New topic
PrintableMarrk said: Show: At Large with Geraldo Rivera
Date: Feb 5 2005 >> Michael Jackson: I'm doing fine geraldo, how are you? >> Geraldo Rivera: Despite whatever goes on in the world you are doing okay? >> Jackson: I'm doing well, thank you. >> Rivera: It wonderful seeing you with the children that is the real michael jackson. You with your own children, one in diapers the other two toddlers. I don't know how you manage all of that >> Jackson: I enjoy taking care of my children myself. It is fun, that's why i had them. So I can take care of them. It is great relief for me, it is pleasure. It keeps me happy and laughing. -- Laughing and they are wonderful, sweet innocent children, they really are. >> Rivera: I saw you as the arbitrator between the nickelodeon channel and the Disney channel. Difficult problems to solve there. >> Jackson: Yes. >> Rivera: But you have such a normal life there. It is sweet to so. -- Sweet to see. >> Jackson: Thank you. They bring me that. >> Rivera: Tell me what the children mean to you, your own children? >> Jackson: It hard to put into words. They mean everything. They are the world for me. I wake up and I'm ready for the day because of them. I give them breakfast, change diapers. They want to read. We do a lot of reading. We play hide-and-seek and blindfold. I have a wonderful time with them. >> Rivera: You can create a world that at least begins to seem normal. They don't know any other world, obviously. >> Jackson: I do my best for sure. >> Rivera: That is obviously a priority to you? >> Jackson: Yes, of course. I want to be the best father in the world, of course. >> Rivera: Do they know who you are or what you mean to people? >> Jackson: Yes, they do. They've been on tours with me. And in limousines. And a sea of fans. >> Rivera: Do they like it? >> Jackson: They find it sighting. They want to get on stage. They bug me to go on stage with me. Pretty soon I'm going to take them on with me and let world see them for the first time. >> Rivera: They are going to say daddy I want to go home and watch nickelodeon. >> Jackson:Probably. (more coming) _____ This is not journalism but ass 
* | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
jn2 said: Marrk said: Show: At Large with Geraldo Rivera
Date: Feb 5 2005 >> Michael Jackson: I'm doing fine geraldo, how are you? >> Geraldo Rivera: Despite whatever goes on in the world you are doing okay? >> Jackson: I'm doing well, thank you. >> Rivera: It wonderful seeing you with the children that is the real michael jackson. You with your own children, one in diapers the other two toddlers. I don't know how you manage all of that >> Jackson: I enjoy taking care of my children myself. It is fun, that's why i had them. So I can take care of them. It is great relief for me, it is pleasure. It keeps me happy and laughing. -- Laughing and they are wonderful, sweet innocent children, they really are. >> Rivera: I saw you as the arbitrator between the nickelodeon channel and the Disney channel. Difficult problems to solve there. >> Jackson: Yes. >> Rivera: But you have such a normal life there. It is sweet to so. -- Sweet to see. >> Jackson: Thank you. They bring me that. >> Rivera: Tell me what the children mean to you, your own children? >> Jackson: It hard to put into words. They mean everything. They are the world for me. I wake up and I'm ready for the day because of them. I give them breakfast, change diapers. They want to read. We do a lot of reading. We play hide-and-seek and blindfold. I have a wonderful time with them. >> Rivera: You can create a world that at least begins to seem normal. They don't know any other world, obviously. >> Jackson: I do my best for sure. >> Rivera: That is obviously a priority to you? >> Jackson: Yes, of course. I want to be the best father in the world, of course. >> Rivera: Do they know who you are or what you mean to people? >> Jackson: Yes, they do. They've been on tours with me. And in limousines. And a sea of fans. >> Rivera: Do they like it? >> Jackson: They find it sighting. They want to get on stage. They bug me to go on stage with me. Pretty soon I'm going to take them on with me and let world see them for the first time. >> Rivera: They are going to say daddy I want to go home and watch nickelodeon. >> Jackson:Probably. (more coming) _____ This is not journalism but ass
*  and it's a nice change I must say | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: Innocent people go to jail everyday. I'll go to my grave believing he's innocent. I'm with geraldo, the man is being framed.
Yet just a few months ago you were agonizing in this very forum about how your "idol" might be guilty.  | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
VoicesCarry said: Marrk said: Innocent people go to jail everyday. I'll go to my grave believing he's innocent. I'm with geraldo, the man is being framed.
