Supporting those who support the truth about MJ. Attacks on Charles Thomson false and unjustified.

[samhabib]

^ Sorry - the fans I was referring to were the Bonnie Cox's and the Muzikfactory2's of the world. People who tried to damn someone for his justified comments on an MJ fan forum.

Don't try to bully me by calling me a 'killer'. Get the record straight. Michael Jackson was a PUBLIC figure. He knew it. We knew it. Michael was not a child. He was an adult. Michael Jackson publicly voiced his own opinions about other public figures (eg. Paul
McCartney is 'cheap' according to his own autobiography). So if he was open to commenting on public figures, he would expect comment about himself - being a public figure.

Yes Michael was innocent. He still would have been better advised to not share his room with children post-1993. I don't even see how that's debatable. If he wanted a positive public image he should have worked at it. Not allow it to spiral out of control.

He would have been better served by his fans if they wanted better for him and his public image - not just accept and glorify anything and everything.

I've read some fans talking about the 'baby-dangling' incident as 'nothing serious'. That's what I'm talking about. There were some fans who defended that - 'nothing serious'. It was an absolute disaster for Michael Jackson's public image. An absolute disaster. But these fans just stood there unwavered saying 'not serious'?!?

That's what I'm talking about. Not people on this thread or necessarily on this board.

But, in future, don't try to refer to me as a 'killer'. If Paul McCartney died a year after Moonwalk came out, would Michael have been a 'killer' for calling him 'cheap'? Right.

 

[144000]

^ Sorry - the fans I was referring to were the Bonnie Cox's and the Muzikfactory2's of the world. People who tried to damn someone for his justified comments on an MJ fan forum.

Don't try to bully me by calling me a 'killer'. Get the record straight. Michael Jackson was a PUBLIC figure. He knew it. We knew it. Michael was not a child. He was an adult. Michael Jackson publicly voiced his own opinions about other public figures (eg. Paul
McCartney is 'cheap' according to his own autobiography). So if he was open to commenting on public figures, he would expect comment about himself - being a public figure.

Yes Michael was innocent. He still would have been better advised to not share his room with children post-1993. I don't even see how that's debatable. If he wanted a positive public image he should have worked at it. Not allow it to spiral out of control.

He would have been better served by his fans if they wanted better for him and his public image - not just accept and glorify anything and everything.

I've read some fans talking about the 'baby-dangling' incident as 'nothing serious'. That's what I'm talking about. There were some fans who defended that - 'nothing serious'. It was an absolute disaster for Michael Jackson's public image. An absolute disaster. But these fans just stood there unwavered saying 'not serious'?!?

That's what I'm talking about. Not people on this thread or necessarily on this board.

But, in future, don't try to refer to me as a 'killer'. If Paul McCartney died a year after Moonwalk came out, would Michael have been a 'killer' for calling him 'cheap'? Right.

first of all..cheap? how does that compare to what Michael went through? do you even know what that word means, even if he said it? first of all, it's alleged that he said it, because it's in print. and secondly, a business word? a word that indicates he might have outbid Paul for a catalogue? what is that? how is that anything even worth talking about? how does that even compare to the subject at hand? it doesn't. there is nothing wrong with that term. nothing.

secondly, yes...your words are those of a killer. a killer with verbs. if you're going to set a standard, you damn well better accept what you put out. otherwise your argument about Michael is totally invalid.

and it's still invalid. because your statements about what MJ allegedly said about Paul are alleged and print. you didn't see Michael bandying about in interviews being looselipped about ANYBODY. he's the only one who set that standard. and MJ being a public figure is your lame reason for assanine bully attacks? that is truly a lame set of reasoning. so what if he's public..does that make him less human??

you love to distribute vitriol, so you deserve vitriol.

all MJ did was strive to make people happy and protect children. he did nothing to distort that, except in the minds of twisted people.

there are so many unbelievable horrors being done to children, by people who clearly made themselves public by being brought to trial for them. and nobody pays attention to that. children raped. a woman who drowned all five of her sons. children murdered.

but because Michael Jackson is Michael Jackson, he's treated like a criminal for being the only person who looked out for kids. no fan who defended him deserves any vitriol from you or anybody else.

for you to make the statements you make and support those who make them...that's what the children have to be afraid of.

