Latest on MJJC

I think the family is giving Murray his defense

Beachlover said:
Surgeons perform surgery. A Heart Surgeon performs surgery on patients.

"Surgical Procedures" are not the same as 'surgery'. I work in a large medical center in New York as a Registered Nurse. I specialize in Cardiology. We don't consider a Cardiac Catheterization "Surgery", nor do we consider needle aspirations as "Surgery". This is what I meant by splitting hairs. I said it because Conrad Murray is NOT a cardiothoracic surgeon. He is a cardiologist and its not the same thing.
Click to expand...

Ok - granted. You made your point.

And yet, Dr. Conrad Murray killed his patient in 2007 during a surgical procedure.

And he killed MJ.
 
No I dont think so. When you read the amount of drugs that were given to Michael on the day before he died it was an enormous amount like a drug overdose and it was the doctor who administered the drug so he is responsible.
 
Sirena said:
Some (if not most) cardiologists perform surgery.
Click to expand...

all cardiologists actually do get surgical training while they are in residency. my cousin did as well, just a few years ago. in a pinch, they CAN and sometimes DO perform cardiac surgery.
 
In reference to MJ having a bunch of drugs the day before he died & being completely healthy - Can you still be "completely healthy" - with the exception of some "drugs" that he was taking to help sleep??


Be a little more specific in this.
 
I don't care what anyone says. you abuse painkillers for a number of weeks at a stretch, your kidneys will show it.

he was NOT an addict. period. he did have a dependency on the Propofol. I want Ratner as well as Klein on the stand if this thing ever goes to trial.
 
Sirena said:
Ok - granted. You made your point.

And yet, Dr. Conrad Murray killed his patient in 2007 during a surgical procedure.

And he killed MJ.
Click to expand...

I don't know about the patient in 2007. I only know about MJ for sure.
 
thank you for deleting them. I wasn't feeling very proud of myself there for losing my temper. I'm usually much more controlled than that... but the last few days have been very difficult :(

anyway, I promise to be good ;)
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

MrsMJ2007 said:
Thanks for your honest response, Bo G. I didn't mean to turn the kids over to strangers, but that another family member should have stepped in. True people can have dependencies on drugs on alcohol and many would not know it. The family did however. I'm not saying she's not telling the truth. But the answer she gave left the door open for many to assume that this was on ongoing thing over a 15-20 year period. Or if it had happened at some low points in his life like during the child molestation allegations in 1993 and 2003. We really don't know what the extent of his problem was later on in his life. But the family volunteering this info is really causing more damage to Michael's legacy than any media outlet could. To me, just my opinion, these statements do nothing to help Michael's image, but to drive a further wedge between the Jackson family and fans.
Click to expand...

i agree. people want to think the usa, and perhaps other parts of the world live in some kind of nirvana, where they judge things fairly, and in a balanced manner, but, i only know about the usa, because i am here, and this is where it all started...the court of public opinion is more important to this population, than a court of law. and no matter what we want to think, the Janet Jackson interview had an extraordinarily powerful boost toward what MJ naysayers were thinking, from the beginning. she is just going to have more power than any nirvana type court of law setting. it's just the way it is, in the real world.

i don't know if anyone has heard of Barry Bonds...he is a baseball player..or..he was..
he was accused of using performance enhancing drugs. there is NO solid proof of him doing it, but the media has convinced the public that 'he is just a bad guy'..and that has been enough to ban him from baseball, forever. he was put before a grand jury, and he's due in court..and people are predicting that he will go to jail. an article was written in a magazine by a girlfriend that he had, that said that she said he used performance enhancing drugs. the public took that, and ran with it.

people on this board are already under the impression that if someone is close to you, that they must automatically be right about you.(there are exceptions, but very few) so.. much more the naysayers are now convinced.
 
Last edited:
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
i agree. people want to think the usa, and perhaps other parts of the world live in some kind of nirvana, where they judge things fairly, and in a balanced manner, but, i only know about the usa, because i am here, and this is where it all started...the court of public opinion is more important to this population, than a court of law. and no matter what we want to think, the Janet Jackson interview had an extraordinarily powerful boost toward what MJ naysayers were thinking, from the beginning. she is just going to have more power than any nirvana type court of law setting. it's just the way it is, in the real world.

i don't know if anyone has heard of Barry Bonds...he is a baseball player..or..he was..
he was accused of using performance enhancing drugs. there is NO solid proof of him doing it, but the media has convinced the public that 'he is just a bad guy'..and that has been enough to ban him from baseball, forever. he was put before a grand jury, and he's due in court..and people are predicting that he will go to jail. an article was written in a magazine by a girlfriend that he had, that said that she said he used performance enhancing drugs. the public took that, and ran with it.
Click to expand...


