Staffordshire Bullterrier
Proud Member
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Messages
- 5,603
- Points
- 113
Taj not responding to Diane is only a good thing. Nobody should give her any attention at all, she's as irrelevant as can be.
I don't think that the documentary of Taj will be good (not even excellent).
Diane Diamond replied to his tweet " Watch yourself Taj ". He haven't the courage to reply on her comment.
So, what he will do if his documentary is about sexual allegations ! How will he respond to question about his documentary !!
Not having the courage to reply on D.D = a BS documentary.
The only ones trying is some media outletsNobody can't erase Michael no matter how much they want too!
The only ones trying is some media outlets
AND THE AMERICAN MEDIA IS THE BIGGEST JOKE IN THE ENTIRE WORLD, in my opinion.
Not trying to hijack this thread, BUT look how the media "tried" to legitimize Jussie Smollet's story, UNTIL it completely full apart.
Same thing goes for Michael Avenatti. The media held him up as the Second Coming Of Jesus, UNTIL he was arrested for trying to allegedly extort Nike AND allegedly stealing from his clients'. Now he's treated like the plague!
Then they wonder why folks continue to call them: FAKE NEWS!!!!
Okay I digress, now back to Michael.
Taj not responding to Diane is only a good thing. Nobody should give her any attention at all, she's as irrelevant as can be.
*SidenoteAnd you know who expose Jussie? the community. This is why this "you can not challenge someone who claims to be a victim is unreal. Sorry but you have to ask questions same as they do the accused. As for Avenatti, I told my mother something is not right about him. Too slick looking out of the eyes and actions. And look. He reminds me of Dan Reed.
somewhereinthedark;4257489 said:I thank Madonna for what she said after Michael’s death and I thank her for her defense of him now, and that’s what matters.
:clapping:AppleHeaddd;4257713 said:Should we trust Jackson’s accusers?
by Luka Neskovic
Times of Israel
Marx’s famous remark is that history always repeats itself twice: first as a tragedy, then as a farce. What to say when it is numerically determined? In the case of Michael Jackson the number ten seemed to be fatal. Ten years after the Chandler scandal from 1993, Jackson is charged with sexually molesting Gavin Arvizo. Ten years after that case, choreographer Wade Robson has suddenly “realized” that he was abused by Michael Jackson “from the age of seven to fourteen”, that same friend in whose defense he testified at the “trial of the century”, saying that nothing improper had happened between them. The Los Angeles County Court dismissed his lawsuit since it was not filed within a reasonable time after the alleged crime.
Let us not forget: the year 2013 – when Robson raised a lawsuit against Jackson’s Estate in Los Angeles – was another in a series of posthumous triumphs for the King of Pop. Statistics were showing that he was highest-paid dead celebrity in the world and that Michael Jackson: The Immortal World Tour was one of the leading world tours – the same tour for which Wade Robson was rejected as a creative director. Was that a coincidence?
Not only that, at the beginning of this year, ten years after Michael Jackson’s death, another “friend” also “realized” that his case was also abusive, roughly at the same time as Robson claimed in his statement. The boys who knew, perhaps even hated each other before, because of the attention that their idol did not know how to distribute equally, were united in a common goal in a mutual “confession”, full of emotions and explicit details of sex, presented in the four-hour marathon co-produced by HBO.
The story was even more publicized recently thanks to Oprah Winfrey who, as a victim of sexual abuse herself as a child, showed sympathy for these two men. No one, however, asked her what was happening in school for girls that she opened in Africa or did she has in plan to interview victims of her dear friend Harvey Weinstein? Her relationship with Michael Jackson, after a historic 1993 interview at Neverland, was not of a pleasant nature. Perhaps with this act of pluralism she would break the partiality that she feels toward Michael Jackson’s “victims”.
While reading the comments on the portals and news sites on the internet I was surprised by the reaction of the general public. Unlike the Arvizo case, which left the public with reasonable doubt about the way Chandler case had ended ten years before, now I can see the growing sympathy for Jackson while he becomes a victim of media sensitivity for sensation and profit. The motives of the accusers become apparent when the circumstances in which they are filed and the integrity of their testimonies are taken into account. We can openly call them lies while there is no evidence to substantiate their claim. Everyone, at the end, is presumed to be innocent and totally innocent until they are charged with a crime and then convicted by a jury of their peers.
Jackson is no longer among us to defend his good name. He spent two years of his life in a legal battle in the court before he went out as an innocent man. All aspects of his privacy were put in front of the public while hundreds of witnesses moved to the test bench, so after more than five months of a trial there was a verdict that said he was not guilty on all ten counts. To doubt Jackson’s innocence, in this case, would mean doubt in the US legal system.