Yet just a few months ago you were agonizing in this very forum about how your "idol" might be guilty. Yes i was. Done a lot of reading and research since though.  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: namepeace said: Cute. Thanks for the lesson, but the post clearly implied innocence in fact, not innocence at law. Or do we need to rely on the legal meaning of innocence to maintain our defense of our hero? "Well, uh, er uh, what had happened was . . . well . . . at least he's innocent for now!"  Hey i was taught Innocent untill proven Guilty... Those are my ethics and i stick with em... For Example... Oj's Innocent in my ethical code hehe  But again we're avoiding the distinction. I could accept that OJ was acquitted, but in my heart, I feel he committed the offense. I accept his freedom but my perception of him is altered. So, can you envision a situation where MJ is acquitted, but the evidence points to his personal guilt? Would you keep an open enough mind about that notwithstanding your fervent love of MJ? Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: VoicesCarry said: Yet just a few months ago you were agonizing in this very forum about how your "idol" might be guilty. Yes i was. Done a lot of reading and research since though. To turn your phrase, guilty people are acquitted every day. And you haven't SEEN all the evidence yet. Which brings me to the same type of question, phrased a different way. Can you keep an open mind until the evidence is all in? MJ fans can't ask MJ's critics to keep an open mind until the trial is over and at the same time insist on his innocence before the trial even begins. You can believe he's innocent, that's fine, but you don't KNOW whether he's innocent (under the criminal standard or in fact) until you see what the state has. Maybe Sneddon is setting the guy up on the heels of a highly unflattering documentary. But maybe, just maybe, MJ, for all of his greatness, and notwithstanding the shady characters of the persons he brought into his life, did something terrible. We'll see. Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: Marrk said: Yes i was. Done a lot of reading and research since though. To turn your phrase, guilty people are acquitted every day. And you haven't SEEN all the evidence yet. Which brings me to the same type of question, phrased a different way. Can you keep an open mind until the evidence is all in? MJ fans can't ask MJ's critics to keep an open mind until the trial is over and at the same time insist on his innocence before the trial even begins. You can believe he's innocent, that's fine, but you don't KNOW whether he's innocent (under the criminal standard or in fact) until you see what the state has. Maybe Sneddon is setting the guy up on the heels of a highly unflattering documentary. But maybe, just maybe, MJ, for all of his greatness, and notwithstanding the shady characters of the persons he brought into his life, did something terrible. We'll see. No one fuckin' has. Everyone seems to have chosen a point-of-view and is conducting a smear campaign on the opposing side (the mother and MJ). It is ridiculous to make a judgement until you find out what has been presented in court. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: namepeace said: To turn your phrase, guilty people are acquitted every day. And you haven't SEEN all the evidence yet. Which brings me to the same type of question, phrased a different way. Can you keep an open mind until the evidence is all in? MJ fans can't ask MJ's critics to keep an open mind until the trial is over and at the same time insist on his innocence before the trial even begins. You can believe he's innocent, that's fine, but you don't KNOW whether he's innocent (under the criminal standard or in fact) until you see what the state has. Maybe Sneddon is setting the guy up on the heels of a highly unflattering documentary. But maybe, just maybe, MJ, for all of his greatness, and notwithstanding the shady characters of the persons he brought into his life, did something terrible. We'll see. No one fuckin' has. Everyone seems to have chosen a point-of-view and is conducting a smear campaign on the opposing side (the mother and MJ). It is ridiculous to make a judgement until you find out what has been presented in court. I know that and agree with you. Admittedly, I am disturbed by MJ's comments and admissions re: his sleeping with young boys, but I am willing to hear him out, because his music has been meaningful to me and I was amazed by his talents backinaday. I just hope the MJ fans are right that he's being set up, because the alternative is just tragic. My problem is not with supporting MJ. It is refusing to accept that he could be guilty of any of these things. Most high-profile celebs who get off the hook in criminal cases don't screw up again. No DA worth his salt would charge a high-profile celebrity if he weren't reasonably certain (in his mind anyway) of a conviction. And no middle-aged man who sleeps with young boys and admits to the world can avoid some type of scrutiny, especially when he's been investigated in the past. The mother or alleged victim could recant under cross-examination. Evidence could be tossed out. A witness, perhaps even a celebrity witness, could testify against MJ. An employee could be compelled to tell whatever he saw. We don't know. I am pleading with MJ fans not to offer absolute, knee-jerk support of MJ based on what they read on pro-MJ websites or what they know about the mother's rap sheet or the DA's grudge or even the leaks. Even if EVERYTHING they say about the mom and Sneddon were true MJ could STILL be guilty. Keep an open mind MJ megafans. You don't know everything yet. [Edited 2/7/05 13:49pm] Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
