Najee said:

prince lives in just as much as a fantasy island as mj...

but dude, heres the kicker...thats just my opinion...just like your comments above are just yours. so you win. game over.

lilgish said:

Remember the very bad joke about why we can never get Michael & LaToya in the same picture very often?

BTW, vitiligo is very real. But sadly, too many people aren't take this issue seriously (READ: Katt Williams).

Najee said:

With that last point, in a testimony he gave when someone unsuccessfully tried to claim he stole their song (Dangerous), he said all kinds of crazy stuff about release dates and track numbers. I can't remember what exactly it was he said, but he said stuff like Bad had 13 songs on it and was released in 1985. Not far off on the tracks (he might have cut a couple of songs from the album and forgot about it, and thought they were still there). But the release date is crazy. He was way off with his release dates. He could've thought Off The Wall was released in 80 or 81, and that Thriller was released in 81 or 82. That means they would have been around the same time in his mind. Or, OTW could have been when the condition started to affect him, but it didn't become really noticable until after Thriller.
[Edited 2/8/07 22:03pm]

Najee said:

Jesus christ, what a personality.

You really have no sense of logic at all, as proven by this thread and the ones before it. Trying to argue with you is completely futile, because not only are you twisting other people's comments you are twisting your own as well in retrospect to fit the argument. Jackson or any other individual can walk with an umbrella to a car from a building if he chooses to, that doesn't make the general skin condition "not hypersensitive" to sun. It's purely a trait of personal behaviour and has nothing to do with whether any form of UV therapy has an effect on him, which was part of your argument anyway. Jackson's weirdness isn't linked to your original assertion of ultraviolet light being beneficial to vitiligo patients (and under no conditions did you mention that there were variations to the disease in regards with its harmfulness, being the amount of sunlight excessive or small):




If he is overtly protective of his condition it's his choice, it doesn't chance a general diagnosis of a disease. Or do you want me to put your comments in formal predicate logic and prove where you are wrong? The page does not "clearly state that sunlight has no adverse impact on those with the skin disease" (as proven by the excerpts I have posted up there, as it states that, "damage to the skin, including sunburn, can stimulate the vitiligo to spread in some people") . And the next line I've conveniently highlighted for your viewing pleasure, "In any regards, sunlight is not detrimental to vitiligo patients" - you are not talking about excessive amounts of sunlight, just sunlight in general. So here we have several obvious contradictions that you are trying to fight back with unvoiced implicatures that weren't even the part of your original argument.

You lose.

This was sort of fun, actually.
[Edited 2/9/07 0:30am]

Najee said:

I know, but don´t forget that MJ has never showed us his skin completely without make-up.
Well, Michael is usually completely covered up. He hardly even wears short-sleaved T-shirts, so we can usually only see his face with lots of make-up and hands, where the blotches are evident.
And btw Karen Faye, his (ex) makeup artist, stated that he used to put make-up all over his body to "even-out" his skin.
And if he really did undergo some chemical treatment, I believe it was more because he wanted to get rid of those blotches. I don´t think it had anything to do with him hating being black as some ppl have implied
[Edited 2/9/07 2:43am]

DarlingDiana said:

It merely proves how unreliable Michael Jackson is and why so many people have a hard time taking anything he says as face value. The man supposedly can't remember the year in which major life events happened? Of all people who should remember when these events happened, it should be MJ.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about an 80-year-old man (who would be more reliable in remembering life events, BTW) trying to remember World War II-era stuff. We're talking about a man who at this point was in his mid-30s discussing events that happened some 10 to 14 years prior.
[Edited 2/9/07 5:20am]

novabrkr said:

You know, why don't you simply drink a six-pack of STFU? Let me pull up what you posted from that Web site:

"Patients with Vitiligo should always protect their skin against excessive sun exposure by wearing protective clothing, staying out of the Sun at peak periods except during treatment time, and/or applying sunscreen lotions and creams."

