86 replies to this topic

[robsadler]

thomasowen, on Jul 5 2009, 06:18 PM, said:

It's intresting but I've noticed a few very stupid mistakes which make me unable to take it seriously.

what mistakes?
as i have never been a fan, all i know about michael jackson are bits and bobs i read from various articles (some of which may be accurate, some of which absolute rubbish!).
this seems like a decent article, the journalist was at the original trials, it is a well respected newspaper etc. but like i said i am absolutely no expert!
robx

[thomasowen]

robsadler, on Jul 5 2009, 06:29 PM, said:

what mistakes?
as i have never been a fan, all i know about michael jackson are bits and bobs i read from various articles (some of which may be accurate, some of which absolute rubbish!).
this seems like a decent article, the journalist was at the original trials, it is a well respected newspaper etc. but like i said i am absolutely no expert!
robx

It's a lot better than the tabloid articles but has some stupid errors (statistics slightly out) and is wildly exagerated.

eg,  the fact he says he was an entertainer from the age of 8 (how can you judge that - he started singing when he was 5), he says that Jackson altered his skin colour which has been proven to be not true (I'm not even sure it's possible to bleach your skin from black to white). and lines like this, which are either completely false or exagerated beyond belief...

'Practically everyone who ever met him ended up suing him'

'he surrounded himself with the very worst kind of people imaginable'

'he was broke but living at a $100,000-a-month mansion in Bel Air'

'...and had provided the Los Angeles police with a vivid description of the singer’s genitalia'

Edited by thomasowen, 05 July 2009 - 06:17 PM.

[robsadler]

thomasowen, on Jul 5 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

It's a lot better than the tabloid articles but has some stupid errors (statistics slightly out) and is wildly exagerated.

eg,  the fact he says he was an entertainer from the age of 8 (how can you judge that - he started singing when he was 5), he says that Jackson altered his skin colour which has been proven to be not true (I'm not even sure it's possible to bleach your skin from black to white). and lines like this, which are either completely false or exagerated beyond belief...

'Practically everyone who ever met him ended up suing him'

'he surrounded himself with the very worst kind of people imaginable'

'he was broke but living at a $100,000-a-month mansion in Bel Air'

'...and had provided the Los Angeles police with a vivid description of the singer’s genitalia'

the article is written in a certain style and although it is better than anything i could write, it is far from being perfect.

from what i gather the jackson 5 started when MJ was 10, although this is quite irrelevant.
i have no idea what went on with michael jacksons skin.  it is clear that something un-natural has happened here (never known this to happen to any of my black friends!).  i don't know much about it, as like i have said, i am not a fan. didn't he deny a lot of his plastic surgery and later admitted to some of it though?

i think he did gut sued several times although as you have said, this is over exaggerated and a silly quote.  the writer is just making a point.

i think it's fair to say he was surrounded by a lot of people who did not have michael jackson, the human being, but michael jackson the money making machine's best interests at heart.  granted they are not the worst kind of people imaginable (fred west, harold shipman?) but they are pretty bad people and i wonder if they are sleeping well at the moment?  50 dates at the o2.....good idea?

i don't know much about MJ's finances, although it doesn't appear many people ever have.  everything seems to be guess work.

with regards to the penis description....did that not happen?  why would a writer for the times say that?
granted some of the article is exaggerated and we will probably never hear the truth about MJ's life but would the times just outright lie?  i don't know.

robx

[rivalschools.price]

i think we may as well accept that his fans will see no wrong or gloss over his flaws and the rest of us will see him as an odd character with a questionable interest in young boys.
the fans will scrupulously look at every fact to prove his innocence and the rest of us arnt interested enough to research it properly.
the bottom line is that the fans will stay fans and the rest wont change their stance and i cant see that changing.

[thomasowen]

robsadler, on Jul 5 2009, 08:03 PM, said:

the article is written in a certain style and although it is better than anything i could write, it is far from being perfect.

from what i gather the jackson 5 started when MJ was 10, although this is quite irrelevant.

They started when he was 5 had thier first single aged 10.

Quote

i have no idea what went on with michael jacksons skin.  it is clear that something un-natural has happened here (never known this to happen to any of my black friends!).

He has vitiligo - a rare condition but one that is known about and is not treatable. Basicly since childhood he has had large white patches on his skin but in his early 20's they became much more noticable. To begin with he used makeup to cover the white patches but over time it became easier to use make up to cover the dark patches. As I say I am no expert but I don't believe its possible to bleach your skin white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo

Search google images for pictures of the condition, if you want to see others affected by it.

