laurarichardson said:

"...Only a small amount on this board..."

There you go again narrow-mindedly thinking that the only Prince fans that there could ever possibly be, are people with an account "on this board".

Did you read somewhere in the Huffingington Post article any mention of anybody "on this board"? Because I didn't.

Brilliant article, thank u Mrs. Staggers

databank said:

Brilliant article, thank u Mrs. Staggers

Conspiracy theorists are just par for the course when a well known celebrity dies suddenly, so their shtick doesn't really bother me. I'm far more disgusted with all the so-called pals, bosom buddies and Prince experts that have suddenly surfaced since his passing, that are just "so shocked, shocked I tell you" that anything was wrong with Prince, at all. But, they were so close and have simply love peddling their "Six Degrees of Separation" stories publicly to anyone that will give them a listen.

Me...every damn time:

[Edited 9/24/16 6:30am]

HatrinaHaterwitz said:

Depending on what one constitutes as a 'legacy', I'd say that, actually, conspiracy theories can be very helpful in maintaining interest in an artist - which in turn earns the estate more money - and preserves the artist's position in the zeitgeist.

Outside of Prince's "fandom" who is talking about Prince's death?

No matter what side you are on here who gives a damn about it outside of "us"?

Keep if off the Huff and leave it here on the Org.

[Edited 9/24/16 8:18am]

Secondly EVERYTHING outside of his COD is a fucking theory.

We don't know nothing outside what we have been told from an "official" source. Contrary to belief there the investigation for all said purposes is over. So we have a theory of what happened. Not a confermation of what happened.

I agree with bits and pieces of the article but the assumption is just as off base as the so called Conspiracy Theory.

Very impressive article I liked it Kudos to Ms Staggers

Nice article, but misleading. Nowhere does the author show how these conspiracy theories are damaging Prince's legacy. His music speaks for itself. There are those who love him and those who have always found him absurd. Those who love him will continue to do so. Those who don't will comment about the latest headline on some silly tabloid newspaper or celebrity magazine while having their hair or nails done at the saloon. It has always been that way.

Every artist that has died suddenly has been the target of countless conspiracy theories. There are folks still adamant that Elvis and MJ are alive. Celebrity deaths under strange circunstances are bound to be in the public's mouth for quite some time. Every person has their own theories and questions about it, so it's only natural that those who loved Prince have even more.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking questions, specially when it comes to someone we all love and miss. That's what we all, Orgers, have in common. Asking questions and trying to make sense of a death that you all must admit happened under strange circunstances is perfectly normal and this here is the right place to do it. In the privacy of a forum dedicated to Prince. If you don't like to discuss these, don't read. I don't post in threads about who slept with Prince or who finds the most pics where you can see his dong. Not passing judgement, if that's your thing, cool. Most importantly, i don't go on those threads and slag off every poster as stupid, ignorant, insensitive, superficial or whatever.I move on.

[Edited 9/24/16 8:48am]

Prince is still a public yet now historical figure so conspiracy theories are expected and well does it have to be a bad thing. Since I believed P's mistake was not reintroducing himself to younger fans (because I said before Prince was consider to be hasbeen in my generation and I am almost 36) it is going to be some challenges to keep people talking about him years to come but with some creative marketing ideas of reintroducing to Prince that can be possible. And don't forget the fact he is much harder to market than an average pop singer because he did music in many genres and his earlier music wasn't family friendly as people who are family friending are one of the largest buying demographics. To the young generation he is just that weird rock singer from the 80s and there are some disconnection going on.

When questions go unanswered regarding someone's untimely death, there will be "conspiracies". That's just the way it is. Until we know the truth, all these rumors and conspiracies will remain. Until the investigation is completed, no one is going to talk. In time, we will all need to find closure, somehow. Prince is in the hands of God now, and no one can ever hurt him again.

.

As Prince said himself: "There ain't no justice, then there ain't no peace."

MMJas said:

Nice article, but misleading. Nowhere does the author show how these conspiracy theories are damaging Prince's legacy. His music speaks for itself. There are those who love him and those who have always found him absurd. Those who love him will continue to do so. Those who don't will comment about the latest headline on some silly tabloid newspaper or celebrity magazine while having their hair or nails done at the saloon. It has always been that way.