The excerpt said "EXCESSIVE EXPOSURE TO SUNLIGHT." As in, staying out in the sun for an extensive period of time (like working outside for a long time or sunbathing). The National Foundation of Vitiligo itself says that sunlight can be used as part of the treatment with topical medicine, with 30 minutes per day for three days per week as sufficient.

So, anyone can deduct that evidently normal expsosure to sunlight has no adverse efffect on vitiligo patients if regular exposure sunlight (as well as lasers, tanning beds and a narrow band of ultraviolet light treatment) can be used in a repigmentation treatment. In other words, it's stated very clearly that normal exposure to sunlight or ultraviolet rays is not an issue.

People with vitiligo don't have excessively or inherently hypersensitive skin, as told to me by two people who have the disease. That's TWO PEOPLE WITH THE DISEASE.

Here's some advice: Why don't you go back to that place where you supposedly have these Michael Jackson photos (like those awards ceremonies and "The Making of Thriller" video) you claim show traces of vitiligo (yet you never displayed, BTW) or where you found that doctored Charlie Chaplin picture and sit down? Or better yet, go back to that place where you found that busted link (http://www.chelationthera...y/p52.htm:) that doesn't work and never come back?
[Edited 2/9/07 11:11am]

dag said:

You produced several pictures of Michael Jackson with his chest exposed, and there have been other photos and other videos over the years with MJ exposing his chest and other body parts (and most of the ones I've seen with MJ exposing more skin have come since 1987).

Considering MJ hardly is some Adonis in terms of physique and he supposedly didn't want people to know he had vitiligo until he said it in the 1993 interview with Oprah Winfrey, why did he start taking pictures showing more skin prior to the interview? And why give a makeup artist that much more work to do on parts that really don't have to be exposed (namely, his chest)?

People will continue to speculate on MJ's motives in no small part because he has done and is doing things that clearly state he has a color complex. MJ also has proven that you can't take what he says as the truth, so naturally people don't believe him. For example, here is a picture of MJ at one of his recent trial appearances:



Look how uniform his skin color is. Not only that, it's evidently lighter than when he appeared during the "Bad" period in the latter 1980s (according to the cutline, this photo was taken after the "Bad" album cover was taken):



That is not common for a vitiligo patient, so can you tell me how MJ achieved this without some chemical alteration? And even then, apparently he has done this more than once. That's not even considering how much his face has changed over that time period, which flies in the face of MJ's comment he's only had a nose job and a chin cleft inserted.
[Edited 2/9/07 18:28pm]

sosgemini said:

I don't see Prince living in a fantasy world where he evidently views himself as a white man like Michael Jackson, so I would be interested in hearing what you consider Prince's "fantasy world." Prince may have his issues, but they are definitely different from MJ's.
[Edited 2/9/07 11:12am]

I know someone with Vitiligo who said he had the option to take an injection that would remove his pigmentation so he would not have blotches. Maybe that's what Michael did

Janfriend said:

Like I said, it's not an issue of whether Michael Jackson had vitiligo with me. In fact, I'll even accept it. My issue is I feel that he did other things to his skin, such as multiple skin depigmentations (and at least one being purely cosmetic) which he continues to deny (which is the other problem -- his credibility).
[Edited 2/9/07 11:26am]

Najee said:

dude..stopped jumping so fast over all them conclusions ...i never said prince wanted to be white.

what is prince's fantasy world? living in a bubble...demanding camels at the middle of the night...forcing his former wife to communicate with him when *he* seeks the communication...changing his name to an unpronounceable symbol and believing the nonsense excuse he gave...and 1999: The New Masters.

and thats just a few examples.

sosgemini said:

I didn't accuse you of saying that, either, so evidently you misread it. I meant that considering Michael Jackson evidently wants to be recreated as a white man, whatever issues Prince has certainly are not as out-there as a black man trying to change his whole racial identity.

sosgemini said:

I'll be honest -- I never heard of half of that stuff, so I would like some reference points on the camels and "The Boy in the Plastic Bubble" stories. I'm also not familiar with the "1999: The New Masters," so any fill-in would be nice.