you and others who speak like you should have just paid more attention to the real plights of children, instead of throwing bombs at the one ambassador children really had.

why did fans go out of their way to defend MJ?

because the detractors have the most twisted concept of good and evil, ever witnessed.

if you feel the comments against MJ that you felt are justifiable, are justifiable, then your views of good and evil are just as twisted.

there is absolutely NO excuse for the evil that was wrought upon michael. not ONE excuse. and if you think there is, then you're in the same boat with the media.

you really seem ok with certain words put out against Michael, but you sure do suddenly have a problem, when some words are directed back at your use of words, don't you? which brings up another points. unlike you and those that agree with you, i don't bring up your personal life and you as a person, but i am strictly limiting my commentary to your word usage, and your approval of such word usage to describes Michael's personal life and life habits. so i really can't be called a bully, because i'm criticizing your words and the words you approve of. those words were killer words, words designed to destroy Michael's life, because they attacked his personal life and habits, and hounded his personal life and habits. killer words. bully words. accumulated bully words by many. against one person. against Michael. indeed, you either used them, or approved of them, so you have to own up to them. even if you don't, they still are attributable to you.

it really is ironic..perhaps deliberate that the term 'twisted vision' is used on those forums, because the evil treatment of Michael really did come from those with a twisted vision of good and evil. whether it be his personal life, or the trial, because it really is all intertwined, because his whole life was about being an ambassador to children. people who used the term 'public figure' to 'justify' their evil words, really do have that twisted vision, and consequently didn't pay attention to any of the TRUE evils going on in the world. on purpose. or they minimized the TRUE evils in comparison, which is, basically, the same thing.

and the true evils are as far removed from Michael as the east is from the west.

 

[samhabib]

It's alleged because it's in print? What on earth does that mean? It was HIS autobiography! What are you talking about? His own autobiography. How is it 'alleged'? It's HIS book!

He talks about a public figure. So he's aware that people will talk about him - being a public figure.

So you've claimed i'm a 'killer' and that I 'agree' with 'justifiable' comments. I said the comments were 'justified' not 'justifiable'. When Charles posted his comments on other forums he 'justified' his comments. Whether I agree with them or not is neither here or there. He justified his points. Even if they were incorrect. But he backed them up. And other fans were able to engage with him and challenge those opinions.

You've called me a 'killer'. That's bullying. However you want to look at it. It's a cheap tactic to derail an adult conversation.

 

[144000]

It's alleged because it's in print? What on earth does that mean? It was HIS autobiography! What are you talking about? His own autobiography. How is it 'alleged'? It's HIS book!

He talks about a public figure. So he's aware that people will talk about him - being a public figure.

So you've claimed i'm a 'killer' and that I 'agree' with 'justifiable' comments. I said the comments were 'justified' not 'justifiable'. When Charles posted his comments on other forums he 'justified' his comments. Whether I agree with them or not is neither here or there. He justified his points. Even if they were incorrect. But he backed them up. And other fans were able to engage with him and challenge those opinions.

You've called me a 'killer'. That's bullying. However you want to look at it. It's a cheap tactic to derail an adult conversation.

it's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated? you're going to claim that never happened? that's naive. it's still not a video where you get to see his lips moving and see and hear what he is saying.

secondly, the comment can never be compared to what you claimed to be 'justified' or however you wish to configure the word. for Michael to say he was able to outbid Paul McCartney is not comparable to attacking someone's personal life.

thirdly, you called Michael an adult. so, you qualify that anything i say to you, is part of an adult conversation.

fourthly, there's nothing cheap about comparing your words to somebody else's personal life.

you are the one who either used or approved of the words. no one held a gun to your head and told you whether or not to use or approve of the words. one of many who did. and MJ is dead. words can kill.

reporting what those words did, is reporting. not bullying.

but like you, everybody can interpret, can they not?

you're on a public board, along with me. and i'm bringing the point home, and that is equal to facing the music.

did you or did you not help to pile on Michael Jackson? is he, or is he not dead? did you or did you not excuse yourself because of the public figure claim?

you are taking a gigantic leap from alleged words regarding one person buying a catalogue from another, to words that support twisted thoughts of child molestation.

you are somehow saying that two completely unrelatable things are relatable. and you know that is not true.

you want to pretend like the damaging words you support are comparable to something that is completely non damaging. and you know that the two do not compare.