Every artist that has died suddenly has been the target of countless conspiracy theories. There are folks still adamant that Elvis and MJ are alive. Celebrity deaths under strange circunstances are bound to be in the public's mouth for quite some time. Every person has their own theories and questions about it, so it's only natural that those who loved Prince have even more.

There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking questions, specially when it comes to someone we all love and miss. That's what we all, Orgers, have in common. Asking questions and trying to make sense of a death that you all must admit happened under strange circunstances is perfectly normal and this here is the right place to do it. In the privacy of a forum dedicated to Prince. If you don't like to discuss these, don't read. I don't post in threads about who slept with Prince or who finds the most pics where you can see his dong. Not passing judgement, if that's your thing, cool. Most importantly, i don't go on those threads and slag off every poster as stupid, ignorant, insensitive, superficial or whatever.I move on.

[Edited 9/24/16 8:48am]

.

MMJ: I agree!! Most of us just want answers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Some people come in here to pick a fight with others; I am not one of them. We all are entitled to our own opinions, and respect that we all may not always agree. Not saying "you" of course, but just adding to what you said.

questions like, "where did he get the drugs" (probably his dealer), or "how long was he using?" are worth asking, as time goes by, and we wrestle with what Prince's death means about his life and his art.

.

But coincidental numbers, deleted tweets, intimations about Warner Bros, Vanity, and epilepsy; it's all murky, points to nothing, and can't be proved or disproved. Which is sad, because 1. drug overdoses are murky, always and 2. people never find satisfying answers to consipiracy theories.

.

That a person is willing to disregard a toxicology report, and focus instead on coincidental dates ... probably means they're not ready to except reality.

Interesting, but nothing I haven't read already. I don't think most people want to know the details of his dependency on pain pills, they just want answers to how he obtained those illegal pills and the circumstances surrounding his death. Did Prince take those illegal pills "knowing" what they were, or did he take them by mistake? Without answers, there will be conspiracy theories. Maybe the truth will surface, some day. I don't think wanting answers is disrespectful to Prince's legacy at all. After all, he was all about "the truth", and "justice". The writer touches on the "conspiracy theories" surrounding Prince's death, but yet she, herself is only speculating as well.

[Edited 9/24/16 15:28pm]

Mintchip said:

questions like, "where did he get the drugs" (probably his dealer), or "how long was he using?" are worth asking, as time goes by, and we wrestle with what Prince's death means about his life and his art.

.

But coincidental numbers, deleted tweets, intimations about Warner Bros, Vanity, and epilepsy; it's all murky, points to nothing, and can't be proved or disproved. Which is sad, because 1. drug overdoses are murky, always and 2. people never find satisfying answers to consipiracy theories.

.

That a person is willing to disregard a toxicology report, and focus instead on coincidental dates ... probably means they're not ready to except reality.

.

Yes, too many suspicious circumstances surrounding Prince's death. Once the investigation is completed, maybe we will learn more?

.

For me personally, I'm more interested in where he got those illegal pills AND if he knew what he was actually taking. Too many different stories and they just don't add up!!

[Edited 9/24/16 15:32pm]

MMJas said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking questions, specially when it comes to someone we all love and miss. That's what we all, Orgers, have in common. Asking questions and trying to make sense of a death that you all must admit happened under strange circunstances is perfectly normal and this here is the right place to do it. In the privacy of a forum dedicated to Prince. If you don't like to discuss these, don't read. I don't post in threads about who slept with Prince or who finds the most pics where you can see his dong. Not passing judgement, if that's your thing, cool. Most importantly, i don't go on those threads and slag off every poster as stupid, ignorant, insensitive, superficial or whatever.I move on.

[Edited 9/24/16 8:48am]

Thank you MMJas. I've said this before and was taken to task for it. It's nice to see that there are others that DO see it as simply and clearly as this. If you like it...great. If you don't...move along. That simple.

