Please don't tell ME what I would or wouldn't call great, or what I would or wouldn't consider mundane.
I'm not talking about an article MJ wrote anyways... I'm speaking of this particular article and I found it to be a great, sincere read. I'm confused why people are zooming in on two or three little bits (which are more or less in MJ's favor, sans the appearnace issue) instead of the bulk of the article which is very much pro-MJ.
see how angry you got, when i spoke of you? and i didn't even get personal. i just commented on your comments. or..are you going to say you weren't bothered at all?
anyway well..if you're confused about it, then you're confused about it. like i said, the comments were aimed at MJ anyway, so since it was aimed at him, i don't expect every last person to consider to step into his moccasins. or, at least try. if one can't, i would assume, the benefit of the situation is to assume it might hurt, since we all prove we are hurt by ANY negative comment aimed at us, by even only one person.
so..if you are confused by what i am saying about this author's comments, then i can't say much more. like i said..i'll just end with what i said already. this is a repeat of comments said millions of times by millions of people. you're just thinking about one article, and choosing what to concentrate on..and..it's aimed at someone other than you, anyway.
and..oh..what? when people disagree on money, it's because they're asking for less? lol. this is Michael being asked. i'll take my chances that i am right, and i'd go to vegas on that one.
sundberg talks about the 'debt'(of course no one is speculating on that one, right? some seem to work harder to defend MJ's associates than they do to defend MJ) he talks about being glad to be without the groupies at one point. and...after talking about the grass suddenly getting browner(which can be an eye of the beholder thing) he talks about eccentricities 'increasing'. who is speculating now? that combination clearly reveals a man coming from a place of jealousy. there are others on this site who agree with me, as it is a common combination of things these associates of MJ talked about, when talking of him. it includes mentioning the 'debt' after a dispute in the money situation. the words are right out of the media. and, of course, the media is gospel, right? i've already mentioned how media articles always had disclaimers admitting they didn't know MJ's financial situation. unless it's inconvenient to mention it, anybody would say this is jealousy talking. a lot of people can preface jealousy with a 'positive' disguise. he starts out talking about the humility and kindness of Michael, which we all know about, as fans have met Michael. then, in the end, he discounts everything with those horrible buzzwords that the media likes to apply to MJ.
the determination of 'bulk of article' can be as much intensity of words, as it can be amount of words. cancelling out positives by coming up with intense negatives, kind of nullifies the affect of the positives. how many times do i have to hear copy and paste buzzwords concerning Michael, and then be guilt tripped for noticing them? i don't know about you, apparently, but i don't want person number 1 million and one, chipping away at me, about my...'eccentricities'. thank you very much..but i don't need another 'friend' like that. last time i checked..negatives chip away at MOST peoples' souls, at least, if not, more than most. and that's just from ONE person.