No offense, but being call a drug addict does nothing to hurt Michael in the long run. I can name a list off the top of my head about musicians and artists who are respect by the general public who are all addicts. Elvis was a drug addict, Whitney Houston is a crack addict, Ray Charles was a heroin addict, and The Beetles all took acid and weed. Do not even get my started rock groups.

From what I have seen only the media and fans are forming at the mouth about drugs and addiction. The general pubic at large does not care. People listen to Snoop Dogg and he admits to smoking weed, along with other stuff. People love the Temptations even though two of the original singers were an alcoholic and a crack addict. Ike Turner did crack and most people do not care about that. It is what he did to Tina that makes people hate him.

The point being, given everything else Michael has been call, drug addict is hardly hurtful. Quite frankly, people would had been more surprise if they found out he was not an addict with the life he led.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Ramona122003 said:
No offense, but being call a drug addict does nothing to hurt Michael in the long run. I can name a list off the top of my head about musicians and artists who are respect by the general public who are all addicts. Elvis was a drug addict, Whitney Houston is a crack addict, Ray Charles was a heroin addict, and The Beetles all took acid and weed. Do not even get my started rock groups.

From what I have seen only the media and fans are forming at the mouth about drugs and addiction. The general pubic at large does not care. People listen to Snoop Dogg and he admits to smoking weed, along with other stuff. People love the Temptations even though two of the original singers were an alcoholic and a crack addict. Ike Turner did crack and most people do not care about that. It is what he did to Tina that makes people hate him.

The point being, given everything else Michael has been call, drug addict is hardly hurtful. Quite frankly, people would had been more surprise if they found out he was not an addict with the life he led.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you 100 percent, but don't blame us for worrying :p
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

lovelymj said:
I totally agree with you 100 percent, but don't blame us for worrying :p
Click to expand...


I understand your worry, but I think we all need to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that most people do not care about other people drugs problems. Billy Mayes and DJ AM, may they rest in peace, are still beloved despite their drug history.

Think of Elvis' fans who had to deal with people saying that Elvis was an overweight drug addict. They can't really counter them because it is true. However, they learn not to let a couple of buttholes and talking heads define how they feel about Elvis and we fans need to do the same.

We know Michael was not an addict, so why do you care what the media says. These are the same people that said he bleach his skin and was a Pedo. During the 2005 trail they said he was an alcoholic. Honestly, why are you still listening to these people.

Also for reference, I saw the Janet interview was the top news. In less than 3 hours it was not even in the top 5. Usually any news about Michael would take the top stop for several hours, even a day in some cases. This tells me that the public is sick of the drug charge. You can only hit people upside the head for so long before they tune you out. Most people have seen with their own eyes with TII that Michael was not high and he still had it. For most in the public, that is all they need to know.
 
Last edited:
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Ramona122003 said:
I understand your worry, but I think we all need to look at the bigger picture. The bigger picture is that most people do not care about other people drugs problems. Billy Mayes and DJ AM, may the rest in peace, are still beloved despite their drug history.

Think of Elvis' fans who had to deal with people saying that Elvis was an overweight drug addict. They can't really counter them because it is true. However, they learn not to let a couple of buttholes and talking heads define how they feel about Elvis and we fans need to do the same.

We know Michael was not an addict, so why do you care what the media says. These are the same people that said he bleach his skin and was a Pedo. During the 2005 trail they said he was an alcoholic. Honestly, why are you still listening to these people.

Also for reference, I saw the Janet interview was the top news. In less than 3 hours it was not even in the top 5. Usually any news about Michael would take the top stop for several hours, even a day in some cases. This tells me that the public is sick of the drug charge. You can only hit people upside the head for so long before they tune you out. Most people have seen with their own eyes with TII that Michael was not high and he still had it. For most in the public, that is all they need to know.
Click to expand...
True the interview wasn't even that popular, and in the end of the day people will believe whatever they want.
 
indranee said:
I don't care what anyone says. you abuse painkillers for a number of weeks at a stretch, your kidneys will show it.

he was NOT an addict. period. he did have a dependency on the Propofol. I want Ratner as well as Klein on the stand if this thing ever goes to trial.
Click to expand...
i take drugs for mood and muscle problems due to being disabled other then that id be considered slightly overwright but perfectly healthy
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Ramona122003 said:
No offense, but being call a drug addict does nothing to hurt Michael in the long run. I can name a list off the top of my head about musicians and artists who are respect by the general public who are all addicts. Elvis was a drug addict, Whitney Houston is a crack addict, Ray Charles was a heroin addict, and The Beetles all took acid and weed. Do not even get my started rock groups.