The changing of his name to an unpronounceable symbol was a glorified pissing match with his record company, but I never got the impression that Prince legally changed his name. It was a publicity stunt by Prince to draw attention to himself and his beef with Warner Bros. rather than some inherent wackiness.

The wife thing seems to play into Prince's reputation of being a control freak plus being his usual asshole self. Hell, Miles Davis and Ike Turner have done crap (and in Ike's case, much worse) like that to their wives.

"The Boy in the Plastic Bubble" thing sounds ridiculous, but MJ has done something similar with the hyperbaric chamber. Keep in mind, I'm not the world's biggest Prince fan either but His Royal Badness is going to have to do something along the lines of MJ's skin issues and denials before I put him in MJ's company.
[Edited 2/11/07 18:17pm]

sosgemini said:

Ok, I was going to stay out of this, but I have to add my two cents. Najee, you are on point with your assertions. I agree with you.

I have never heard a credible source mention Prince requesting camels in the middle of the night. That is secondhand nonsense from some stupid, unfunny comments that Kevin Smith made when he couldn't deliver what Prince wanted from him as a filmmaker. He used an extreme example from an alleged anonymous employee to demonstrate that Prince expects to get whatever he asks for. If you are going to reference something, please do it in the proper context.

Also, when has Prince ever lived in a bubble? I've never heard of anything remotely related to this. Am I misinterpreting what you meant by that? If so, please clarify.

With regard to his relationships, there is nothing crazy about him not allowing Mayte to call him - as told by Mayte. He's busy, he doesn't have time for her to be calling and bothering him while he's working just because she's at home bored. She accepted it, and after all these years never asked why she was not allowed to call him so what is the big deal?

Prince might be a womanizer and a control freak, but I have never heard any of his former women say anything negative about him in terms of any extreme or crazy abusiveness. Usually the only complaint they have is that he cheated or was always gone/working. We all accept things in our relationships that might cause others to look twice. Nothing crazy about that.

Prince's other antics were all promotion. As Najee stated, they were used to garner attention and spark controversy. He was known for pushing the envelope. However, Prince has always seemed very much in control when playing head games with the media/public. Nothing about him has ever hinted at insanity. At least Prince has had real relationships with real women.

Regardless, none of that even compares to MJ's crippling self-hatred. Michael is truly living in a fantasy world where he is a white man who has white biological children and sleepovers with other people's children. It's really pathetic and I feel sorry for him more than anything.
[Edited 2/9/07 15:28pm]

Najee said:

I actually agree with you. I was just putting that out there because I heard it from someone who had it and I didn't know there was an injection like that beforehand

prince never actually lived in a bubble folks.

but he does metaphorically...and if you want a great insight into how crazy prince really is then I'd recommend renting Kevin Smith's An Evening With Kevin Smith dvds. he goes into great detail over how loony prince is. and thats were the camel story comes from.

sosgemini said:

So in other words, Prince "living in a bubble" and asking camels to be brought to his house never happened.

Not to mention the person in question who said this is an enraged filmmaker/comic book writer (with a history of dumbed-down writing) who has an axe to grind.

Just when I was about to give you some credibility.
[Edited 2/9/07 16:27pm]

Najee said:

no, the camel story is real....and thanks for the unnecessary personal jab. if it lifts your spirits and makes your day brighter then more power to you.

sosgemini said:

Well, there seems to be a dispute of this camel story from Bellanoche, and considering who you're quoting (Kevin Smith) I would have to wonder about the credibility of the tale.

BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how does that compare to a black man who envisions himself as white, claims white children as his biological offspring and then lies to the world about both. This is an adult male having sleepovers with children and sleeping in the same bed with them, for God's sake!