Ugh, so many of you guys are so gullible. Stop this willful blindness and open your eyes to the fact that there are too many coincidences, too many strange reactions, and too many hints from people closer than us for the mainstream story to be true at all.

No, we don't have all the fact. But, if this whole thing was just as accidental as they say it is or if it even happened the way they said it did at all, then there wouldn't be all this secrecy and an ongoing investigation right now.

No, we might not ever get the whole truth from the horse's mouth. But, if we ask enough questions and do some thinking for ourselves, then we'll get pretty close to a conclusion. All of these people don't WANT to stay silent, they want justice for Prince too! But, they can't say anything for some reason. I'm sure they'll do their best to say what happened without saying what happened in the near future. I, for one, will keep my eyes and ears open and keep wondering.

Go on accepting what you're told at face value if you want.

[Edited 9/24/16 22:41pm]

phatphuk said:

ladygirl99 said:

cloveringold85 said:

laurarichardson said:

"...I assume she is speaking about this site because this chick never states were she saw these conspiracy theories or were she read them..."

Ain't it interesting how people only see what they want to see?

The Huffington Post article that I read explictly mentioned, Twitter, Linked-In, Change.org, Facebook, WordPress, Google+ — to name a few.

The fact that she explicitly named certain very specific social media sites tells me that those specific sites informed the basis of her story.

If she didn't have any hesitation naming those specific sites that she did name, then why didn't she just name "this board" if she really were referring to "this board"?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there are millions of Prince fans all over the world who have no interest whatsoever in "this board".

I might have believed in a Conspiracy theory for Prince's death if I had never seen that he looked 2 days away from death's door before he died. How long do you think he could have gone on that sick and weak? Smh.

laurarichardson said:

ladygirl99 said:

Prince is still a public yet now historical figure so conspiracy theories are expected and well does it have to be a bad thing. Since I believed P's mistake was not reintroducing himself to younger fans (because I said before Prince was consider to be hasbeen in my generation and I am almost 36) it is going to be some challenges to keep people talking about him years to come but with some creative marketing ideas of reintroducing to Prince that can be possible. And don't forget the fact he is much harder to market than an average pop singer because he did music in many genres and his earlier music wasn't family friendly as people who are family friending are one of the largest buying demographics. To the young generation he is just that weird rock singer from the 80s and there are some disconnection going on.

-- I guess it is better to have been a has been then a never was like so many artist like so many in the current crop of performers. Young people need to go sit the fuck down if you got what P was doing great if you don't move on.

.

I'm with you, Laura!

.

As far as Prince being a "has been" -- I suppose if Prince was an artist that you didn't follow, he might be considered a "has been". Prince was one of the most influencial musicicans of our time! Some people are totally clueless and I don't even know why they are on this board, to be honest. Prince was still producing music, right up until his untimely death. Just because you don't like or follow a certain musician doesn't make them a "has been".

phatphuk said:

Uhhh, I think you need to bone up on your research, actually. AOL was bought a year and a half ago by Verizon. And AOL split from Time Warner in 2009.

oliviacamron said:

Huffington Post, owned by AOL ,which is merged with Warner Bros!!!! This article is put out by Warners !! Don't fall for it. It's crazy how many companies are connected to Warners. Even CNN. Do the research.

disch said:

Nope, you've got it wrong. AOL owns Huffpo but is now owned by Verizon. AOL did indeed merge with Tine Warner in 2000, but they separated in 2009. (I work in this industry -- not for any of these companies or for Warners, FYI -- so I'm very familiar with all of this).

-

Here are the links from my original post (you can google many others too):

Verizon completes AOL acquistion (2015): http://www.cnbc.com/2015/...ition.html

Warners and AOL finalize separation (2009): http://www.wsj.com/articl...3655471238

-

the moral is: You can object to this article, but not because the site it's published on is owned by Warner's.

oliviacamron said:

disch said:

Uhhh, I think you need to bone up on your research, actually. AOL was bought a year and a half ago by Verizon. And AOL split from Time Warner in 2009.

Dish, I just read an article in Fortune from 2015, addressing there merger in January 2000. Says they been merged 15 years. Seems they are still chum buddies.