Sacramento church service turns to Michael Jackson's music

[144000]

Deepak Chopra said it himself that MJ asked him for drugs. That's not hearsay.

Janet Jackson said it herself that she tried to stage an intervention but was uncessusful. That's not hearsay.

i don't know whether to believe Chopra, or Janet.one of them never admitted to seeing anything(Janet), and Chopra...i have no reason to believe anything he says. it's hearsay unless i heard MJ say it, himself. i notice there is a propensity for some people to just want to believe the worst when it comes to Michael..especially when there is multiple choice options to believe.

 

[Eric]

i don't know whether to believe Chopra, or Janet.one of them never admitted to seeing anything(Janet), and Chopra...i have no reason to believe anything he says. it's hearsay unless i heard MJ say it, himself. i notice there is a propensity for some people to just want to believe the worst when it comes to Michael..especially when there is multiple choice options to believe.

Then you don't know what hearsay is. If one of the people involved said what happened, it's not hearsay. If MJ said something to someone and that person tells what MJ said, that IS NOT HEARSAY. Since MJ is dead, obviously he can't speak on his behalf sois everything said about MJ now not true becasue he is dead? Why is it when something positive is said about MJ it's always true but if something negative is said about MJ it's always false? You can't have it both way and you are being a hypocrite.

I notice there is a propensity for some people to just want to believe the best when it comes to Michael and ignore anyhting else.

 

[144000]

Then you don't know what hearsay is. If one of the people involved said what happened, it's not hearsay. If MJ said something to someone and that person tells what MJ said, that IS NOT HEARSAY. Since MJ is dead, obviously he can't speak on his behalf sois everything said about MJ now not true becasue he is dead? Why is it when something positive is said about MJ it's always true but if something negative is said about MJ it's always false? You can't have it both way and you are being a hypocrite.

I notice there is a propensity for some people to just want to believe the best when it comes to Michael and ignore anyhting else.

here is the difference. you don't know the final solution to the case..and i don't know the final solution to the case. one of us is giving MJ the benefit of the doubt, since he is not here anymore, and since he has proven to the world to not be a waste of space, to put it mildly.

everything is hearsay, until you know the final truth, beyond the shadow of a doubt. and you can't exactly say that you know that truth beyond the shadow of a doubt.

but i choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. that way, i'm not judging him, while i recognize his contribution.

and, quite frankly, i prefer to be in the category that you mentioned, that i bolded. i think i'll be alright, for being there, thank you.

 

[MIST]

They are not stupid in AEG.
If the artist isn´t healthy and are addicted to drugs it´s more than possible it will not be any shows and AEG will lose their money.
I believe MJ was examined by a doctor and that the drugtests were negative.
He needed strong drugs to be able to sleep, but if we were living MJs life I think we would beg for very strong drugs to sleep for some hours.Even if we never had any drugproblems before.
Propofol is dangerous, but some here say it´s safe if you have the right equipment and a doctor is there to look after you.That´s what MJ believed too.

 

[Eric]

here is the difference. you don't know the final solution to the case..and i don't know the final solution to the case. one of us is giving MJ the benefit of the doubt, since he is not here anymore, and since he has proven to the world to not be a waste of space, to put it mildly.

everything is hearsay, until you know the final truth, beyond the shadow of a doubt. and you can't exactly say that you know that truth beyond the shadow of a doubt.

but i choose to give him the benefit of the doubt. that way, i'm not judging him, while i recognize his contribution.

and, quite frankly, i prefer to be in the category that you mentioned, that i bolded. i think i'll be alright, for being there, thank you.

The outcome of the investigation doesn't make a difference to you. Both you and I know that if the investigation shows MJ had a habit of using propofol, that you are going to say it is wrong and they are lying in an attempt to drag MJ's name in the dirt. And that there is a conspiracy against MJ. Unless the investigation says that MJ's life was him frolicking in fields of sunflowers, you are going to say it's false.

