson, because now it seems like people are just overreacting.

Frag Maniac

06-19-2005, 11:29 PM

I don't see how hard it is to see what I meant...

All I'm saying, is people make it a big deal ONLY because it's Michael Jackson. They think he's weird because of his plastic surgery, and it goes on to that subject. If he didn't have plastic surgery, what would their opinion be then? Half the people wouldn't care about it, only people who know Michael Jackson would.

On the other hand, if it were someone less known, like for example a person off the street (like I said) it'd just be another "Who gives a sh*t" kind of thing.

I personally would rather support Michael Jackson, because now it seems like people are just overreacting.

Thanks for clarifying, and I didn't mean for your post to be a subject of debate. Obviously we all have our own opinions on this. It appears then I was not off the mark to say you're feeling he is being unfairly treated because he's in the spotlight, or rich as I put it?

I understand fully why some have and share your opinion Pain. There is a certain amount of human instinct that kicks in, especially in this country with so many laws protecting people from circumstantial evidence, when someone is put in the spotlight for a crime that's yet to be proven.

What I disagree with however, is that the general public is basing their opinions on this particular issue, based on his looks or fame, rather than his having been repeatedly investigated for this type of behavior.

You can't just trump up an investigation easily, there has to be sufficient cause for it, especially against someone that can afford the best lawyers.

Jurors are very carefully picked, especially for serious allogations and big money cases. If you've ever been a part of jury selection, you'd know how lengthy and involved it can be even for smaller crimes. There are many questions asked of the jurors based on predjudices like you've mentioned, and they can easily be denied a position if the defense doesn't feel they will be unbiased.

The jurors agreed that there wasn't enough evidence to convict, but that in itself certainly doesn't make MJ innocent, and I think any of the jurors would tell you they wish there would have been sufficient evidence, because most if not all thought he was guilty. It's not easy making a decsion you know is based on the technicalities of law, when you feel strongly that he is guilty, as they have said.

Many of the opinions from the public you are hearing lately are no doubt based on what the jurors have said after the trial, in saying they thought he was guilty, and these are unbiased people according to the defense's selection. The defense couldn't care less what the jurors say after an acquittal, it's all they're after really, and how they get payed.

Despite what is said about the opinions of the general population of this country at times, most are pretty well informed, and insist on good and accurrate news sources. The fact that most citizens that vote are voicing their disaproval of political muckraking, and insisting the politicians stay focused on the issues is a prime example of that I think.

PainKilla

06-20-2005, 01:49 AM

Eh my mind blew up, you went into a lot of detail.

While I don't know a whole lot about the Jury and all, I just think they should calm down a bit. One child out of billions, and one man out of the entire world population, yet they make it such a huge deal.

And to h*ll, I'd just walk by Michael Jackson some day, and run around screaming he pinched my nipple, then everyone would likely believe it. I just don't understand, really.

Off-Topic:
I've got to get to bed, Community Service in the morning.

Luigibuddy

06-20-2005, 05:33 PM

Who knows what he meant, it appears we are both defending our interpretation of it? Even the way you say it though makes it sound like he's being mistreated because he's in the public spotlight, which is more or less what I said, and can be interpreted as defending him becasue you think he's a victim of it.

Now I happened to say because he's rich, but if he weren't would he really be famous or in the public eye so much, pretty much the same difference I think.

You're sure,....not you know it to be true based on surveys or facts? Your own words indicate that you are speaking for the public, not asking their opinions, pure speculation my friend.;)

Who knows what he meant,
I guess now we both know what he meant.

You're sure,....not you know it to be true based on surveys or facts? Your own words indicate that you are speaking for the public, not asking their opinions, pure speculation my friend.;)
And do you have any facts saying this isn't true? That's pure speculation from your part too.

Frag Maniac

06-20-2005, 10:07 PM

PainKilla

06-20-2005, 10:35 PM

My mind just blew another circuit, I have no idea what you two are fighting about anymore...

I'm thinking too hard I guess.

Big Roachy

06-21-2005, 12:11 AM

My mind just blew another circuit, I have no idea what you two are fighting about anymore...

I'm thinking too hard I guess.

Me neither..
Oh well, it'll pass I guess.

T'krau

06-21-2005, 11:27 AM

Oh well, it'll pass I guess.
Yeah, kinda like a bad burrito...

Luigibuddy

06-29-2005, 03:57 PM

First off, you're the one that implied that I quoted Pain wrong, that he was not defending him because he's in the public spotlight, or rich as I put it.

To just say now we know what he meant tells me nothing, are you admitting you were wrong on that point, probably not is my guess?

Second, you'e the one that made the claim in the first place that he's being misjudged because of his looks, so you should be the one to back up the claim, which is obviously speculation on your part.

First off, you're the one that implied that I quoted Pain wrong, that he was not defending him because he's in the public spotlight, or rich as I put it.

To just say now we know what he meant tells me nothing, are you admitting you were wrong on that point, probably not is my guess?
I was talking about this (http://www.dreamcatchergames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=168760&postcount=31) post. You didn't understand too well what he meant with another post he made, he replied and cleared that up.

Second, you'e the one that made the claim in the first place that he's being misjudged because of his looks, so you should be the one to back up the claim, which is obviously speculation on your part.
Only because there are no "official" facts(statistics, etc.) doesn't mean it's not true. You should try asking people in general, it's better to hear what they think about it.

