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

[144000]

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?

now you leave one subject for another. more denial. i told you there is no proof for your argument in millions of book copies.

now you answer my question..why are you bringing up Janet Jackson, if you're not calling MJ a drug addict?

 

[Buttercup]

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.

This is the definition of "justify" I'm using.

So, no, he did not justify it.

Also, he did not post the photo he was alluding to, and I have never seen any photos with "bits of skin hanging off of" Michael's nose (as Thomson wrote). It was unconstrained chat about another, involving details not confirmed as being true. AKA "gossip". It was not "justified" comments.

 

[144000]

This is the definition of "justify" I'm using.

So, no, he did not justify it.

Also, he did not post the photo he was alluding to, and I have never seen any photos with "bits of skin hanging off of" Michael's nose (as Thomson wrote). It was unconstrained chat about another, involving details not confirmed as being true. AKA "gossip". It was not "justified" comments.

samhabib accuses me of nonsense, hasn't accepted that definition of 'justify', though it is printed in a dictionary.

 

[samhabib]

now you leave one subject for another. more denial. i told you there is no proof for your argument in millions of book copies.

now you answer my question..why are you bringing up Janet Jackson, if you're not calling MJ a drug addict?

I posted it as a comment about some fans. That they're willing to slander ANYONE who gets in the way of what they wish to believe about Michael. Even his beloved sister.

 

[samhabib]

This is the definition of "justify" I'm using.

So, no, he did not justify it.

Also, he did not post the photo he was alluding to, and I have never seen any photos with "bits of skin hanging off of" Michael's nose (as Thomson wrote). It was unconstrained chat about another, involving details not confirmed as being true. AKA "gossip". It was not "justified" comments.

He certainly did justify it. It was 'reasonable' to him.

He has DEFINITELY posted photos while referring to it. Was he correct? I don't think so. But did he refer to a photograph? Yes he did.

 

[Buttercup]

He certainly did justify it. It was 'reasonable' to him.

He has DEFINITELY posted photos while referring to it. Was he correct? I don't think so. But did he refer to a photograph? Yes he did.

"Who remembers those pics of MJ in the pink shirt with Rabbi Boteach? There were bits of skin actually hanging off his nose in those photos."

With all do respect, the above is what he wrote. With that comment, he posted no photos of what he claimed. Referring to an alleged photo of skin hanging off of Michael's nose, does not equal justifying his comments. Actually posting said photos (of skin hanging off of Michael nose) along with his comments, would have. Instead, you have gossip.

Also, when you write "It was 'reasonable' to him" — you left off the first part of that definition. Let me post it again:

Justifying one comments does not mean just being reasonable to oneself, it must be shown or proven to be right or reasonable. Those bolded words are the important part. One has to prove their comments for them to be justified. This isn't up for debate. This is the definition in the dictionary.

 

[ginvid]

Hey Guys, I feel I need to warn you once more. Please focus on the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do Janet's comments. It has everything to do with what Charles Thompson said. That is it. Do not keep posting off topic. Do not bring up drugs unless Charles spoke about it. Do not bring up Janet unless in reference to Charles. I interceded hoping this squabbling between the two of you would be squashed. Yet, I was ignored. Please consider it a final warning. If you want to continue this discussion, please PM one another. Or let the convo drop.
Thanks!

 

[samhabib]

"Who remembers those pics of MJ in the pink shirt with Rabbi Boteach? There were bits of skin actually hanging off his nose in those photos."

With all do respect, the above is what he wrote. With that comment, he posted no photos of what he claimed. Referring to an alleged photo of skin hanging off of Michael's nose, does not equal justifying his comments. Actually posting said photos (of skin hanging off of Michael nose) along with his comments, would have. Instead, you have gossip.

Also, when you write "It was 'reasonable' to him" — you left off the first part of that definition. Let me post it again:

Justifying one comments does not mean just being reasonable to oneself, it must be shown or proven to be right or reasonable. Those bolded words are the important part. One has to prove their comments for them to be justified. This isn't up for debate. This is the definition in the dictionary.

Or they have to SHOW their comments to be REASONABLE. Which, to him, they were.