You may not like the line about credibility, but you stated one thing in a manner that was meant to be read as face value (the plastic bubble comment) and another with a source known for exaggerating stories while being an asshole (Smith). It's a rather deliberate attempt to mislead people.
[Edited 2/9/07 17:02pm]

sosgemini said:

I hoped that you were speaking methaphorically, but I was not sure based on the fact that you gave Kevin Smith credibility.

I saw the Kevin Smith video and he was not funny. He was actually very annoying with that stereotypical "black voice" that he used when imitating Prince with the whole "Chaka mad" remark. I knew he was an idiot at that point, because if he actually thinks that Prince sounds like that then his perception is very distorted. Also, I just don't think that someone who spent a short amount of time with Prince regarding filming a documentary is qualified to give "great insight" on the man. He can only give his opinion - as anyone else can, but not "great insight."

I realize that these are all our opinions and at the end of the day they don't matter in the larger scheme of things because we don't personally know any of these people. Although when I met and talked with Prince he seemed very "normal" to me. We all have our own personality issues in relationships, but Prince crazy or living in a methaphoric bubble? I don't think so. Despite whatever idiosyncracies accompany being a creative genius and superstar, Prince is definitely attuned to the real world IMHO.

On the other hand, MJ has slipped into a sad delusional state. I really think that he needs help. My father, who is a psychologist even remarked that MJ needed psychological help a long time ago.

bellanoche said:

i think they both have falling off the deep-end...mj just has jumped into a much deeper pool...

and thanks for actually accepting that folks could have a differing opinion...

sosgemini said:

I will accept differing opinions, but I wonder a lot of times on what are you basing your opinions -- which is the problem here. Basing it on deliberately misleading comments and a statement from a smart-ass filmmaker/comic book writer known for making disrespectful remarks don't put Prince anywhere near the same abyss in which Michael Jackson has fallen.
[Edited 2/9/07 17:09pm]

whatsgoingon said:

Yeah, if Michael Jackson stopped around this time that would have been enough.

And as far as some of the non-black MJ zealots screaming over his latter apperance -- if you ask me, I believe it also went beyond the race thing. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, some of these people seemed to be praising MJ for not looking like a black man. Not only did MJ start looking more white, but he started looking feminine and even some of the compliments were in the mode, "Oh, Michael is so beautiful" or "Oh, Michael is so pretty."
[Edited 2/9/07 18:38pm]

Najee said:

YOu know, Mike has a bad memory as to when things happened in general. For example in the Mexican deposition he could not remember when Off the wall, Thriump and other albums have been released. When they asked him about Someone put your hand out which was released a year prior to the deposition, he also did not know if it was released that year, the year before or when. But that´s not unusual for ppl with artistic talents, as I have recently found out while preparing for my psychology exam.

I am sorry, but I just won´t accept tha race theory for his changes.
He got his nose done obviously because he didn´t like it and was laughed at for it.
And whatever color changes there were in his skin, it was due to vitiligo. He also tried to be "black" as long as he could - up to Bad album. He stated that the vitiligo started during off the wall, Thriller so that makes almost 10 years that he was trying to hide it.
Than almost "overnight" with the release of Dangerous, he was completely white. As Karen Faye said he tried to hide it as long as he could and when it became so extensive, it was easier for him to go with the lighter tone of his skin. It makes perfect sence to me, so why make up all those theories as to "why" he did it.
This is obviously a very personal issue that he does not like to talk about. Let´s leave him alone on that.
[Edited 2/10/07 5:12am]
[Edited 2/10/07 5:14am]

Najee said:

i hope you lighten up one day...and i hope your not dealing with "real time" stuff that hass lead to you exploding all over these forums the past week. its just a bit too much for me to care to deal with.

late!!!

dag said:

The events in Michael Jackson's life -- such as things pertaining to his career (album and single releases, awards presentations, etc.) -- are not only public events, but recorded documented events. There is no reason that a lot of things in question can be answered simply by looking at the back of one of his albums or singles and say, "'Billie Jean' was a single in 1983."

