Reel said:

purplesweat said:

You fool. Michael's SON in Hawaii 2 weeks ago.

[Edited 7/4/10 2:18am]

How do we even know that photo isin't photoshopped? Do you see Katherine and Joe running around without pigmentation in some areas? NOT everybody passes that on to their kid. I don't believe that this boy is Michael's son.

Its a well known fact that Michael's grandfather(Joe's dad) had vitiligo.

first to be rude is not necessary. Really? I am stupid because I do not think MJ is the kid's biological father?

Now there is some reason to believe that PM could have vitalago--or some other skin condition. Even in the beach photo, there seems to be a lighter blotch on his neck.

But that is hardly proof of anything.

Claire73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah that IS NOT vitiligo. For one what are the odds that he would just happen get it too? Much less have it manifest at such a young age?

Oh and it looks more like foam from the serf to me.

Check out Pics from the memorial,you can clearly see vitiligo on Prince's neck and hands. Seems like even when the clues are there,clear as day,people still want to diss. Michael couldn't do anything right....*sighs*

Photo-shopped!

scatwoman said:

Madonnagirl3 said:

But yeah, i have to agree Michael is more a entertainer, Prince is more musician...

That argument is so dumb.

Music is made to entertain. So what is a musician if not an entertainer?

Would you call Bach an entertainer?

Musicians and entertainers are two seperate things. One does not have to be an entertainer in order to be a musician.

[Edited 7/4/10 10:55am]

Reel said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

yeah that IS NOT vitiligo. For one what are the odds that he would just happen get it too? Much less have it manifest at such a young age?

Oh and it looks more like foam from the serf to me.

No, this is the work of some crazed MJ fans photoshopping. trying to hold onto the belief that MJ has some sort of biological legacy. I don't believe for one minute that boy is Michael's son. Not one minute.

Why not?? See I dont get this mentality people have that Michael never had sex. Ridiculous. Why is it so obsurd to think of Michael as a sexual human being?? I dont get it.

OnlyNDaUsa said:

first to be rude is not necessary. Really? I am stupid because I do not think MJ is the kid's biological father?

Now there is some reason to believe that PM could have vitalago--or some other skin condition. Even in the beach photo, there seems to be a lighter blotch on his neck.

But that is hardly proof of anything.

Yes it was a stupid comment. At the end of the day NO ONE knows 1OO% so to pass off your thoughts as fact is stupid. I'm posting the facts(vitilgo etc) to say that the possibilty of Michael being the father is far more likely.

Reel said:

Claire73 said:

Check out Pics from the memorial,you can clearly see vitiligo on Prince's neck and hands. Seems like even when the clues are there,clear as day,people still want to diss. Michael couldn't do anything right....*sighs*

Photo-shopped!

LOL you twit

OnlyNDaUsa said:

scatwoman said:

There's several pictures circulating of Prince Jackson with white blotches on his skin.

Of course, he's not Michael's child though.

Media fed muppets.

Please provide the photos (the one on the beach is just surf foam.)

And with the very remote possibility of blanket, Paris and Prince are NOT MJ's biological child. How do I know? I have a basic understanding of biology and I can see.

[img:$uid]http://i29.tinypic.com/2mo5r8y.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i30.tinypic.com/r87czo.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i30.tinypic.com/b8sm6h.jpg[/img:$uid]

[img:$uid]http://i31.tinypic.com/2r6mtk1.jpg[/img:$uid]

Probably just foam.

mysticman said:

scatwoman said:

That argument is so dumb.

Music is made to entertain. So what is a musician if not an entertainer?

Would you call Bach an entertainer?

Musicians and entertainers are two seperate things. One does not have to be an entertainer in order to be a musician.

[Edited 7/4/10 10:55am]

Really there's no argument here. Music is made to entertain. And, er... that's it.

Claire73 said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is not a dis. So what he used a doner.

Jeeez LOL

Oh ok and happened to find a doner with vitiligo...ohkay then

scatwoman said:

mysticman said:

Would you call Bach an entertainer?

Musicians and entertainers are two seperate things. One does not have to be an entertainer in order to be a musician.

[Edited 7/4/10 10:55am]

Really there's no argument here. Music is made to entertain. And, er... that's it.

Again, a musician and an entertainer are two different things. You wouldn't call Bach an entertainer but you would call him a musician. Saying Prince is more of a musician than MJ was isn't a "stupid argument."

mysticman said:

scatwoman said:

Really there's no argument here. Music is made to entertain. And, er... that's it.

Again, a musician and an entertainer are two different things. You wouldn't call Bach an entertainer but you would call him a musician. Saying Prince is more of a musician than MJ was isn't a "stupid argument."

Bach performed in public for the entertainment of others. Did that not make him an entertainer as well as composer/musician?

OnlyNDaUsa said:

I have a basic understanding of biology

Clearly.

scatwoman said:

mysticman said:

Again, a musician and an entertainer are two different things. You wouldn't call Bach an entertainer but you would call him a musician. Saying Prince is more of a musician than MJ was isn't a "stupid argument."