From what I have seen only the media and fans are forming at the mouth about drugs and addiction. The general pubic at large does not care. People listen to Snoop Dogg and he admits to smoking weed, along with other stuff. People love the Temptations even though two of the original singers were an alcoholic and a crack addict. Ike Turner did crack and most people do not care about that. It is what he did to Tina that makes people hate him.

The point being, given everything else Michael has been call, drug addict is hardly hurtful. Quite frankly, people would had been more surprise if they found out he was not an addict with the life he led.
Click to expand...

the difference is MJ was not an addict, like you said. again..dependency for a short time back in 93 indicates an awareness that there was a problem and he was cognissant and quickly did something about it..and it was due to a scalp operation..

even you just said people would be surprised if he was not an addict..

it is important to me to keep that legacy..and to a lot of other fans...

and..although Michael still had a career, since the london shows sold out...Barry Bonds..the other example that i gave, like i said, was out of baseball forever, and is now suing because of it.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
I am not saying you are wrong to correct people about Michael being an addict, but the fact is the general public does not really care. They have all but stop listening to the drug charges when they saw TII and saw for themselves that Michael was not wasted. Which is why Janet's interview dropped from the top news only hours after it aired.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Ramona122003 said:
My point being that him being called a drug addict does not harm his legacy. I did not say he was a drug addict, but even if people did think he was one, it does not really harm him.

When it comes to artists and musicians, the general public does really care about that kind of stuff. As long as they make good music and keep performing, they can take 100 pills a day and they wouldn't care.

Also, Barry Bonds is not a good example. Although public opinion has been unfair to him, you have to remember he is being accused of basely cheating. Taking performance enhancers in any sport is not fair to the people who stay clean and play fair. That is why people are not very sympathetic to Barry Bonds.

I am not saying you are wrong to correct people about Michael being an addict, but the fact is the general public does not really care. They have all but stop listening to the drug charges when they saw TII and saw for themselves that Michael was not wasted. Which is why Janet's interview dropped from the top news only hours after it aired.
Click to expand...

why is Barry Bonds not a good example? he was accused but there is no proof of the cheating..the performance enhancers...just hearsay...

and..they took him to a grand jury. and we know that the grand jury didn't pan out against Michael..but...it looks like it is panning out against Barry Bonds..

Bonds never said he took them. but people are spinning his grand jury testamony to say that he did admit to taking them.
 
I hadnt thought of this.... god I hope that WEASEL gets what he deserves for killing Michael!!!
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
why is Barry Bonds not a good example? he was accused but there is no proof of the cheating..the performance enhancers...just hearsay...

and..they took him to a grand jury. and we know that the grand jury didn't pan out against Michael..but...it looks like it is panning out against Barry Bonds..

Bonds never said he took them. but people are spinning his grand jury testamony to say that he did admit to taking them.
Click to expand...

I remember that other baseball player who Barry Bonds had the home run rivalry with, didn't he also admit to taking steroids & nothing happened with him.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
the difference is MJ was not an addict, like you said. again..dependency for a short time back in 93 indicates an awareness that there was a problem and he was cognissant and quickly did something about it..and it was due to a scalp operation..

even you just said people would be surprised if he was not an addict..

it is important to me to keep that legacy..and to a lot of other fans...

and..although Michael still had a career, since the london shows sold out...Barry Bonds..the other example that i gave, like i said, was out of baseball forever, and is now suing because of it.
Click to expand...

Agree.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
why is Barry Bonds not a good example? he was accused but there is no proof of the cheating..the performance enhancers...just hearsay...

and..they took him to a grand jury. and we know that the grand jury didn't pan out against Michael..but...it looks like it is panning out against Barry Bonds..

Bonds never said he took them. but people are spinning his grand jury testamony to say that he did admit to taking them.
Click to expand...


He is not a good example because he is not accused so much of drug use, but of cheating in a national sport. If he was addicted to pain pills, sleeping pills, or even illegal drugs, the public may had given him a pass.

However, performance enhancers are not to get high or to deal with mental problems, it is to increase performance. That is hardly the same as an artist putting pills in their mouth before a performance.

Bond did the holy sin of sports and that is to be accuses of cheating. It is the worst thing you can do in a sport and that is why the public turned against him.

I will say that it was very unfair what happen to Bonds and the baseball committee should had waited to get all the facts before banning him. However, his case is more inline with Michael's 2005 trail then he suppose drug problem.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
and..although Michael still had a career, since the london shows sold out...Barry Bonds..the other example that i gave, like i said, was out of baseball forever, and is now suing because of it.
Click to expand...