namepeace said: Luv4oneanotha said: Hey i was taught Innocent untill proven Guilty... Those are my ethics and i stick with em... For Example... Oj's Innocent in my ethical code hehe But again we're avoiding the distinction. I could accept that OJ was acquitted, but in my heart, I feel he committed the offense. I accept his freedom but my perception of him is altered. So, can you envision a situation where MJ is acquitted, but the evidence points to his personal guilt? Would you keep an open enough mind about that notwithstanding your fervent love of MJ? Fevent Love? thats a little much don't ya think... Sure i believe he's innocent that has nothing to do with love though... I base my opinion on facts of the case, not on my love for a Popstar whom i don't even socialize with? thats a little extreme ... The Openess of mind rest solely on the evidence at hand... If the evidence is strong enough, i will no doubt say he is guilty of the crime at hand... But im not going to speculate on his guilt when theirs no Evidence proclaiming to it, that would be foolish... But i assure you my opinion has nothing to do with love... I think love went out the door when he descided to dangle his son out of a window... I have a legal way of thinking. Thus i will never be burdened by making a judgement with love... I understand that you don't wish to jump the boat and say he's innocent or guilty, Being neutral is fair enough. But if you spend enough time examining the case, both from 93 and today perhaps you will have a different judgement... I don't mean by reading the Hughes Book or the Mary Fisher investigation... I mean heavy investigation... Researching stories, unauthorize books, kinship with the man, workers, i went as far as to even having a talk with The Attorney General about certain aspects, that was over a year ago... The case was going to be my thesis, until i dropped Law for Anthropology Perhaps that was motivated by love... but never blinded by it... Jackson is many things... But a Child Molester, im sorry he is not. Now i could be wrong... i don't know all the facts but its unlikely... But i respect your opinion, and your comments. Your bring the Orgs intelligence a giant notch up you always have my respect! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: jn2 said: I like the answers about the book info, as if the Hugues book and the GQ article were not 100% pro MJ innocence 1) it's court tv, not "it's false" but just "it's court tv", 2) it's not a pro pedophilia book, if it's not one http://www.xs4all.nl/~johnie/jpptb.htm I don't know what it is, oh yeah a "work of art" 
* [Edited 2/4/05 9:54am] Hughes, and Fisher, weren't renegade MJ fans trying to protect him... Miss Hughes just told what she knew... She wasn't Paid by jackson to write it, but with your mentality you'd probably think so... _____ Interesting Amazon reviews of the Hugues book: 11 of 31 people found the following review helpful: Blind Faith is Dangerous., October 5, 2004 Reviewer: Raymond Chandler (California) - See all my reviews Hughes book is an excellent example of how blind faith works. For that reason I urge you to buy her book. Hughes twists the facts. For example, she quotes from secret tape recordings but doesn't tell her readers that she has taken sentences from several different pages of the transcript and strung them together in a single quote, thus altering their meaning. Hughes also omits key facts that she can't deal with. One example is that MJ took the Fifth Amendement in a 1994 lawsuit when asked under oath about his intimate relationships with little boys. Instead of believing the five star reviews of Hughes' book written by MJ fans, or believing the one star reveiws written by me and others, compare Hughes book with mine (also on Amazon), "All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-up," and judge for yourself. What could be fairer than that? Where's the Subpoena?, October 5, 2004 Reviewer: TruthSeeker - See all my reviews If the author really has "proof" that MJ was innocent of the 1993 charges, why hasn't she been subpoeanaed to testify on his behalf in the current case? The answer is simple: Ms. Hughes knows next to nothing about what happened in 1993, and has no evidence of guilt or innocence. She is also prohibited by law from betraying the confidences of her boss's clients - one of the most basic premises of attorney-client relations that any "top legal secretary" knows and abides by. So much for her ethics. Talk about cashing in... The Chandler family have grounds to sue Ms. Hughes, and they should. This book is filled with filler (e.g., long unecesssary quotes from the California Penal Code) and errors of law. Fans of MJ and those interested in his life who have read this book, should also read "All That Glitters" by the victim's uncle