It's more than just a bad memory here -- it's also the mind of a selective memory that also doesn't seem to be connected to reality. Even people with spotty memories can remember the general timeframe in which major life events happened; here, you're talking about someone who supposedly cannot remember within a several-year timespan when he contracted a skin disease that has led him down a continuous path of altering his body.

dag said:

OK, then why has Michael Jackson gotten continous rhinoplasty surgeries to make his nose even more pronouncedly pointed over the years? It's not like we're talking about MJ had only one nose job -- he's had several, to the point where evidently the cartilage is worn out. Hell, why even get an operation that required a total remake of his nose? In order to make his nose from a broad, African-based nose to a pointed, Caucasian-based nose it required literally building a new one.

dag said:

And as posted numerous times, there have been plenty of pictures and citations from Web sites on vitiligo to contradict that. Even from his "Bad" era to today, you can see his differences in his skin color (I posted such pictures earlier) -- what brown tint he had in his skin in the late 1980s is gone now.

dag said:

Vitiligo doesn't turn someone completely one color -- it simply shows up as patches on skin. It certainly isn't going to make you go from this:



to this:



to this:



to this:



BTW, the first picture is from 1981, and given that it's a photo where MJ looks to be wearing little to any makeup, where are the signs of vitiligo if it started sometime when "Off the Wall" was out in 1979?

When you look at MJ's skin throughout the "Thriller," "Bad" and "Dangerous" periods, his skin is one uniform color (however, the color for each period is getting lighter). Yeah, there is makeup you could wear to mask a color, but if MJ is using such makeup, it's not to make it close to its original complexion -- it's purposely to make it LIGHTER. Fashion Fair Products (a black-owned cosmetics company) makes a corrective, concealing creme that when combined with a setting powder can make your affected skin look very similar to your natural complexion:





That is an over-the-counter product that can be bought at a cosmetics store or display, and I really don't want to hear any speculation about MJ not knowing such a product existed. Also notice that this is a black woman with vitiligo whose natural complexion was lighter than Michael Jackson's prior to the "Bad" period.

If anything, it's during the post-"Bad" period that MJ started exposing his chest on videos -- so if he is so self-conscious about his vitiligo, why was he making an effort to expose his chest (and at times, his arms) when he doesn't have to? Keep in mind, we're not talking about someone known for having a muscular, bodybuilder physique.

But then again, consider the source -- a man who among other things has claimed to father white children and has a painting of himself in his house envisioned as a white angel (per the Martin Bashir documentary). You don't do stuff like that and alter your features to look Caucasian and then say you don't have a problem with how you look. Anyone who doesn't see that is purposely being blind.
[Edited 2/10/07 10:25am]

sosgemini said:

You made a comment about Prince's eccentricies and living in a "fantasy world," and I asked you to name them. The first thing you posted was "living in a bubble," and given that you never added any modifiers (such as "methaphorically") or qualifiers (such as IMO, I feel that ...") -- and we're comparing Prince's eccentricies vs. Michael Jackson's very real issues of changing his appearance -- I and one other person took that as a straightforward answer, and questioned you for it.

In fact, along with the other things you mentioned you meant everything to be taken in a straightforward manner. You never intended for me to take that answer as tongue-in-cheek. Keep in mind, we were talking about actual events that would lead one to such as conclusion and I asked you to list them.

But like I said, it's not this is the first time I've had a similar conversation with you. That's why I can't take you on face value.

PS Looking at these forums, I'm not on them nearly as much as you and other people -- so it's just another example of a moderator being biased in situations where a moderator should be objective and distant from such topics.
[Edited 2/10/07 8:17am]

see what i mean folks?

dude, try to have a happy weekend. out!!!

sosgemini said:

And you seriously need to take your personal bias out of the equation -- something that has been noted by more than one person on this forum. Particularly from someone who is a moderator.

weird. they do kind of look like him. i mean, how he looked around 1991. not the looks his genes gave him (or them).