DarlingDiana said:

lol, you're a worse liar than Janet.

midnightmover said:

That's because everytime you've asked a question, we've answered them. I, for one, won't try to debate the whole skin disorder issue because it's too complex and everyone has their own side of the story. I've read some doctors say "Michael does have vitiligo" and others say he does. Hell, during the whole 2003 fiasco, I saw one guy say both!

midnightmover, I just don't see a hole in the explanations the mj fans gave, but if you pointed them out to me, I or somebody else can probably help out.

For now, I have to go relax.somebody just finished a sociology exam

bboy87 said:

The "hole" is this young padawan.....There are no real photos of Mike with his brown skin and white spots. Vitiligo takes years to develope.....there were never any rumors of Mike having a skin disorders. You never heard antyhing about it. We watched Mike gradually become lighter and lighter, all at once. Then alll of a sudden, he says that he has a "skin disease."
The vitiligo believers continue to post photos of Mike with white skin with brown spots, but never show us Mike with his brown skin and white spots.

The photos that floecist posted have been seen many times before. That just shows me that he either missed a few spots, or his true color is still trying to overcome whatever the hell he did to himself. Floecist continues to say that someone who does not have vitiligo will die if they go through "depigmentation", but she offers no proof of this or any reason why.

illimack said:

I recommend that you look at the previous threads on Michael Jackson and his skin disorder (there were a couple of long ones in August and September). EmbattledWarrior answered in detail the questions you have raised in this post. And then, if you have more questions after reading the aforementioned threads, we can get a discussion rolling.

As irritating as this topic is, I do not mind speaking with "old school" Michael Jackson fans like you and whatsgoingon. At least both of you have followed the man since the '70s and '80s, and have a love for his music. Some people in this thread just hate him.

bboy87 said:

That bit in bold is a joke, right? At least five of you have posted since I asked this question and not one of you has answered. It's obvious you can't even remember what the question was. The question is how come Mike got gradually lighter? There are millions of vitiligo sufferers and none of us have ever heard of even one who got gradually lighter like Michael did. That's the question being asked (for the tenth time). You guys have spent years gathering info to back Mike up and yet you don't have anything to explain the most important point and it seems like you haven't even noticed it. All I can say is I hope you're a bit more clear-minded in your sociology exam than you are here.

midnightmover said:

what's it to you what happened to his face eh

midnightmover said:

If you look back,it's obvious I didn't post about the vitiligo, although EW and floetcist did. I can't answer the question about the vitiligo because:
1.Michael's story has ALWAYS been spotty
2.I stopped caring about the brotha's skin some time ago. It used to bother me but not so much he has bigger issues than that
[Edited 11/2/07 12:50pm]

this thread has gone straight into satan's anus
[Edited 11/2/07 12:48pm]

bboy87 said:

Pretty much.

Bboy, let's watch this thread go straight into hell's anus even more so, I don't think a nWo ambush is even necessary. Also the pictures flooded this whole topic.

Rodya24 said:

Rodya, be honest. Do you really even understand half of this vitiligo stuff you've read? I ask this because it seems to me if you did, you wouldn't need to always refer people to other unspecified sources, you'd just answer the question yourself. Is it really that hard? Aren't you a bit embarrassed that you and every MJ fan on this thread is making excuses to avoid answering this question?

It seems to me that MJ fans can gather information, but they have no ability to PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE. You can read all the documents, but unless you're able to retain perspective it is meaningless. Most MJ fans can't even keep track of simple points. floetcist for instance will flood threads with LOOONG-ASS articles and photos that have no relation to the point and genuinely think she's kicking ass, when she's actually kicking thin air. Others will say he underwent depigmentation therapy then point to recent photos where he's got brown spots, which totally contradicts their statements about depigmentation since depigmentation would've wiped out all remaining brown spots. Are you proud to be keeping this kind of company?

bboy87 said:

You still don't get it. EW and floecist have posted generic info about vitiligo, but that does not answer the specific question I'm asking. I'll try and rephrase the question. "How come Mike was using neither black nor white make up for years if he had black and white skin underneath? In the 80s and early 90s he used light brown make up. Why use light brown make up if he didn't have any light brown skin underneath it (which he wouldn't have if he had vitiligo, since vitiligo doesn't work that way)?" That's the question me, whatsgoingon, and illimac are trying to get you guys to address.

P.S. If you recognise that Mike's story is spotty then how come you still believe it?

bboy87 said:

At least you're honest about it young padawan. "Michael's story has always been spotty".....excellent way to put it. Now, if I could only get more of the "youngsters," who keep trying to tell me, that the most famous person in the world had white patches on his skin during the most popular time in his career, managed to not only hide it, but keep it a secret, if I could get them to see how totally implausible that theory is, then my job here will be done.
Damn, that was one long as, run on sentence.

illimack said:

yea it was His skin is just a topic I've stopped trying to debate awhile ago because for one, I'm not Michael Jackson. He may have the condition, he may not. Frankly I don't care why he didn't use brown makeup or white makeup because it just doesn't matter anymore.

illimack said:

Keep doing that job. These tiny tots don't realise how many millions of people had their eyes trained on Mike in the 80s. The idea that he would have been photographed in public with blotches on his skin over and over again and no-one would have noticed is almost as ridiculous as the idea that Mike is sexually attracted to women. Damn, this run on sentence disease is catching.
[Edited 11/2/07 13:41pm]

midnightmover said:

You really have your own vision of how you want Michael Jackson to be, and will fight tooth and nail for it; and that is he's a homosexual or asexual, a pedophile, who has bleached his skin and does not have vitiligo.

floetcist said:

The problem that you and others of your age have is that you have no or very little knowledge of MJ before 1990. By the time you and others got to know who Michael Jackson was he was already more or less white looking.