Frag Maniac

06-29-2005, 05:28 PM

I was talking about this (http://www.dreamcatchergames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=168760&postcount=31) post. You didn't understand too well what he meant with another post he made, he replied and cleared that up.
Ha, that post pretty much says what I said, only because he's MJ, as he says. Where in that do you not see that he's saying MJ is being picked on merely because he's in the spotlight. If that were true, the rags, and every newspaper would be having a field day with ANY celeb.

Only because there are no "official" facts(statistics, etc.) doesn't mean it's not true. You should try asking people in general, it's better to hear what they think about it.
This is absurd too, you act as if you are "people in general", simply because it came from your mouth.

Maybe you should start your own MJ fan club of people against presupposed accusations reguarding fame and ugliness.LOL:D

Luigibuddy

06-29-2005, 06:57 PM

Ha, that post pretty much says what I said, only because he's MJ, as he says. Where in that do you not see that he's saying MJ is being picked on merely because he's in the spotlight. If that were true, the rags, and every newspaper would be having a field day with ANY celeb.

This is absurd too, you act as if you are "people in general", simply because it came from your mouth.

Maybe you should start your own MJ fan club of people against presupposed accusations reguarding fame and ugliness.LOL:D

Ha, that post pretty much says what I said, only because he's MJ, as he says. Where in that do you not see that he's saying MJ is being picked on merely because he's in the spotlight. If that were true, the rags, and every newspaper would be having a field day with ANY celeb.
From what I could understand from his post pretty much repeats what I said before: How people think he's weird because of his looks due to his plastic surgeries and because of how famous he is. If he didn't look that weird or was popular then not too many people would care, same thing applies if it was somebody else. Michael Jackson is a well-known pop-star, it's quite obvious the issue will get so much attention, specially if it's about child molesting. Thing is, if it was a Joe everybody, nobody would care too much. Mainly because they don't know about that person is, they never did anything considered "famous/etc." in their lifes.
In your other post you just said that he is "being defended" by people because he's a celebrity.

It seems like both of us are reading the post different ways.

This is absurd too, you act as if you are "people in general", simply because it came from your mouth.
I said I was "people in general"? I see...

Maybe you should start your own MJ fan club of people against presupposed accusations reguarding fame and ugliness.LOL:D
*sigh*
I am a Michael Jackson fan? Amazing, considering I've only listened to two of his songs and didn't like them too much.

This argument will probably end with another "better to just agree to disagree I think."

Frag Maniac

06-30-2005, 03:24 AM

This argument will probably end with another "better to just agree to disagree I think."
You're absotively right there, but I think this is why I keep answering what you call "popular" with the way I'm reading Pain's post, which I think he meant both ways, rich and weird looking that is.

"Find me one post were somebody says he/she is defending him because he's rich."

Popularity, fame, spotlight, etc, have been mentioned enough times by all 3 of us that I think you can probably see by now why I thought this statement was made in not reading his post thoroughly. Then again you did say were, not where, so maybe that's why it seemed so hard for you to find.:D

None the less, I agree with the above, we needn't blabber endlessly about it.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, it almost sounds from some of your posts that you like Far Cry better than PK, would you be interested in hosting any Far Cry videos on their Ubisoft Far Cry Movie Makers forum?

I've only posted a :30, and a 1:13 clip so far, and am about to post a 1:35 clip, along with a :41 outtake. They're all part of my Hang Glider Sniping series I'm doing just to show some samples, and so far they're liking them.

This one is sort of a prequel from Pier, the next and presumably last in this series will be from Boat, although there is more than one place in that level the gilders can be used. I could conceivably do as many as 3 glider rides from Boat, maybe tying them all together in one segment.

Luigibuddy

06-30-2005, 02:05 PM

You're absotively right there, but I think this is why I keep answering what you call "popular" with the way I'm reading Pain's post, which I think he meant both ways, rich and weird looking that is.

"Find me one post were somebody says he/she is defending him because he's rich."

Popularity, fame, spotlight, etc, have been mentioned enough times by all 3 of us that I think you can probably see by now why I thought this statement was made in not reading his post thoroughly. Then again you did say were, not where, so maybe that's why it seemed so hard for you to find.:D

None the less, I agree with the above, we needn't blabber endlessly about it.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, it almost sounds from some of your posts that you like Far Cry better than PK, would you be interested in hosting any Far Cry videos on their Ubisoft Far Cry Movie Makers forum?

I've only posted a :30, and a 1:13 clip so far, and am about to post a 1:35 clip, along with a :41 outtake. They're all part of my Hang Glider Sniping series I'm doing just to show some samples, and so far they're liking them.

This one is sort of a prequel from Pier, the next and presumably last in this series will be from Boat, although there is more than one place in that level the gilders can be used. I could conceivably do as many as 3 glider rides from Boat, maybe tying them all together in one segment.

BTW, if I'm not mistaken, it almost sounds from some of your posts that you like Far Cry better than PK,
No, both of them got boring after a while. Painkiller was always the same, and being stuck in the same place for over 3 months in Far Cry was too boring.

would you be interested in hosting any Far Cry videos on their Ubisoft Far Cry Movie Makers forum?
Do I have to register and post? If so then no. If I don't have to then yes.