 

[144000]

The outcome of the investigation doesn't make a difference to you. Both you and I know that if the investigation shows MJ had a habit of using propofol, that you are going to say it is wrong and they are lying in an attempt to drag MJ's name in the dirt. And that there is a conspiracy against MJ. Unless the investigation says that MJ's life was him frolicking in fields of sunflowers, you are going to say it's false.

and if they say there was no evidence of addiction, you will say they are lying.

you and i also both know that MJ didn't say much, so mostly everybody else spoke for MJ in these matters, and what we heard was what they said, and most of it was negative. and so, the media is in agreement with you, generally.

the frightening trend here, is when a person strives to do good, and has been known to be charitable, and the naysayers deliberately overlook that, and look really hard for a flaw, while when a person is known for not striving for good, those same naysayers do everything to say..'now that's a real person', while they draw the 'nobody's perfect' card, which, in truth has nothing to do with whether a person is perfect, or not..it just has everything to do with trying to bring down a person that has had a reputation for peace, love, and goodwill, just because of the reputation for peace, love, and goodwill.

 

[Eric]

and if they say there was no evidence of addiction, you will say they are lying.

you and i also both know that MJ didn't say much, so mostly everybody else spoke for MJ in these matters, and what we heard was what they said, and most of it was negative. and so, the media is in agreement with you, generally.

If that is what the investigation concludes, then I'd go along with it. MJ is my favorite artist. I'm not proud or happy that MJ was using propofol. I'm sad that he is dead. But I'm also realistic and I don't select what evidence I want to believe and what I don't want to beleive. There has been plenty of statements put forward by many different people that shows MJ was addicted to propofol in order to sleep. If this was a simple case of the doctor trying to kill MJ, the investigation would have been over already.

 

[144000]

If that is what the investigation concludes, then I'd go along with it. MJ is my favorite artist. I'm not proud or happy that MJ was using propofol. I'm sad that he is dead. But I'm also realistic and I don't select what evidence I want to believe and what I don't want to beleive. There has been plenty of statements put forward by many different people that shows MJ was addicted to propofol in order to sleep. If this was a simple case of the doctor trying to kill MJ, the investigation would have been over already.

you just made a contradiction. you stated that you will agree with the conclusion of the case, then you drew your conclusion, anyway, before the conclusion of the case. i don't care how many people made statements(and there weren't as many as you make it seem) they are still hearsay. it only takes two witnesses, they say...but there were more than two people who said MJ was a child molester, too. and that turned out to be false.

and there's no telling how quickly the case would be over, no matter what. the majority of this case is in a fog.

here's one of the few things we did hear MJ say. 'if a lie is repeated enough, people will believe it.'


tell me, how would you feel, if something about you was repeated enough, by enough people, and so others started believeing it, though you knew it was false?

 

[Dangerous21.1]

If that is what the investigation concludes, then I'd go along with it. MJ is my favorite artist. I'm not proud or happy that MJ was using propofol. I'm sad that he is dead. But I'm also realistic and I don't select what evidence I want to believe and what I don't want to beleive. There has been plenty of statements put forward by many different people that shows MJ was addicted to propofol in order to sleep. If this was a simple case of the doctor trying to kill MJ, the investigation would have been over already.

If you go to the doctor with insomnia, you'll get a couple meds. You'll take them every night and likely become dependent on them to sleep. Many of the meds people are prescribed for sleep have serious side effects. But how many people do u know that take Ambien? Lots of people take Benzos (valium, ativan) to sleep. How do you look at those people? Do they disappoint you? Are they doing something terribly wrong?

Now Michael lives in a world that we can't even imagine. His way of thinking is really beyond most people. His normal is our extraordinary. One day he was given propofol by a doctor and *most likely* was told that it was safe while monitored. He was *most likely* told that it is non-addicting and wouldn't affect his thinking or make him overly sedated when it was turned off. (i'm speaking from experience. we don't say 'you could die from propofol.' instead you say 'in the monitored setting, this is a relatively safe drug used for sedation') He almost assuredly did NOT one day ask his doctor for propofol. It's not even in the normal realm of treatment for insomnia.

So now he's been given propofol, and in the monitored setting, he had no complications, woke up, and was good to go. That is most likely how this started and why he thought it was safe. He wanted something that got him to sleep and kept his thinking clear afterwards. Why are you disappointed in him for this? Whose fault is this?