FunkyBrotha said:

You mean we can hold press conferences to announce that our coworkers are "devilish"?

FunkyBrotha said:

:chill: This is just a public thread and these are only opinions. People can think what they want.

Remember these are P fans on a P site. This is not MJ.org. Some here don't share the love for MJ.

And just because he gave 200 to charity doesn't make MJ anything. The man is a celebrity...I am sure that he did it "ofr the children" and for the photo opportunity.

VoicesCarry said:

"very-very devilish"

The man is/was fucking dope, I love the dancing, the ballads and shit..who gives a fuck about anything else.

Fucking consumers, everyone has to pleased with auxiliary bullshit, you either like Michael's music or you don't. An artists personal life has nothing to do with me liking their shit or not.

superspaceboy said:

no such thing as friends when it comes to hard-nosed business.

McCartney was too cheap to hand over 47.5M back in '85, what makes you think he can afford an estimated 500-1bn now? McCartney can't afford them. And if Mike sells (despite his rumoured debts, i doubt he will), he'll make sure he gets the best price going.

superspaceboy said:

Good points...

I truly think that with thriller , MJ definitely lost the sense of reality...

He was so BIG during this time... Unbeliveable...

Marrk said:

Paul could buy them back surely? I heard he's the richest pop star in the world. Shame Mike didn't release more albums the dipshit Then he wouldn't be in dire straits financially.

hellomoto said:

Marrk said:

England are worse believe me. Their jacko headlines crack me up.

lilgish said:

It's a shame most people don't think like you do. Unfortuneately too often an entertainers personal life will often reflect into thier professional.

Ask the Dixie Chicks.

I do need to add that for someone like MJ...personal life and entertainment life are way way too intertwined.

thesexofit said:

dude, marrk is in england
[Edited 6/10/05 15:27pm]

Marrk said:

That's Bullshit. Of course there is. That was wrong...plain and simple. I suppose it's Pauls fault for suggesting to MJ that one can make a lot of money owning music and catalogs...he just didn't figue that MJ would take his. I think it's dispicable. MJ could have anything he could have possibly wanted.

Yeah Paul was "too cheap" to buy back his own music. You know, for a Prince fan that knows P's woes in this own your masters BS...one would think that at least THAT would have looked bad in MJ fans eyes...but I suppose not.

lilgish said:

Sometimes i wonder. Sadly i now probably know more about the American 'justice' system than i do our own.

lilgish said:

Yeah I know. Iam glad Uk press has stayed out of it recently.

As for joe, some brit interviewer a couple of years ago (louie somebody?) interviewed joe with some twat calling himself someone the magnificent. Joe charged alot of money for about 5 mins of interview time. Joe is a knobber. But at least he gave them their money when kids. What he did (or tried to do) to latoya sounded pretty weak. I read 'toyas book.

thesexofit said:

very dangerous man he is...no joke...no comment

superspaceboy said:

I'm a gemini, what can i say?

Michael GOT what he wanted.

BTW, Seeing as it's obviously so wrong of Mike to own some Beatles, Sly, Madonna and Elvis songs, shouldn't Paul should hand back his earnings and ownership of other peoples music he owns to the respective artists?

This is an interesting topic. I haven't followed Michael's career as much as Janet's. But I would say that people started making fun of him when his facial surgery began to look freakish. During Thriller, he had already had his nose done, right?? He still looked "normal." In fact, he looked good. But when the surgery got out-of-hand, comedians just went nuts. Then with all of the reports of the exotic animals, Neverland, buying Elephant Man's bones(???) or something like that, comedians in particular had a field day, and of course so did the tabloids. I think after the first child abuse allegations started to surface, it was seriously all down hill from there. I've said this before on the org., but I think it's very sad, whether or not he is a pedophile, coz there still is something extremely wrong with him, emotionally. I mean, Prince can be considered eccentric, but Michael is beyond that.

I also think the media has been horrible. There was a brief point where they were turning a bit, when Michael's defense seemed for a moment to turn the tide during the case-in-chief, but after closing arguments, the media seems to be salivating for a conviction. And as far as Jay Leno, yeah he is a comedian and part of his schitck is to satirize current events, but his treatment of Michael has been shameful. He has been just relentless, more so after the Judge Melville's gag order. Then after he was allowed to tell jokes, Leno has just been going crazy.

Yeah, it's really sad that we humans enjoy kicking people, celebrity or not, when they're down. It's a damn shame.

I don't know about the rest of you but I never hated Michael Jackson.

Eccentric, yes.

But if I had his life, I just might be the same.. I know I wouldn't want it.

First you are loved, and in a split second you are turned on...

As far as the abuse allegations, payoff or not, they are allegations.. It isn't to hard to see what the motives are.

He does have his fan base, and for that I am glad.

Jackson gets straight up dogged in the media. Its a damn shame. I feel so sorry for him.

Isel said:

He basically fought to continue to tell these jokes as if he had no other material he could pull from.

Marrk said:

You know it depends on how he aquired them.

I think that when songs come up like that it should go to the original owner first and then if they can't or don't want them, then they can go to whomever. ANd did Paul outbid the original owner for the recordings, like MJ did to him?

And wasn't it like the entire Beatles catalog? And weren't they BOTH bidding on it at the same time? It just seems wrong to me. I don't think Paul was too cheap...but MJ was too rich and outbid him. Friends don't treat friends like that...sorry.

You know they tried to do the same shit to Prince...callling him crazy...that whole rise and fall book...now everyone is kissin' P's ass after musicology.

P or somebody needs to have an intervention with mike

superspaceboy said:

Actually, Yoko, and Paul were having issues with each other, regarding the catalog. Either one of them could have easily bought the catalog..

Michael was first.

lilgish said:

I do. I do not buy music of people that I find out did something horrible to a child. If he gets found guilty, I will never buy another MJ record. I used to love the rapper Mystikal. He's in jail for rape. I haven't listened to his music since.

This is way off-topic, but I don't want to start a new thread.

May I ask a question: do you all think that both Janet and Michael surround themselves with "yes-men"? More and more, I'm starting to think that Michael and even Janet just DON'T want to be told anything constructive. It's not really a matter of having a strong "vision," it's more like they are so insecure that they are threatened by criticism and want to avoid it. Going back to Prince again, he just seems like he is confident. Prince seems like that yeah maybe his friends give him some advice, and he might listen if feels like it could be good and/or genuine. Prince just doesn't seem afraid, plus has the desire to grow artistically.

But Michael, and lately Janet appear to just AVOID the negative coz they don't want to hear it. And maybe lack the confidence to "grow as artists." Maybe that's why Janet's presentation of herself hasn't changed recently. What is your opinion on that?? I'm just curious.
[Edited 6/10/05 16:13pm]

Stymie said:

There's reasonable doubt all over THIS case though, certainly enough for an appeal should he be found guilty. I'd be highly surprised if the Arvizos could remember all the contradictory lies they testified to in this case second time around.

Marrk said:

I hate to tell you this, but there is something going on in that jury room. If they were gonna find him not guilty, it would be over right now.

So I would expect there to either be a hung-jury or conviction on at least one of the molestation counts, probably an acquittal on the conspiracy counts, but maybe hung jury, and probably a conviction on the alcohol to a minor counts, even though that might only be the misdemeanor; however, that is gonna depend on the molestation verdicts.

I agree that there is grounds for an appeal on evidence issues alone.
[Edited 6/10/05 16:11pm]

Isel said:

We'll see. There's a lot to pour over though. I'm in some ways glad they're taking their time.

I think pigs will fly before Jackson goes to jail.

Isel said:

read the article i posted in the court thread