omg I'm not denying the results all I'm saying is there may have been a problem at some point in his life. All I meant when I said I'm no medical expert is because I wasn't sure whether or not any past abuse should have shown up in the autopsy. I guess it would depend on how long the timeframe would be. I think if I'm not mistaken Michael even said he was receiving help for prescription abuse in 1993 when he made that statement from Neverland. Anyways to the mods I'm sorry for diverting the topic so much , back on topic now
people, without being stopped, keep posting topics that allow subject matter that indicts Michael, without proof. and the media associated Rebbie with this topic, and then it was posted on this board countless times, then, these follow up Rebbie topics get posted, and now there is supposed to be pretending, that there isn't an association? and why do you apologize, ahead of time, and then decide to deliberately post all this? so, topics aside, Michael's 'problem', wayy back in 1993, was short term, and something he admitted. but it was a short term 'dependency', in Michael's words, not abuse. Michael said dependency but i know how much people want to apply the term abuse, because it's Michael. and it WAS short term. this has nothing to do with the family claiming a long term addiction and attempted 'interventions', many years later, in the 2000's. and why would Michael admit to the world, what he admitted to, in 1993, but deny, in private, to the family, what the family is saying, many years later?
something, that short term, back in 1993, is not enough to be a hardcore addiction that his family was talking about.
why is it that we want to put Michael in a bad light, without proof, when he has done so much good in the world? and why are people trying so hard to do this, when, in actuality, Rebbie appeared on tv and said nothing, and only print media has alleged her to spill her guts. and print media can be questionable, especially when she had said, in print media, that people can claim to be her, who are actually not her.
so we are not really sure that Rebbie Jackson is siding with what Janet Jackson said.
why do people need to say..'oh well, he had a dark side, just like everybody else', so badly? is that an insatiable desire that makes people feel good? the better way to contribute to the earth, is to talk about the good things, that begat the good things. that's the way to heal the world. there is truly enough bad in the world, that can be talked about, that we don't have to lay it on such a great humanitarian. the true count of greatness, is not having the need to bring somebody down. the true count of greatness is being able to leave out the indictment of somebody else, who has done good, than to feel the need to bring them down, and apply horribleness to them, or to exaggerrate moments to become terrible. or to look so hard to find blotches on someone who never did anything to hurt you.
i don't see how you are not denying the results of the autopsy report.
it would be so much easier to talk about Rebbie's variety show, if nobody accused Michael of what only one person appeared on tv and accused him of. and that person wasn't Rebbie. but people on here are accusing Michael, and then they are declaring that they are not accusing him, and then they are declaring that they are going back on topic.
the fact is, people are looking to accuse Michael, where there is no place to accuse him. and he's been wonderful. why are there people that do this?
and why is it ok to criticize Michael, and not ok to criticize anyone else?