Quote

i don't know much about it, as like i have said, i am not a fan. didn't he deny a lot of his plastic surgery and later admitted to some of it though?

Yes, he denys plastic surgery which is mad considering. He claims to have had 3 but it's actualy closer to 20 (that are known of). His skin condition is not one of them though (this is also why you will often see him with an umbrella).

Quote

i think he did gut sued several times although as you have said, this is over exaggerated and a silly quote.  the writer is just making a point.

Yeah, true.

Quote

i think it's fair to say he was surrounded by a lot of people who did not have michael jackson, the human being, but michael jackson the money making machine's best interests at heart.  granted they are not the worst kind of people imaginable (fred west, harold shipman?) but they are pretty bad people and i wonder if they are sleeping well at the moment?  50 dates at the o2.....good idea?

Again true, I just take issue with the way the writer has expressed it.

Quote

i don't know much about MJ's finances, although it doesn't appear many people ever have.  everything seems to be guess work.

True. What is not true is that he was bankrupt or near to being. He owned 50% of the Beatles work for heavens sake (although this is an other murky area).

Quote

with regards to the penis description....did that not happen?  why would a writer for the times say that?
granted some of the article is exaggerated and we will probably never hear the truth about MJ's life but would the times just outright lie?  i don't know.

It's true that he gave a detailed description of a penis...just Not Michael's. Without going into too much gory details he said amongst other untruths that he had a circumsised penis when he didn't and gave an incorrect size.

Quote

i think we may as well accept that his fans will see no wrong or gloss over his flaws and the rest of us will see him as an odd character with a questionable interest in young boys.

I also take issue with these kkinds of fans and I don't count myself amongst them. I have never turned a blind eye to his flaws and weirdness, but I am a great fan of his music and I have researched a lot of his life. It greatly annoyed me during his trial when fans were calling him innocent without hearing the otherside just as much as much as it annoyed me people calling him guilty without evidence. During the trial I kept a very open mind, but afterwards, after looking at the evidence, it was clear he was innocent.

Edited by thomasowen, 05 July 2009 - 09:27 PM.

[robsadler]

thomasowen, on Jul 5 2009, 10:26 PM, said:

They started when he was 5 had thier first single aged 10.



He has vitiligo - a rare condition but one that is known about and is not treatable. Basicly since childhood he has had large white patches on his skin but in his early 20's they became much more noticable. To begin with he used makeup to cover the white patches but over time it became easier to use make up to cover the dark patches. As I say I am no expert but I don't believe its possible to bleach your skin white.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitiligo

Search google images for pictures of the condition, if you want to see others affected by it.


Yes, he denys plastic surgery which is mad considering. He claims to have had 3 but it's actualy closer to 20 (that are known of). His skin condition is not one of them though (this is also why you will often see him with an umbrella).





Yeah, true.



Again true, I just take issue with the way the writer has expressed it.



True. What is not true is that he was bankrupt or near to being. He owned 50% of the Beatles work for heavens sake (although this is an other murky area).



It's true that he gave a detailed description of a penis...just Not Michael's. Without going into too much gory details he said amongst other untruths that he had a circumsised penis when he didn't and gave an incorrect size.


I also take issue with these kkinds of fans and I don't count myself amongst them. I have never turned a blind eye to his flaws and weirdness, but I am a great fan of his music and I have researched a lot of his life. It greatly annoyed me during his trial when fans were calling him innocent without hearing the otherside just as much as much as it annoyed me people calling him guilty without evidence. During the trial I kept a very open mind, but afterwards, after looking at the evidence, it was clear he was innocent.

cheers, it is good to know a bit more...although i wasn't a fan, he had an interesting life.  it is also interesting to hear some views that aren't completely for or against MJ as a person (as most people are) but to consider the evidence with an open mind.
the finance thing always struck meas a bit strange.  surely owning the beatles songs is the greatest cash cow on earth!
robx

[howlin_pete]

One thing about when people ask why he would settle out of court if he didnt do it, I've always wondered exactly how much money it would take not to bring someone who touched up my kid to justice. I'm not sure £10 million would cut it for most people...

Either way, I hope we get a few MJ covers at Reading, only saw The Streets do Billie Jean at Glastonbury which was pretty ace. Also it would hopefully be a good reason for Fall Out Boy to retire their cover of Beat It...