Re: Michael - The Great Album Debate (Only Go Here if You Want To Continue The Controversy)
Dear Bumper Snippet,
I have been away for a few weeks, so I had no time to respond yet. Besides, I do not want to start a debate on a public forum between two people. That was never my intention. It was my intention however to point out that the way debates are handled there is a process of exclusion instead of inclusion - often based on wrong assumptions. Which at the same time are stated with an air of certainty and basis.
That's why we all have our opinions, don't we?
I do would like to comment though on some of your remarks. I'm a bit unsure how the quotations work here, so please have some patience:
Please do.
You have stated on numerous occassions that you use linquistic knowledge. You have even used different approaches in this matter. (Tonation, timbre, but also social linguistics, where you look at slang and the use of specific words.)
Indeed, I used linguistics as far as I could based on what we have on the cd format, but I never considered my comments scientific.
Actaully you responded to 1 of my posts with the comment that it was "lame". I can be mistaken though, for I don't live on this board and I def. do not have time to go over the 500+ posts you wrote, but if you look at some of my posts (which is what 30?), I think you can retrieve the comment.
When you can't support your accusation then please don't accuse me even further of calling posts (in plural) lame!
As I said, I don't remember either when I said that a post was lame, because that's not my habit as you suggested. Now if I did call a post lame, then I said that I need the context, which you fail to deliver.
There is a difference between dissecting and arguing the basic argument. Dissecting a mail word for word is not enhancing the discussion; counter arguing someone's core argument however can lead to a middle ground and insights. And this was also my point. The way this discussion is handled is not opening a debate; it is closing it. Which does not help getting us further or inviting others to share their opinion.
Well, be my guest, find a common ground between some who say it Michael and others who say it is an impostor. There is no common ground possible! When people say it's black and others it's white, what is the common ground? Gray? Well here's flash news for you, gray is neither black nor white.
We need proof either way, that is the best common ground you can have. We however doubters don't want the responsibles for this mess to get away.
If he did it, all of his quotes (and I mean *all*) are all-telling. And the OP made an interesting observation, which from a psychological point of view makes sense. If you are guilty of fraud, you do not attract attention that fraud occured. This is not the initial reaction of anybody who have committed fraud. This is also not the argument that you deflected with the OP. Instead you "dissected"' every sentence, but did not answer his core observation.
You must have missed the point completely. We (doubters) actually do not care if Jason did it or not. Jason is not the core here at all. Even if it is not Jason, it doesn't mean that it is Michael singing on those tracks. The only reason we are quoting Jason, is because he seems to be the perfect candidate as his voice matches completely with the vocals on those tracks.
Furthermore, following your logic of not committing the fraud neither SONY nor Estate should have hired audiologists to prove anything. If I for example didn't have any doubt and if I were sure that my tracks were 1000% genuine, I would never ever wasted my money in checking them with audiologists. It is as if I hired the audiologists to confirm that MJ sings on the album BAD. I wouldn't even care about diligence. It is just like some people who come here and say they don't believe that Hollywood Tonight is MJ. I even don't debate with them.
But that is exactly the point. By stating that it wasn't MJ he draws attention that someone else was singing, this is not what someone who is caught up in a conspiracy would do.
I see, and do you think that being quite would have been less suspicious? I don't think so Mister.
Here I will stop with the debate, because to be honest the way the argument and my post is further handled in your response, tells me that we have an enormous miscommunication and that every word I state is either 1) interpreted as a (wrong) accusation or 2) interpreted in a way that is not linked with the argument of my post. To clarify once again though: linguistics is a science, I know for I actually studied it.
Yes, when studied without melodyne and pvc or shower effect distortion.
Two other comments loose from the discussion above, and also to enlightened the tension (and indirectly reffering to other posts you wrote and how information can be wrongly used to make points):
1) planets are *actually* proven by physicists even though they can't see them, they actually detected by a doppler effect and
A) I wasn't referring to invisible planets, but to an invisible star as a metaphor.
B) Many theories on universe exists, so the doppler effect isn't sufficient. The movements of the planets do not always obey the law of physics everywhere in the universe as they are expected to.
2) Hitler was not choosen by the majority of the german population, he came to power with a minority coalition and seized power when the Reichstag burned down - this last action was hardly democratic
You must be joking right? The absolute majority in politics is quite rare. The nazi party had around 40% of the population's vote, which is enormous when you know that other votes are scattered into smaller percentages for other different parties.
Hitler was already appointed Chancellor before the Reichstag burnt down (apparently by a commuinist activist).
Now, Hitler probably did force on the democratical principles in order to rule Germany, but set aside that fact, he was nevertheless supported by at least 40% of the population. It is almost half of the country only for his party alone!
I know that these last comments are completly off topic, but it does show how arguments are motivated - not always based on facts.
This is where the discussion on my end stops...
Sorry, but you didn't prove that I hadn't based my comments on facts.