and ultimately, you are reaching...reaching very far to somehow say that MJ brought his death upon himself, while absolving yourself and those you support of anything that came out of your mouths.

you are really trying to find a way to say that you can put it out, but it cannot come back to you.

but Michael, who did nothing that justifies the attacks against him, should receive recompense, nonetheless. and the fans that have a problem with that, are sycophants. everybody else you accuse, has a label attached to them, as far as you are concerned. but your actions and those you approve of, should remain untouchable?

that's quiet insidious, but it doesn't work that way, in the real world.

somebody being a public figure, doesn't excuse people on the internet. and it doesn't justify the attacks against Michael.

you are making a gigantic effort to justify what happened to Michael for absolutely no reason, (and you're trying to turn it into a reason) and absolve your word usage at the same time, and those words of others of whom you do approve, because you claim they justified them. and your effort is over the top, as i can see here. maybe the question you posed, should be posed back to you. who ARE the real Michael Jackson fans? your special effort to protect yourself and certain other people, but leave Michael out there as the target, doesn't help your case. and let me remain consistent. if you attack his personal life, and the fact that he still stayed around children, then you're cancelling out whatever facts were brought up to vindicate him at trial, because you are condoning the atmosphere that MJ shouldn't have been trusted around children. forget about the fact, that your zealous campaign is overlooking that Thomson brought up that there was evidence that the kids didn't sleep in MJ's room. but what if they did? sleepovers in adult homes, featuring children, are centuries old. why is it such a crime in MJ's case? unless you and Thomson have second thoughts about MJ and children, and those thoughts are negative, then you should have no problem with him having been around kids. no problem at all.

and then, on top of that, you claim that Thomson was able to back up comments that may be incorrect. not making sense doesn't help your argument, much, either.

 

[samhabib]

What complete and utter nonsense. The classic kind of post that apologised for every failing of Michael Jackson.

"It's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated?"

That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in ages. So it's the 'printing companies' fault that Michael referred to Paul McCartney as cheap? Are you saying this with a straight face? Let's remember that in the Oprah interview Michael endorses this same autobiography, 'get my book, Moonwalker (sic)".

So, again, Michael is a victim but this time at the hands of a 'printing company'? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if you are it's completely ludicrous. And proof of a lack of reason.

Again, I'd suggest that the 'fans' who were apologists for Michael Jackson's every failing were the ones that ruined him.

The 'fans' that supported him lip-synching 90% of the HIStory tour, rather than the ones who knew that it was damaging to his legitimate musical legacy.

The 'fans' that brushed off the baby-dangling incident rather than realising the impact it would have on Michael's public image.

The 'fans' who supported him in sharing his bedroom with children post-1993, rather than the ones who knew it would outrage the public at large and kill his public image.

The 'fans' that blamed everyone other than Michael Jackson for his problems, rather than the ones who wished he'd take more care.

THOSE fans were the ones that ruined him and his public image. THOSE fans are the ones who, when they should have been caring about him and looking out for him, apologised for him.

THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'.

Not so far away from your claims that anything negative in Michael's own autobiography were the 'printing companies' fault. You know... because Michael could never say anything bad about a public figure. Must have been someone elses fault?!?

And re the 'justified' comment. Here's an analogy for you. Some people believe that man was created by God - and justify their claims with documented 'evidence'. Some people believe that man evolved from apes - and justify their claims with documented evidence. Who is right? Both arguments have been justified but surely only one is right? Hence, agree or disagree with them, Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air. Like your 'printing company' claim.

 

[144000]

What complete and utter nonsense. The classic kind of post that apologised for every failing of Michael Jackson.

"It's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated?"

That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in ages. So it's the 'printing companies' fault that Michael referred to Paul McCartney as cheap? Are you saying this with a straight face? Let's remember that in the Oprah interview Michael endorses this same autobiography, 'get my book, Moonwalker (sic)".

So, again, Michael is a victim but this time at the hands of a 'printing company'? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if you are it's completely ludicrous. And proof of a lack of reason.

Again, I'd suggest that the 'fans' who were apologists for Michael Jackson's every failing were the ones that ruined him.

The 'fans' that supported him lip-synching 90% of the HIStory tour, rather than the ones who knew that it was damaging to his legitimate musical legacy.