Bonds wasn't discredited because he was "an addict", he was discredited because he cheated at his sport by using steroids. Most people believe the weight of evidence points to his using steroids. There is universal public scorn for cheaters in sports.

Musicians are not considered "cheating" for using drugs, which is why it doesn't harm their reputation. In fact, the public perception is that it's usually part of the creative process, and they rarely bat an eye. For many, whether one approves or disapproves, it even adds to their "bad boy/bad girl" glamor. The public would not be shocked to learn if some huge proportion of rock musicians were dependent on drugs.

If Bonds were found to be dependent on Propofol, the response would have been totally different, more sympathetic. There would have been no taint of cheating. There is simply no comparison whatsoever.

Some of you might say, MJ was no "bad boy." He didn't fear that label as much as many of you do -- that was the WHOLE point of the Bad album, actually. He was beginning to worry the "angel" rep was not wholly to his benefit. And in fact he was right -- the childish, angelic image many pushed on him actually led to his demise. A more normal, human, adult image might have saved him from the vultures.
 
Last edited:
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Bo G said:
Bonds wasn't discredited because he was "an addict", he was discredited because he cheated at his sport by using steroids.

Musicians are not considered "cheating" for using drugs, which is why it doesn't tend to harm their reputation much.

If Bonds were found to be dependent on Propofol, the response would have been totally different, more sympathetic. There would have been no taint of cheating.
Click to expand...


Thank you Bo G. That is what I been try to say. :)
 
The network only wanted to focus on one thing about Michael and they interviewd her, edited it and added the little commentary. That's why I didn't like it because there is more to Michael than that. If he had problems it wasn't clarified if it was in the past or it was a current thing. Maybe it doesn't matter but I think it does.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

Bo G said:
Bonds wasn't discredited because he was "an addict", he was discredited because he cheated at his sport by using steroids. Most people believe the weight of evidence points to his using steroids. There is universal public scorn for cheaters in sports.

Musicians are not considered "cheating" for using drugs, which is why it doesn't harm their reputation. In fact, the public perception is that it's usually part of the creative process, and they rarely bat an eye. For many, whether one approves or disapproves, it even adds to their "bad boy/bad girl" glamor.

If Bonds were found to be dependent on Propofol, the response would have been totally different, more sympathetic. There would have been no taint of cheating. There is simply no comparison whatsoever.

Oops, I see others have said the same thing. Well, I'll add my voice to the mix, for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

see what i mean? you just said that Bonds cheated. there is no proof. and although people here don't seem to agree with what i'm saying..i fail to see the difference.. it's just one more unfounded accusation.
it was said that there were vials with BOnds' name on them, but that doesn't mean anything. anybody could put those there. they're trying to connect dots, but there is no line to connect.
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

vncwilliam said:
see what i mean? you just said that Bonds cheated. there is no proof. and although people here don't seem to agree with what i'm saying..i fail to see the difference...
Click to expand...

Well I don't see at all. Perhaps we should read if others weigh in and give their impression of the difference, or not, and see if it affects yours (or my) impression.

Also, I'd added a little bit more to my post but you'd already responded -- maybe that would explain further. So now it reads:
Bonds wasn't discredited because he was "an addict", he was discredited because he cheated at his sport by using steroids. Most people believe the weight of evidence points to his using steroids. There is universal public scorn for cheaters in sports.

Musicians are not considered "cheating" for using drugs, which is why it doesn't harm their reputation. In fact, the public perception is that it's usually part of the creative process, and they rarely bat an eye. For many, whether one approves or disapproves, it even adds to their "bad boy/bad girl" glamor. The public would not be shocked to learn if some huge proportion of rock musicians were dependent on drugs.

If Bonds were found to be dependent on Propofol, the response would have been totally different, more sympathetic. There would have been no taint of cheating. There is simply no comparison whatsoever.

Some of you might say, MJ was no "bad boy." He didn't fear that label as much as many of you do -- that was the WHOLE point of the Bad album, actually. He was beginning to worry the "angel" rep was not wholly to his benefit. And in fact he was right -- the childish, angelic image many pushed on him actually led to his demise. A more normal, human, adult image might have saved him from the vultures.
Click to expand...
 
Re: Janet Jackson Interview

MrsMJ2007 said:
Thanks for your honest response, Bo G. I didn't mean to turn the kids over to strangers, but that another family member should have stepped in.
Click to expand...

I didn't mean "stranger" either, though I said it (read my MIND girl! :) ). I realized you meant family. But still, many people find there's at least some level of drug dependence not worth yanking children out of their home. Plus in MJ's case, with full-time nanny and a zillion other employees, and their fears for the children were of course even further allayed. So the "if they were so worried about his drug use they should have tried to take his children" argument doesn't carry much weight for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top