Michael Jackson was, without any doubt, a controversial and eccentric figure that has left enough material which will, in spite of speculations, spill over for decades to come. And in those years that will come, we will see some middle-aged men who have been suffering from amnesia for decades, but what at the end will remain? A monolithic Jackson figure that will sell albums, movies, memorabilia and fill arenas, magazines and books. All Chandlers, Robsons, Safechucks will get their fifteen minutes of attention that they desperately struggle for. Jackson’s figure will remain larger than life.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/should-we-trust-jacksons-accusers/
Arckangel;4257718 said:Saw this?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Please meet us at the table for this very powerful episode this Monday❤️ <a href="https://twitter.com/RedTableTalk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RedTableTalk</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RedTableTalk?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RedTableTalk</a> <a href="https://t.co/KW2AHphx13">pic.twitter.com/KW2AHphx13</a></p>— Jada Pinkett Smith (@jadapsmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/jadapsmith/status/1126926167288627200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's now Jada Pinkett Smith's turn to defame Michael. The question in itself is slanderous: "Did Michael abuse because he was abused?" The question implies he did in fact abuse (when he did not).
That's because no one defends MJ. That give them the opportunity to accuse him and slander him.
His children, the Estate have decided to abandon him.
Arckangel;4257718 said:Saw this?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Please meet us at the table for this very powerful episode this Monday❤️ <a href="https://twitter.com/RedTableTalk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RedTableTalk</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RedTableTalk?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RedTableTalk</a> <a href="https://t.co/KW2AHphx13">pic.twitter.com/KW2AHphx13</a></p>— Jada Pinkett Smith (@jadapsmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/jadapsmith/status/1126926167288627200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's now Jada Pinkett Smith's turn to defame Michael. The question in itself is slanderous: "Did Michael abuse because he was abused?" The question implies he did in fact abuse (when he did not).
What you are saying is NOT true. His family has defended him. WTH do you call Taj and Brandy? The Estate has defended him in various statements and a lawsuit. What do you call that? Of course fans have defended him. I am so sick of some fans blaming the family and estate as if they are doing nothing. Put the blame on the pieces of #@$& who initiated this scam/conspiracy/hoax-ROBson, Upchuck, GREED, Oprah and HBO.
What you are saying is NOT true. His family has defended him. WTH do you call Taj and Brandy? The Estate has defended him in various statements and a lawsuit. What do you call that? Of course fans have defended him. I am so sick of some fans blaming the family and estate as if they are doing nothing. Put the blame on the pieces of #@$& who initiated this scam/conspiracy/hoax-ROBson, Upchuck, GREED, Oprah and HBO.
PoP;4257726 said:Here’s my lashing towards her.
<twitter-widget class="twitter-tweet twitter-tweet-rendered" id="twitter-widget-0" style="position: static; visibility: visible; display: block; transform: rotate(0deg); max-width: 100%; width: 500px; min-width: 220px; margin-top: 10px; margin-bottom: 10px;" data-tweet-id="1127286761690992640"></twitter-widget> <script async="" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
SmoothGangsta;4257727 said:I agree about the family but the estate absolutely not done enough. Fans have been doing most of the work online.
TheChosenOne;4257729 said:Was that an appropriate response?
We use mean words and cast about hate too quickly nowadays.
You don't have to hate her, you can just disagree with her and present her with the facts.
This is why MJ fans have a reputation for being irrational. Sigh.
<iframe scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/widget_iframe.2e9f365dae390394eb8d923cba8c5b11.html?origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mjjcommunity.com&settingsEndpoint=https%3A%2F%2Fsyndication.twitter.com%2Fsettings" title="Twitter settings iframe" style="display: none;"></iframe><iframe id="rufous-sandbox" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="true" style="position: absolute; visibility: hidden; display: none; width: 0px; height: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none;" title="Twitter analytics iframe"></iframe>
Arckangel;4257718 said:Saw this?
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Please meet us at the table for this very powerful episode this Monday❤️ <a href="https://twitter.com/RedTableTalk?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RedTableTalk</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/RedTableTalk?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#RedTableTalk</a> <a href="https://t.co/KW2AHphx13">pic.twitter.com/KW2AHphx13</a></p>— Jada Pinkett Smith (@jadapsmith) <a href="https://twitter.com/jadapsmith/status/1126926167288627200?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 10, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It's now Jada Pinkett Smith's turn to defame Michael. The question in itself is slanderous: "Did Michael abuse because he was abused?" The question implies he did in fact abuse (when he did not).
I hope Taj documentary will not include any feature of the Jacksons (MJ brother/sister). We needs other "faces".
somewhereinthedark;4257730 said:Seriously, what more can the Estate have done or be doing, They have defended Michael in statements and lawsuit. Because Michael is deceased, they can’t sue for defamation because that’s the LAW. Can you please explain what else they could be doing. FTR, I like how they are taking a behind the scenes approach, because that egg headed bastard would be using their involvement against Michael as they are trying to do now. This is why it is so important what the fans and Taj are doing INDEPENDENTLY of the Estate.
Why not?