Raymond Chandler. That book contains the real "inside" story and is written by someone who did more research than typing a handful of letters | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jn2 said: Luv4oneanotha said: Hughes, and Fisher, weren't renegade MJ fans trying to protect him... Miss Hughes just told what she knew... She wasn't Paid by jackson to write it, but with your mentality you'd probably think so... _____ Interesting Amazon reviews of the Hugues book: 11 of 31 people found the following review helpful: Blind Faith is Dangerous., October 5, 2004 Reviewer: Raymond Chandler (California) - See all my reviews Hughes book is an excellent example of how blind faith works. For that reason I urge you to buy her book. Hughes twists the facts. For example, she quotes from secret tape recordings but doesn't tell her readers that she has taken sentences from several different pages of the transcript and strung them together in a single quote, thus altering their meaning. Hughes also omits key facts that she can't deal with. One example is that MJ took the Fifth Amendement in a 1994 lawsuit when asked under oath about his intimate relationships with little boys. Instead of believing the five star reviews of Hughes' book written by MJ fans, or believing the one star reveiws written by me and others, compare Hughes book with mine (also on Amazon), "All That Glitters: The Crime and the Cover-up," and judge for yourself. What could be fairer than that? Where's the Subpoena?, October 5, 2004 Reviewer: TruthSeeker - See all my reviews If the author really has "proof" that MJ was innocent of the 1993 charges, why hasn't she been subpoeanaed to testify on his behalf in the current case? The answer is simple: Ms. Hughes knows next to nothing about what happened in 1993, and has no evidence of guilt or innocence. She is also prohibited by law from betraying the confidences of her boss's clients - one of the most basic premises of attorney-client relations that any "top legal secretary" knows and abides by. So much for her ethics. Talk about cashing in... The Chandler family have grounds to sue Ms. Hughes, and they should. This book is filled with filler (e.g., long unecesssary quotes from the California Penal Code) and errors of law. Fans of MJ and those interested in his life who have read this book, should also read "All That Glitters" by the victim's uncle Raymond Chandler. That book contains the real "inside" story and is written by someone who did more research than typing a handful of letters Now your using Reviews from Amazon? C'mon you can do alot better than that, but here i go to discredit the argument Secretaries rarely have Confidentiality Agreements towards Private law offices such as the one Evan Chandler Went too. It is not required to sign an agreement, and especially because of California state law. it was sometimes frowned upon because of the legal relationship towards the case. But since the case is close and she is no longer employed by the same law firm it is fair game. Its Obvious that the reviwers knowledge in Secretary - Lawyer Confidentiality agreements is lacking... the agreements only takes hold when a lawfirm has a certain amount of clients... And if Secretaries are dealing with clients personally... Hughes was used as a Receptionist more than a Secretary. Most likely the lawyer did not have her sign a Confidentiality agreement. If she did sign... their would be grounds of a civil suit, and it would have taken action already... but my guess because of the minimal of response she didn't sign one... As for the Allegation of slander... Since she had not been apart of the 1993 Gag order prohibiting Jackson, The Chandler-Shwartz Family and lawyers. Thus she cannot be sued for slander, IF she was hired by jackson then, Jackson would be sued for violating the agreement... Raymond Chandler isn't under the 93 gag Order either, Because HE WAS NOT AROUND DURING THE INVESTIGATION!, he had no part in it, he was not even in the same state... he even says this in his book! His Information has no base simply because he's the childs uncle... and is in need of money... His Brother Wan'ts nothing to do with him, as well as his Nephew... but his milking the benefits... When i read ALl that Glitters.. i was Expecting another Victor Guiterezz, "Michael Jackson was my lover", i was sadly mistaken... Chandler Manages not to point the finger at Jackson, But Blames the father for neglecting the child and letting their be cause to happen... In The book Chandler remains neutral without actually Calling Jackson guilty... In2 good try, i actually had to open up a few of my law books Give me another hehe | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hey I'm just the messenger and I'm not the one who brought the Hugues book as if it was the Bible, tell me did you know that: (.....) MJ took the Fifth Amendement in a 1994 lawsuit when asked under oath about his intimate relationships with little boys.
so true or false? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
jn2 said: Hey I'm just the messenger and I'm not the one who brought the Hugues book as if it was the Bible, tell me did you know that: (.....) MJ took the Fifth Amendement in a 1994 lawsuit when asked under oath about his intimate relationships with little boys.