The 'fans' that brushed off the baby-dangling incident rather than realising the impact it would have on Michael's public image.

The 'fans' who supported him in sharing his bedroom with children post-1993, rather than the ones who knew it would outrage the public at large and kill his public image.

The 'fans' that blamed everyone other than Michael Jackson for his problems, rather than the ones who wished he'd take more care.

THOSE fans were the ones that ruined him and his public image. THOSE fans are the ones who, when they should have been caring about him and looking out for him, apologised for him.

THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'.

Not so far away from your claims that anything negative in Michael's own autobiography were the 'printing companies' fault. You know... because Michael could never say anything bad about a public figure. Must have been someone elses fault?!?

And re the 'justified' comment. Here's an analogy for you. Some people believe that man was created by God - and justify their claims with documented 'evidence'. Some people believe that man evolved from apes - and justify their claims with documented evidence. Who is right? Both arguments have been justified but surely only one is right? Hence, agree or disagree with them, Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air. Like your 'printing company' claim.

well..if you can claim that MJ fans supporting him ruined him, that is classic denial on your part.

if you are a blind supporter of anything in print, then that sounds like a media sympathizer. you don't check anything that is reported on tv or printed in a magazine?

considering that everything you believe is copy and paste from the media, and rumors from naysayers, i can safely stand by everything i said about you. it's your words that destroyed him. i stand by that.

i said everything with a straight face. i don't look at tv with blind belief like you do. you sound exactly like what was said in the media. exactly. so you are no different from them. i stand completely by everything i said about your words, and the words you support.

'every failing of Michael Jackson.' there's also envy in that statement of yours.

you're drawn to these sites, so you can bash him?

how 'sweet'. you have absolutely no unequivocal evidence to support anything you or Thomson said. and then you bring religion into it and tear down the beliefs of many..which proves that you come from a place where you have decided to believe what you believe, just because you want to believe it.

you're coming from a vindictive place...not a factual place.
your words and the words you say are 'justified', killed him. you heard me. i said it. i'm done. your statements concerning Paul McCartney do not stand the smell test, at all. taking over a catalogue business speak doesn't qualify as destructive conversation, but deciding to make reason absent, would allow you to make such a totally off base comparison.

do you know what makes everything you say void? you know what really makes all your arguments hollow?
what happened at the o2 arena. some destroyed legacy, huh?
so...you're still here...that's how destroyed his music legacy is. you still have an interest in his music. your presence here, and the sellouts at the o2 arena make every one of your arguments totally void. but your words are no less destructive to the soul of a human being. there are plenty of fans, that are a living breathing continuation of his legacy. so say goodbye to all your arguments. and even if you leave(though you're being here now, makes your defense null and void) you can be replaced. nothing ever did, or ever can destroy his legacy..and he did NOTHING to ruin his image or legacy. his true fans(legions of them)are proof. and because of that, your vindictiveness turned poison words against the fans, themselves.

also...fans greeting him everywhere he went, right to his last day...proof that his legacy could never be destroyed. you had plenty of chance to leave the fanbase, if his legacy was so damaged, but you hung around so you could fling the poison verbal arrows.

and lastly...you broke a site rule. you defied the autopsy report and just called Michael a drug addict. you defied a medical report, so your a study in contradiction. and are now supporting a flat out lie, and are so vindictive that you break site rules.

you use all the inflammatory words that determine that you are not coming from a factual place...just a vindictive place. words on the order of 'utter nonsense', and 'apologist'.

quite frankly, the atmosphere can do without the poison verbal arrows. since when does Michael need 'fans' like that?

 

[samhabib]

More utter nonsense.

Michael Jackson endorsed his own autobiography. But you're that desperate to distance him from the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' comment that you deny that Michael a. approved his own autobiography and b. endorsed his own autobiography.

You're having a very difficult time understanding my definition of 'support'. Glorifying someone's failings in the face of the facts isn't 'support'. Calling Janet Jackson a liar, for example, isn't supporting Michael Jackson.

You've proved that you can't work out what I've meant by 'justified'. The analogy I gave you about the creation if man showed two different opinions. I didn't say I agreed with one or the other. But you've claimed that I've offended the religious among us? How ridiculous. Read what I wrote. Not what I didn't write. I showed the two different points of view. I didn't say which one I agreed with. For the record, however, I believe in God. Which proves that you're desperate to slander anyone you don't agree with - tabloid like.