Now some of us here remember Michael from the 70s, we saw him grow from a child to an adult, we watched him get taller. We remembered the time that he went from having an afro to a curly perm.

We saw his acne when he was in his teens, yet there was not hint of splotchy white skin when he was at his most popular and photographed. What we did see however is someone getting lighter in an even way very gradually. Now no matter what you say and no matter how many reports you display, vitiligo does not work that way and that is why I do not believe Michael's story. I know what vitiligo is, I have witness black, brown and white people with vitiligo and it never develops the way Michael's developed.

floetcist said:

Said the pot to the kettle. Here's the truth. I grew up as an MJ fan. The last thing I want to believe is that he chose to turn himself white. I would much prefer if that wasn't the case, but I'm a grown ass man with a fully functioning mind and the evidence is overwhelming. We all know Mike is a pathalogical liar who is divorced from reality. If I were more like you then I would simply cover my eyes to that fact, because I didn't want to believe it. I would kid myself that Mike is just a passive victim of circumstances. I would twist irrelevant details and present them as proof of my case even though they were nothing of the sort. But I can't do any of that because I'm not as skilled in the art of self-deception as you are. I'm brutally honest with myself and others. That's how I reach all my conclusions about everything. Through a process of clear thinking and self awareness. If I ever catch myself being swayed by prejudice then I'm onto it and stamp it out immediately. That's what seperates me from most every one else. I learned long ago not to expect those standards of other people, but at the same time I also feel I should say what I think. So that's what I do.

whatsgoingon said:

1. What do you keep ignoring the fact that Michael wore/wears make-up? We've already discussed this + added photos in the other 1207438579345734 MJ threads. If you want me to bring it up again, I will. Right now I'm playing Spider solitaire..

2. So I was born in 1989. That means I can't speak? I didn't grow up thinking that MJ was a white man, only to find out later that he was really black.

midnightmover said:

Well isn't that the pot calling the kettle vitiligo. Listen spoochiesugarplum, I have no reason to deny anything or make up excuses for Michael; I call it as I see it, and anyone who knows me knows that.

floetcist said:

That's why I disbelief his story. I understand about the makeup, but why wear makeup much lighter than your natural colour to even out your skin. His natural skin complexion was mocha and his splotches were white; so it would have made sense for him to wear mocha makeup or if he wanted to be really drastic white makeup, not caramel or biege makeup. And it is for this reason I don't believe that he was exclusively wearing makeup all over his body. What was happening to his skin from the mid 80s to the early 90s was much more similar to someone lightening their skin.

floetcist said:

A word of advice. If you're gonna attempt witty responses it's a good idea not to more or less steal them from the guy you're responding to. Like I said, you and your breed have no self awareness. You kid yourself and don't even realise it. You still haven't answered the question that we have asked now about TWENTY times. You're blatantly dodging it and you don't even realise you're dodging it. I can see now why you relate to Mike so much. You obviously share his ability to completely shut out reality.

whatsgoingon said:

I genuinely don't think the tots even understand this point.

whatsgoingon said:

I bet you his makeup artist told him he looked better with the lighter makeup when in hindsight he looked like a damn fool.

floetcist said:

We know he wore make up. It's the colour of the make up he chose to use that we're asking about.

midnightmover said:

Why can't you let it go?
who gives a fuck really about make-up colors other than you?
Make up has very little to do with MJ present and past color...
It's lighting...
In some bad pictures He looks like a damn ghost, because of the lighting...
In a dimily lit room, he did appear somewhat ok.
It isn't the color of the make up, its the lighting,
He did use dark makeup at the end of the 80's but, it was useless afterwards because he's pigmentation was majorly colorless...
so he had to switch to lighter make up to cover up the black blotches
what the hell is so confusing about that really?

What really happened is that Michael Jackson is a sad, lonely, confused person who can't keep his hands of underaged boys.

He did have the 'fortune' to have some of the best lawyers in the USA, otherwise he would be in jail right now.

I still cant understand some people here defending him: is it because he is (has been, sorta, originally 'black', i just see painfull soap opera?). Michaael is a twisted freak who either needs a good psychotherapeut or otherwise some 15 years in jail (at least).

EmbattledWarrior said:

Proof please. Yall are killing me.

Here's how you shut us up and relieve our confusion.....Show us one legitmate photo of Mike with brown skin and white patches. Now be careful what you post....cause I have tons of shit from the 70s-90's for reference.
And while you're at it, please tell us of one news report during the 80's, the height of his popularity when everything that he did was in the press, that states that he had some kind of skin condition besides acne. Just give me one old school reference from somebody that states that he had a skin condition, and my old ass will leave you youngsters alone.

Riverpoet31 said:

Oh shut the fuck up with that shit. We already argued about that, ya'll have no proof that MJ is a pedo so leave it alone. We're talking about his "skin condition." Pay attention and keep up with the conversation please.

illimack said:

Why the hell does it matter?
I could careless...
And should damn well know that MJ kept that shit under wraps until the oprah interview in 93
The only proof thats is truly proof is the 1993 deposition, That his dermatologist Arnold Klein and Nurse deebie. And the 2003 revamp, once again confirming. (Even the prosecution confirmed the disease, that was the whole penis issue, the blotches etc...)
Back when i gave a shit, i had a copy of the deposition, i think even smoking gun released some of them.
But i long deleted them...
have one of the MJ brigade post them, if they haven't already.
But it's like i said, take your questions to a dermatologist. No amount of pictures and depositions will ever convince you.
sheet i think if you 3 decorated dermatologist told you, you still wouldn't believe them...
Just the Blind Leading the blind round here.