so true or false? actually, i really don't recall he ever took the fifth... I don't even recall him testifying during the Pre-trial Proceedings... but i'm willing to give benefit of the doubt that he most likely did... During the pretrial stages of the 93 investigation... the lacking of evidence on the Jackson Camp, could of motivated jackson to take the fifth, it is useless to have him testify during pre-trial... especially if evidence wa still pending... but i seriousl don't recall him taking the fifth during the pretrial stages... Jackson was invited to the Grand Jury... but he did not show up... simply because Defense could not protect him, it would be like a deer at rapid woverines... I don't even think testifying is necessary during pretrial i'd have to look into that. but thats a good question though! but the fifth amendent was designed specifically for defense who wish not to incriminate the defendent... i wouldn't take it as an admission of guilt... but it is interesting im seriously doubting it happened, i'll check it out and get back to you later though | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ok , thanks for the answer. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
He will be always guilty of writing "Earth Song" in my mind. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
LightOfArt said: You mothafuckas want MJ to be in jail because of your personal hatred.
 Check you out! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Novabreaker said: He will be always guilty of writing "Earth Song" in my mind.
So? That's a great song. If you associate it with how he performs it, it becomes less so. As a piece of music and as a song, I'll take that over some of the silly shit Prince has come out with anyday. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said: Novabreaker said: He will be always guilty of writing "Earth Song" in my mind.
So? That's a great song. If you associate it with how he performs it, it becomes less so. As a piece of music and as a song, I'll take that over some of the silly shit Prince has come out with anyday. Ah, but would you say the same about 2000 Watts? If so, you are really far gone. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Marrk said: Novabreaker said: He will be always guilty of writing "Earth Song" in my mind.
So? That's a great song. If you associate it with how he performs it, it becomes less so. As a piece of music and as a song, I'll take that over some of the silly shit Prince has come out with anyday. Okay- I like MJ and all, but let's get one thing straight. The silly shit that MJ has come out with is, far and away, more ridiculous than the any of the silly shit Prince has come out with (both musically and otherwise). I can give you examples if you want, but we might be here all day. [Edited 2/8/05 9:45am] "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
VoicesCarry said: Marrk said: So? That's a great song. If you associate it with how he performs it, it becomes less so. As a piece of music and as a song, I'll take that over some of the silly shit Prince has come out with anyday.
Ah, but would you say the same about 2000 Watts? If so, you are really far gone. I like Earth Song and 2000 Watts. Yay! No hope for me. 
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: Marrk said: So? That's a great song. If you associate it with how he performs it, it becomes less so. As a piece of music and as a song, I'll take that over some of the silly shit Prince has come out with anyday. Okay- I like MJ and all, but let's get one thing straight. The silly shit that MJ has come out with is, far and away, more ridiculous than the any of the silly shit Prince has come out with (both musically and otherwise). I can give you examples if you want, but we might be here all day. [Edited 2/8/05 9:45am] MJ wins hands down... plainly because he doesn't record as much as prince Prince records all the time and Mj releases every four years or so... PRINCE HAS ALOT OF rediculous material... than again if MJ makes another Invincible he can surely catch up... lol (sorry cloudy) lol  [Edited 2/8/05 13:26pm] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Martin Bashir to create new MJ documentery
Martin Bashir was last night making a second documentary about Michael Jackson. The ex-BBC film-maker has been secretly interviewing key witnesses due to appear at the singer's child molestation trial. One is Hollywood actor Corey Feldman. Now 33 and married, he was a close pal of Jackson as a youngster. It was Bashir's 2003 film Living with Michael Jackson which led to the investigation into the star. A source close to Bashir, who now works for ABC in the US, said: "Martin has been interviewing people. It seems he doesn't want to testify at court and has been having trouble sleeping." ... now its sensible that everyone wishes to right the wrong. but i don't know what this is going to do Positive or Negative... His Previous Documentery Has Sparked an ongoing investigation, that could have been avoided.. and now he's "Having trouble sleeping at night" ... a little late for morality to set in... BTW MODs can you renew the Sticky its getting difficult getting in here | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Luv4oneanotha said: namepeace said: But again we're avoiding the distinction. I could accept that OJ was acquitted, but in my heart, I feel he committed the offense. I accept his freedom but my perception of him is altered. So, can you envision a situation where MJ is acquitted, but the evidence points to his personal