 

[Ashtanga]

.............................................. :sigh:

 

[144000]

More utter nonsense.

Michael Jackson endorsed his own autobiography. But you're that desperate to distance him from the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' comment that you deny that Michael a. approved his own autobiography and b. endorsed his own autobiography.

You're having a very difficult time understanding my definition of 'support'. Glorifying someone's failings in the face of the facts isn't 'support'. Calling Janet Jackson a liar, for example, isn't supporting Michael Jackson.

You've proved that you can't work out what I've meant by 'justified'. The analogy I gave you about the creation if man showed two different opinions. I didn't say I agreed with one or the other. But you've claimed that I've offended the religious among us? How ridiculous. Read what I wrote. Not what I didn't write. I showed the two different points of view. I didn't say which one I agreed with. For the record, however, I believe in God. Which proves that you're desperate to slander anyone you don't agree with - tabloid like.

..like ur supporting Michael?

you believe in God?
ur not slandering anyone who doesn't agree with YOU?
ur not making a JUDGEMENT call on a saintly individual who did goodwill for children?(even though you've never been inside his walls to make that judgement call) You're not SLANDERING Michael? *hypocrisy to try to hide from truth*
well..i guess we'll see how God feels about all this on the day of reckoning...
no hiding behind 'cleverness', deception, and false 'care'. no allowance for a lame attempt to hide or protect a love of money. no chance of hiding behind saying: 'well i heard it on tv so it must be true!' nochance to say something is 'objective thinking', if it isn't.

who will have the clear conscience, who will be straight with God about all this...

no one can fool God..or mock God..that's for sure.

*evil world*

 

[samhabib]

Absolute drivel.

Where have I slandered Michael Jackson? Show me one example where I've slandered him.

You believe that Michael Jackson's autobiography is not approved by Michael Jackson. You believe he didn't endorse it - even though there is video evidence (the Oprah interview) where he does endorse it. You baselessly blame a 'printing company' for the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' line in the book. Who's trying to hide the truth here?

 

[Ashtanga]

............................................................

 

[144000]

Absolute drivel.

Where have I slandered Michael Jackson? Show me one example where I've slandered him.

You believe that Michael Jackson's autobiography is not approved by Michael Jackson. You believe he didn't endorse it - even though there is video evidence (the Oprah interview) where he does endorse it. You baselessly blame a 'printing company' for the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' line in the book. Who's trying to hide the truth here?

why would you see yourself as doing anything wrong, here? i'm not surprised, though it's pointed out over and over the slander you committed. i'm not going to keep going over it. it's already been pointed out. there is no use arguing with you. what you did, you did.

like we said...it's not up to us

 

[samhabib]

In other words "You didn't slander Michael Jackson but I can't say that because I've already baselessly accused you of slandering Michael Jackson for no other reason but the fact that I didn't agree with you".

Got it.

 

[144000]

In other words "You didn't slander Michael Jackson but I can't say that because I've already baselessly accused you of slandering Michael Jackson for no other reason but the fact that I didn't agree with you".

Got it.

your reasoning reminds me of a world leader or two..very scary...like i said, i don't have to face you and you don't have to face me when it's all said and done...

 

[samhabib]

As opposed to your lack of reasoning?

Here's the challenge. You've accused me of slandering Michael Jackson. Very easily then, where have I slandered him? No cryptic responses, no beating around the bush... show me an example of where I've slandered Michael Jackson...

 

[144000]

As opposed to your lack of reasoning?

Here's the challenge. You've accused me of slandering Michael Jackson. Very easily then, where have I slandered him? No cryptic responses, no beating around the bush... show me an example of where I've slandered Michael Jackson...

i have a hard time with repetitive posts. it's all posted, straightforward. throughout this thread. and the last post i posted before this one is really what you should have looked at.the most. if they're brought up again, you'll deny again. i'd be a fool to continue after this post, no matter what you say.

 

[samhabib]

Waffle. Complete waffle.

You know I haven't slandered Michael Jackson. But you're that desperate to portray me as a 'hater' and as a 'killer' that you can't admit it. You've baselessly accused me of slandering Michael Jackson and when asked for just one example you've started talking complete nonsense. How absolutely ridiculous.