 

[samhabib]

Hey Guys, I feel I need to warn you once more. Please focus on the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do Janet's comments. It has everything to do with what Charles Thompson said. That is it. Do not keep posting off topic. Do not bring up drugs unless Charles spoke about it. Do not bring up Janet unless in reference to Charles. I interceded hoping this squabbling between the two of you would be squashed. Yet, I was ignored. Please consider it a final warning. If you want to continue this discussion, please PM one another. Or let the convo drop.
Thanks!

Dropped.

Back to Charles Thomson. I posted somewhere else the fact that you don't have to be a fan to write accurate articles about Michael Jackson. He wrote excellent, accurate articles about Michael Jackson yet that wasn't good enough for some people. He wasn't a 'big enough fan' for some people.

For the record, he is a huge Michael Jackson fan.

 

[Buttercup]

Or they have to SHOW their comments to be REASONABLE. Which, to him, they were.

That's the thing though. He did not show his comments were reasonable. As I previously wrote:

Referring to an alleged photo of skin hanging off of Michael's nose, does not equal justifying his comments. Actually posting said photos (of skin hanging off of Michael nose) along with his comments, would have. Instead, you have gossip.

And again, as I wrote, it's not about being reasonable to oneself. To be justified, you must show or prove — and that means to others. Turning in an essay to a teacher or professor, with the excuse "it was reasonable to me", will get you a big old F.

 

[144000]

Buttercup...thanks for being here. you're a good soldier. keep up the good fight.

MJ was too good for this world...the battle to keep his deserving legacy alive doesn't deserve what it continues to get from the darkness.....and being here is tough...if i have to leave this site...it's gunna be with me continuing the fight for his legacy.

even with Michael being an innocent victim..this fight is so hard...especially with infiltration...and enemies saying they are fans, but it is the way of this world. MJ ran into enemies saying they were fans, everyday of his life..

it's good to know he had many real fans, such as yourself, Buttercup.

i guess i shouldn't be surprised at infiltrations. life's not fair. if good was rewarded with good instead of bad, MJ would still be here.

 

[DeborahFfrench]

Again, I have to bring up the point. Do we really think that when MJ's children are told about what their father endured, they will care about what people thought of his surgeries, tours etc?

It is the accusations that will hurt them, and on that issue Thomson has remained firmly in Michael's corner. This is really all I am saying. The big picture is about the effects of the continual assault on Michael's legacy on that basis.

We may all wish Charles had different views about Michael's performances, looks etc, and who even knows in his heart of hearts whether he would still phrase it exactly as he did -despite what he said on his blog.

In his public work, the work that is potentially read by people who erroneously believe MJ harmed children, all they see when they read Charles's work is a sterling defence of Michael Jackson.

 

[samhabib]

That's the thing though. He did not show his comments were reasonable. As I previously wrote:



And again, as I wrote, it's not about being reasonable to oneself. To be justified, you must show or prove — and that means to others. Turning in an essay to a teacher or professor, with the excuse "it was reasonable to me", will get you a big old F.

No. In mathematics - where there is a right and a wrong answer - you will get an F. In art - you will get judged by your interpretation, based on your own justifications.

So if two people are talking about one photo - that is open to their interpretation of what they are seeing. Some people, for example, could look at a picture of Angelina Jolie and say 'she's anorexic'. Another person could say 'she looks amazing'.

 

[Snow White 1937]

Michael Jackson publicly voiced his own opinions about other public figures (eg. Paul
McCartney is 'cheap' according to his own autobiography).

Uhm... are you talking about "Moonwalk"? I have 2 copies in English, one in French and one in German. I don't remember reading in any of them that MJ called Paul cheap! Could you please tell me which chapter? I have read the book numerous times (first time in 1991), so I think I know it pretty well. Michael has nothing but praise for Paul McCartney in his book. He mentions their first meeting and talks about "Girlfriend" in chapter 4. Then Michael mentions him again in chapter 5 where he talks about "Say Say Say", "The Girl Is Mine" and the ATV music publishing catalogue. In fact, the word "cheap" doesn't occur in the entire book.