guilt? Would you keep an open enough mind about that notwithstanding your fervent love of MJ? Fevent Love? thats a little much don't ya think... Sure i believe he's innocent that has nothing to do with love though... I base my opinion on facts of the case, not on my love for a Popstar whom i don't even socialize with? thats a little extreme ... The Openess of mind rest solely on the evidence at hand... If the evidence is strong enough, i will no doubt say he is guilty of the crime at hand... But im not going to speculate on his guilt when theirs no Evidence proclaiming to it, that would be foolish... But i assure you my opinion has nothing to do with love... I think love went out the door when he descided to dangle his son out of a window... I have a legal way of thinking. Thus i will never be burdened by making a judgement with love... I understand that you don't wish to jump the boat and say he's innocent or guilty, Being neutral is fair enough. But if you spend enough time examining the case, both from 93 and today perhaps you will have a different judgement... I don't mean by reading the Hughes Book or the Mary Fisher investigation... I mean heavy investigation... Researching stories, unauthorize books, kinship with the man, workers, i went as far as to even having a talk with The Attorney General about certain aspects, that was over a year ago... The case was going to be my thesis, until i dropped Law for Anthropology Perhaps that was motivated by love... but never blinded by it... Jackson is many things... But a Child Molester, im sorry he is not. Now i could be wrong... i don't know all the facts but its unlikely... But i respect your opinion, and your comments. Your bring the Orgs intelligence a giant notch up you always have my respect! Thanks for the kind words, and the respect is mutual. "fervent love" for MJ was never meant as an epithet. Nor was love meant to signify anything beyond fandom. But I understand your point. I know you've put a lot of time into learning about these issues. I guess my point is, all the results of that research could either be validated or obliterated just like that at trial. Let's see how this plays out! Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016
Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Cloudbuster said: VoicesCarry said: Ah, but would you say the same about 2000 Watts? If so, you are really far gone. I like Earth Song and 2000 Watts. Yay! No hope for me.
Well we already knew that | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Luv4oneanotha said: skywalker said: Okay- I like MJ and all, but let's get one thing straight. The silly shit that MJ has come out with is, far and away, more ridiculous than the any of the silly shit Prince has come out with (both musically and otherwise). I can give you examples if you want, but we might be here all day. [Edited 2/8/05 9:45am] MJ wins hands down... plainly because he doesn't record as much as prince Prince records all the time and Mj releases every four years or so... PRINCE HAS ALOT OF rediculous material... than again if MJ makes another Invincible he can surely catch up... lol (sorry cloudy) lol
[Edited 2/8/05 13:26pm] wazupwitu by Eddie Murphy and MJ single handedly put MJ over Prince in the ridiculous song category. "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Luv4oneanotha said: skywalker said: Okay- I like MJ and all, but let's get one thing straight. The silly shit that MJ has come out with is, far and away, more ridiculous than the any of the silly shit Prince has come out with (both musically and otherwise). I can give you examples if you want, but we might be here all day. [Edited 2/8/05 9:45am] MJ wins hands down... plainly because he doesn't record as much as prince Prince records all the time and Mj releases every four years or so... PRINCE HAS ALOT OF rediculous material... than again if MJ makes another Invincible he can surely catch up... lol (sorry cloudy) lol
[Edited 2/8/05 13:26pm] wazupwitu by Eddie Murphy and MJ single handedly put MJ over Prince in the ridiculous song category. "New Power slide...." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
skywalker said: Luv4oneanotha said: MJ wins hands down... plainly because he doesn't record as much as prince Prince records all the time and Mj releases every four years or so... PRINCE HAS ALOT OF rediculous material... than again if MJ makes another Invincible he can surely catch up... lol (sorry cloudy) lol
[Edited 2/8/05 13:26pm] wazupwitu by Eddie Murphy and MJ single handedly put MJ over Prince in the ridiculous song category. Considering that wasn't an MJ song, but ok... than you have to take Im sorry but Push It Up on NPS is infinitely more horrid lol list Mj's vocals on wazupwitu where pretty good lol | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The androgynous Peter Pan! Goodnight, sweet Prince. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Fight the power! Goodnight, sweet Prince. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Marrk said regarding Earth Song: I'll take that over some of the silly shit Prince has come out with anyday. I think Earth Song is dope, but why even go there. VoicesCarry said: Ah, but would you say the same about 2000 Watts? Horrible, How they let that shit outta the studio god knows. skywalker said: wazupwitu by Eddie Murphy and MJ single handedly put MJ over Prince in the ridiculous song category It would Have been cool if Rick James was in the video with them. Are Eddie and Prince close. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