Just provide one example. Just one. If you can't, and we both know you can't, don't waste your time.

 

[ginvid]

How about I end this for the both of you? Move on, Please! You both do not agree. It is obvious. But, now the conversation has gone way off topic and it has been going on for too long. Let's get back to Charles Thompson and charges against him or in other words, let's get back to what this thread is about. :flowers:

(On another note, fftopic: so what if MJ called Paul cheap. He absolutely was. And, he only has himself to blame for his not having his catalog of Beatles material. Why can't MJ have said this especially if it is true? No need to reply to this, I was just thinking out loud. If you would like to reply, PM me. Here, we can just go back to the main topic. h34r

 

[Buttercup]

Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air.

I don't see how he justified comments like "There were bits of skin actually hanging off his nose." If someone wants to do a critical analysis about Michael's work, that's fine. I've seen a lot of fans have such discussions, and the conversations usually turn out quite interesting. But comments like I posted above are just plain mean, and definitely not justified no matter how you want to slice it.

 

[samhabib]

He justified it by making reference to pictures at the time. Is he right? I don't think so. Did he justify his comments? Yes.

I've seen fans referring to Paris' bellybutton and claiming that her bellybutton is proof Michael is her father. They've justified their comments with photos. Are they right? I don't know. Have they justified their comments? Yes.

Ginvid - Michael's well within his rights to talk about Paul. But then, equally, he should expect people to talk about him. That was the point of that particular comment. Michael had every right to talk about Paul. And, that being the case, fans shouldn't expect different rules for people talking about Michael.

 

[144000]

He justified it by making reference to pictures at the time. Is he right? I don't think so. Did he justify his comments? Yes.

I've seen fans referring to Paris' bellybutton and claiming that her bellybutton is proof Michael is her father. They've justified their comments with photos. Are they right? I don't know. Have they justified their comments? Yes.

Ginvid - Michael's well within his rights to talk about Paul. But then, equally, he should expect people to talk about him. That was the point of that particular comment. Michael had every right to talk about Paul. And, that being the case, fans shouldn't expect different rules for people talking about Michael.

it's still in print. take the trip from the print to the mouth. it's a long way. there is the possibility with all those books in print, that there was something that Michael saw in his copy that wasn't in other copies. there is precedence for that. if you want to say something is impossible, that is your mind, talking.

and in effect, if you take a stab at michael you shouldn't be not expecting people to not take a stab at what you said, in order to protect him.

there is no justification for lies about drugs. that is your slander.

you overlooked an autopsy. now there it is, for the second, maybe third time. and you bypassed the autopsy to convenience yourself. i put the word autopsy in bold letters, just in case you can't see it, this time. no evidence of years of a body worn by drug addiction. you would bypass medical evidence..the the truths from the professions of medicine and science, if you THINK it would help your agenda. which, of course, it can't.

your definition of 'justification' is nonsense. i've never heard of that in my life. how do you justify something if you're wrong?

and so now you admit to talking about him. only you want to reduce it to the word 'talk' as opposed to what it is...slander. you know...the word that Michael used in his song 'tabloid junkie'? your words are just like that.

 

[samhabib]

So in some copies Michael refers to Paul as cheap and in some copies he doesn't? That makes sense to you? OK. It doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it's absolutely ludicrous.

Get your facts right. I never called Michael Jackson a drug addict. So get off your high horse. Janet Jackson called him a drug addict and I referenced her. Is she a liar? A killer? A hater? Well? Answer that... is Janet Jackson a 'killer' of Michael Jackson?

 

[144000]

So in some copies Michael refers to Paul as cheap and in some copies he doesn't? That makes sense to you? OK. It doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it's absolutely ludicrous.

Get your facts right. I never called Michael Jackson a drug addict. So get off your high horse. Janet Jackson called him a drug addict and I referenced her. Is she a liar? A killer? A hater? Well? Answer that... is Janet Jackson a 'killer' of Michael Jackson?

call it ludicrous, that doesn't make it untrue. sure makes it possible. you can't prove otherwise. plus..the possibly non existant comment is not on the order of slanderous. first, it isn't proven(so it's moot)..secondly, it is nowhere near the category of what you called Michael.

so you claim i'm on a high horse, because i caught you in a lie, and you're lying again.

claiming i am on a high horse is your admission to calling him an addict. in his song, he likened slanderous comments like that, to crucifying the God he serves, let alone what they did to him. you can't face it, can you?

did i predict your denial? absolutely. now that you don't believe the coroner's report, let me ask another question and see if you refuse to answer that one too. do you believe in medical science?

