I agree, I don't think that was the intention, but saying he was "Damaged" is wrong by all accounts..Michael was a such a great, legendary, Godlike in talent, man. Like all of us may have had some flaws, but his flaws were no where near to call someone "Damaged". In fact you could argue that some of his so called flaws were actually positives, to some people it would be appear that way. The perception of what is a "normal" and "damaged" is in the eye of the beholder.
Now if he meant "Damaged" as in Damaged by the morons in the media or the disgusting people who tried to bring him down, then yeah he was "damaged" in that way, but he was not a "Damaged" person describing it like it was some sort of adjective..[/QUOTE]
I think that we must take this word in that way - :agree:
Their meeting took place in 1993 - a hard year for Michael - he was damaged by all he had to come through - Many of us always wonder how he could bear all this. Now we know ...