Bach performed in public for the entertainment of others. Did that not make him an entertainer as well as composer/musician?

Okay. But how about songwriters who don't perform the music they write and just give it to others to perform? By definition they're musicians but they aren't entertainers.

scatwoman said:

mysticman said:

Again, a musician and an entertainer are two different things. You wouldn't call Bach an entertainer but you would call him a musician. Saying Prince is more of a musician than MJ was isn't a "stupid argument."

Bach performed in public for the entertainment of others. Did that not make him an entertainer as well as composer/musician?

You shouldn't have gone down this semantics road, because your argument doesn't hold up.

A "musician" can be classed as an "entertainer", but only in public performance. Otherwise, he's just a musician. An "entertainer" is not necessarily a musician. Someone who juggles balls can be classed as an entertainer, but he is not a musician.

Hence, the distinction between MJ being an "entertainer" (someone who entertained the public, but NEVER with a musical instrument), whereas Prince on the other hand has rarely entertained without use of an instrument.

Saying Prince is also an entertainer is fine, but the argument here was that MJ is more an entertainer and Prince is more known as a musician - which is entirely true and trying to support your argument with semantics is just foolish.

mysticman said:

scatwoman said:

Bach performed in public for the entertainment of others. Did that not make him an entertainer as well as composer/musician?

Okay. But how about songwriters who don't perform the music they write and just give it to others to perform? By definition they're musicians but they aren't entertainers.

See.

Well I'd still argue that anyone who creates work for the entertainment of others is an entertainer of sorts, even if not physically present, but I get your argument.

My issue is demeaning Jackson as "mere" entertainer when Prince is no less "mere" entertainer simply because he has musical abilities that Jackson never had.

Mindflux said:

scatwoman said:

Bach performed in public for the entertainment of others. Did that not make him an entertainer as well as composer/musician?

You shouldn't have gone down this semantics road, because your argument doesn't hold up.

A "musician" can be classed as an "entertainer", but only in public performance. Otherwise, he's just a musician. An "entertainer" is not necessarily a musician. Someone who juggles balls can be classed as an entertainer, but he is not a musician.

Hence, the distinction between MJ being an "entertainer" (someone who entertained the public, but NEVER with a musical instrument), whereas Prince on the other hand has rarely entertained without use of an instrument.

Saying Prince is also an entertainer is fine, but the argument here was that MJ is more an entertainer and Prince is more known as a musician - which is entirely true and trying to support your argument with semantics is just foolish.

Three things:

1) Sunscreen....For real? No, wait....That was supposed to be sarcasm, wasn't it?

2) The heck is "surf foam" in a swimming pool? And how does it stick onto skin?

3) And three, a hereditary condition experienced/suffered by a father can't be or most likely won't be passed down to one of his three progeny? Really? All Genetics lessons/books that teach otherwise are giving out incorrect information?

[img:$uid]http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4334/10hvzabd.gif[/img:$uid]

Why did this thread have to go in this direction.....

Claire73 said:

Reel said:

Photo-shopped!

LOL you twit

Did you just call me a name? If I was a snitch, I would report this.

WaterInYourBath said:

Three things:

1) Sunscreen....For real? No, wait....That was supposed to be sarcasm, wasn't it?

2) The heck is "surf foam" in a swimming pool? And how does it stick onto skin?

3) And three, a hereditary condition experienced/suffered by a father can't be or most likely won't be passed down to one of his three progeny? Really? All Genetics lessons/books that teach otherwise are giving out incorrect information?

[img:$uid]http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4334/10hvzabd.gif[/img:$uid]

Why did this thread have to go in this direction.....

genetics?!, plainly that child shares no genes with Michael, neither does Paris.

Blanket just maybe.

Sorry to break it to you. I really wish some MJ fans weren't so blinded by their love for the man.

Claire73 said:

Reel said:

How do we even know that photo isin't photoshopped? Do you see Katherine and Joe running around without pigmentation in some areas? NOT everybody passes that on to their kid. I don't believe that this boy is Michael's son.

Its a well known fact that Michael's grandfather(Joe's dad) had vitiligo.

Again....do you see Joe and Katherine without pigmentation in some areas? NOT everyone passes this on to THEIR CHILDREN.

Claire73 said:

Reel said:

No, this is the work of some crazed MJ fans photoshopping. trying to hold onto the belief that MJ has some sort of biological legacy. I don't believe for one minute that boy is Michael's son. Not one minute.

Why not?? See I dont get this mentality people have that Michael never had sex. Ridiculous. Why is it so obsurd to think of Michael as a sexual human being?? I dont get it.

The "Sex" and Michael thing needs it's own thread. I'm LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE KIDS...and they are not his biological children. No way in the world that ALL THREE kids would be born with absolutely NO African features. No way. Maybe one...but not all three. Read up on genetics and dominant vs. recessive genes.

Marrk said:

WaterInYourBath said:

Three things:

1) Sunscreen....For real? No, wait....That was supposed to be sarcasm, wasn't it?

2) The heck is "surf foam" in a swimming pool? And how does it stick onto skin?