 

[samhabib]

This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read in my whole life.

Michael's comments on McCartney are non-existent? Are you seriously suggesting that? Brilliant haha

I've denied what? You claim that I called Michael Jackson a drug addict. Show me where I've called him a drug addict. It should be very simple.

 

[144000]

What complete and utter nonsense. The classic kind of post that apologised for every failing of Michael Jackson.

"It's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated?"

That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in ages. So it's the 'printing companies' fault that Michael referred to Paul McCartney as cheap? Are you saying this with a straight face? Let's remember that in the Oprah interview Michael endorses this same autobiography, 'get my book, Moonwalker (sic)".

So, again, Michael is a victim but this time at the hands of a 'printing company'? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if you are it's completely ludicrous. And proof of a lack of reason.

Again, I'd suggest that the 'fans' who were apologists for Michael Jackson's every failing were the ones that ruined him.

The 'fans' that supported him lip-synching 90% of the HIStory tour, rather than the ones who knew that it was damaging to his legitimate musical legacy.

The 'fans' that brushed off the baby-dangling incident rather than realising the impact it would have on Michael's public image.

The 'fans' who supported him in sharing his bedroom with children post-1993, rather than the ones who knew it would outrage the public at large and kill his public image.

The 'fans' that blamed everyone other than Michael Jackson for his problems, rather than the ones who wished he'd take more care.

THOSE fans were the ones that ruined him and his public image. THOSE fans are the ones who, when they should have been caring about him and looking out for him, apologised for him.

THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'.

Not so far away from your claims that anything negative in Michael's own autobiography were the 'printing companies' fault. You know... because Michael could never say anything bad about a public figure. Must have been someone elses fault?!?

And re the 'justified' comment. Here's an analogy for you. Some people believe that man was created by God - and justify their claims with documented 'evidence'. Some people believe that man evolved from apes - and justify their claims with documented evidence. Who is right? Both arguments have been justified but surely only one is right? Hence, agree or disagree with them, Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air. Like your 'printing company' claim.

wanna do a spin job on that? never mind the other stuff. answer this time, with an answer, instead of a question. interesting how you use the word 'destroy', only when it's convenient for you.

 

[samhabib]

What makes this all the more ridiculous is the fact that, not only does Michael endorse his autobiography on the Oprah interview, but there's also a photoshoot of him holding the book - effectively promoting it. So, for you to say the book is incorrect, is to say that Michael Jackson actively promoted a book that he knew was incorrect. Are you saying that Michael Jackson is a hypocrite?

 

[144000]

What makes this all the more ridiculous is the fact that, not only does Michael endorse his autobiography on the Oprah interview, but there's also a photoshoot of him holding the book - effectively promoting it. So, for you to say the book is incorrect, is to say that Michael Jackson actively promoted a book that he knew was incorrect. Are you saying that Michael Jackson is a hypocrite?

more red herrings, and inability to answer questions on your part? every time i got you, you keep dodging.

 

[samhabib]

wanna do a spin job on that? never mind the other stuff. answer this time, with an answer, instead of a question. interesting how you use the word 'destroy', only when it's convenient for you.

"THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'."

Right... where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? I've posted that there are fans that have accused Janet Jackson as being a liar for referring to Michael as an addict. Where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? You need to work on your comprehension. Are you calling Janet Jackson a liar? Well?

 

[144000]

"THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'."

Right... where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? I've posted that there are fans that have accused Janet Jackson as being a liar for referring to Michael as an addict. Where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? You need to work on your comprehension. Are you calling Janet Jackson a liar? Well?

more dodging. why are you bringing up Janet Jackson if you're not saying he's an addict? my grasp of comprehension is on the mark. your denial is pathological.

 

[samhabib]

more red herrings, and inability to answer questions on your part? every time i got you, you keep dodging.

What are you even talking about? Got me? Your argument is completely nonsensical. Michael Jackson promotes a book that, according to you, has lies in it. Are you, therefore, calling Michael Jackson a liar?