3) And three, a hereditary condition experienced/suffered by a father can't be or most likely won't be passed down to one of his three progeny? Really? All Genetics lessons/books that teach otherwise are giving out incorrect information?

[img:$uid]http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/4334/10hvzabd.gif[/img:$uid]

Why did this thread have to go in this direction.....

genetics?!, plainly that child shares no genes with Michael, neither does Paris.

Blanket just maybe.

Sorry to break it to you. I really wish some MJ fans weren't so blinded by their love for the man.

I'm not blinded by anything but the fact that Prince resembles teenage Michael to me. Just wait....He's really gonna look like MJ in the face as he grows older....

For years I had a hard time believing Paris is his child. However now, I realize she just looks too much like her mother, which happens. Doesn't mean she's absolutely not Michael's. I mean, have you ever seen Michael Jordan's sons? Neither one of them look like Michael Jordan, at all. Does that mean they are automatically not his children too? Look at Jermajesty. There's nothing like Jermaine in that little boy's face, so is he not a Jackson just because of that as well?

And "maybe" Blanket? Seriously? Little dude is a light-skin, straight hair, clone of young Michael Jackson, lol.

Reel said:

How do we even know that photo isin't photoshopped? Do you see Katherine and Joe running around without pigmentation in some areas? NOT everybody passes that on to their kid. I don't believe that this boy is Michael's son.

Reel said:

Claire73 said:

Why not?? See I dont get this mentality people have that Michael never had sex. Ridiculous. Why is it so obsurd to think of Michael as a sexual human being?? I dont get it.

The "Sex" and Michael thing needs it's own thread. I'm LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE KIDS...and they are not his biological children. No way in the world that ALL THREE kids would be born with absolutely NO African features. No way. Maybe one...but not all three. Read up on genetics and dominant vs. recessive genes.

Are you sure YOU want to direct someone to do that, after what you've posted in this thread?

aarontj said:

VenusBlingBling said:

Oh My. You do know that just cuz Prince was being cocky in some songs and interviews it doesnt have to mean those two men were enemies in private. Its an act. If any of you read murphs article there were several people close to MJ and Prince talking about their rivalry but also huge amount of respect for each other and their sort of friendship. They spent some time together and the only hate that seemed to excist was the fabricated one in the media.

What's been cocky and Prince interviews and songs got to do with MJ constant fixation with Prince? I don't get what your saying, but sounds like you are a bitter MJ fan.

By the way, What's is an act? They never acted like they were enemies, in fact Prince hardly talk about MJ, may be the whole Jackson clan was infatuated with Prince, but the few times I saw P talking about MJ, he was very polite, even the Chris Rock interview Prince manage to make that crazy MJ incident (the Bad video idea) into a funny story.

Wow.

That's funny, because I am far from a bitter MJ fan! I love him, but never as much as Prince. Not that that should matter, because my post was all about how both artists respected each other, such as murph's article shows. With cocky I was referring to Prince's songs, the ones that were mentioned before, "trashing" MJ. But I was saying that that was an act, that the "I'm better than you" attitude was just a public act for fun but not something that was really present in private. Otherwise Prince has been quite appreciative of MJ, I am not arguing with that. Got it?

fascinating specie the human being. it objectifies its own kind, including offspring.

scatwoman said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

Please provide the photos (the one on the beach is just surf foam.)

And with the very remote possibility of blanket, Paris and Prince are NOT MJ's biological child. How do I know? I have a basic understanding of biology and I can see.

[img]Pics of Prince MJ[/img]

Probably just foam.

WaterInYourBath said:

Reel said:

How do we even know that photo isin't photoshopped? Do you see Katherine and Joe running around without pigmentation in some areas? NOT everybody passes that on to their kid. I don't believe that this boy is Michael's son.

The "Sex" and Michael thing needs it's own thread. I'm LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE KIDS...and they are not his biological children. No way in the world that ALL THREE kids would be born with absolutely NO African features. No way. Maybe one...but not all three. Read up on genetics and dominant vs. recessive genes.

Are you sure YOU want to direct someone to do that, after what you've posted in this thread?

I'm absolutely sure.

Debbie Rowe is on the phone. maybe you all should take it up with her, seein as its so vitally important.

Reel said:

WaterInYourBath said:

Are you sure YOU want to direct someone to do that, after what you've posted in this thread?

I'm absolutely sure.

Yeah, well, you and others "looking" at Prince-MJ and his siblings and authoritatively declaring they are not Michael's children sound just like the hypocrite known as Quincy Jones. And it's pretty obvious he's never studied genetics either, so there's no room for condescension to anyone who does not agree with you.

Just like ALL THREE of Quincy Jones' "white-looking" daughters conceived with Caucasian women, you can say: "Michael's children don't look African at all," or "they don't look like their father one bit." Fine. That's what you see. (Regarding Paris Jackson, and all of Quincy's half-Caucaian offspring, I would certainly agree with you.) But that does NOT mean they are not Quincy's or Michael's biological children. Genetics CAN NOT be read that way, regardless of whatever biological-science knowledge you all claim to be aware of.