independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Wacko Jacko almost kills baby!!!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #30 posted 11/19/02 10:09pm

lovebizzare

Okay, that does look a little weird, but did you really hae to call him "Wacko Jacko"?
~KiKi
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #31 posted 11/19/02 10:33pm

Krystystystyna

He didn't try to harm his child intentionally. It looked as though he was trying to prop his child up on the railing bars and it's feet didn't touch the bars, or slipped off the bars. It wasn't even for a split second. ANYWAY, he's already issued a written statement addressing the statement which reads: ``I made a terrible mistake,'' he said. ``I got caught up in the excitement of the moment. I would never intentionally endanger the lives of my children.''
[This message was edited Tue Nov 19 22:35:02 PST 2002 by Krystystystyna]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #32 posted 11/19/02 10:40pm

Natasha

I think he rushed to look at his fans and just didn't think how it would look . It got blown out of Proportion.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #33 posted 11/19/02 11:40pm

CalhounSq

avatar

This dude has the mind of a 6 year old. Anyone w/ half a brain knows you don't go NEAR a railing with a baby in your arms, let alone hold the baby OVER IT!!! disbelief

He says he got carried away when the fans were screaming to see the kid - yea, endanger the kid's life to please some screaming ninnies outside your window, that makes sense... shake
heart prince I never met you, but I LOVE you & I will forever!! Thank you for being YOU - my little Princey, the best to EVER do it prince heart
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #34 posted 11/20/02 12:34am

shygirl

avatar

Michael Jackson is on permanent damage control. His music isn't even an issue anymore.
He's become a sick joke, but this picture highlights that he is a sick joke with children. If he'd do something this stupid with his kid in front of the whole world, I don't even want to imagine what goes on behind closed doors.
If MJ is the main adult influence in his kids life, I really feel sorry for his kids.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #35 posted 11/20/02 12:58am

lovebird

I don't think MJ realized how awful that was.
But if he does this in public,what does he do with them when noone is looking?
How could these kids be his biological children?
They are way too fair skined. MJ has a black father and mother.Maybe their mother just sold her children?

If he was just showing the crowd the baby, why did he hang it over the bannister?.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #36 posted 11/20/02 1:02am

Natasha

It also was Spooky for Michael to put a towel over the Child's face. Didn't he think the child would be scared? This is not the Kind of Behavior one should Exhibit with a Child. It is Disturbing. Maybe Michael just doesn't Realize stuff. I don't know what he was thinking but I don't think he Meant any Harm. I certainly would Never do that with a child of Mine. Please!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #37 posted 11/20/02 8:54am

Krystystystyna

Natasha said:

It also was Spooky for Michael to put a towel over the Child's face. Didn't he think the child would be scared? This is not the Kind of Behavior one should Exhibit with a Child. It is Disturbing. Maybe Michael just doesn't Realize stuff. I don't know what he was thinking but I don't think he Meant any Harm. I certainly would Never do that with a child of Mine. Please!


The towel was their to protect the child's identity. He knows how it feels to have his face all over the newspapers, he doesn't want his children to go through that. He doesn't want to public scrutinizing his children's faces, to see if they do or do not resemble Michael. He thought he'd have a good enough grip holding the child with one harm

And to the person who commented on the color of the children's skin color. Michael's mother's side has some white in it. This gene could have been recessive for his mother, and most of her children. Latoya, has a lighter skin colour than the other Jacksons. Combine Michael's ancestry with a 100% white person, and you get lighter children. I know people who have seen these children, and they have said that they were olive in color, and had Michael's eyes. Paris, his daughter, has dark brown curly hair. Many mixed children change in hue as they grow older. Some are born light, with light hair and light eyes, and eventually become darker.
Prince Rogers Nelson, is rather light in color as well, whether or not he is of mixed race.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #38 posted 11/20/02 8:57am

kisscamille

I saw this on cnn and I thought it was disgusting. MJ is a total freak and I don't understand why anyone would give this man a child/baby to raise as his own. I wish he would just go away and I also wish that people would stop giving him awards that he does not deserve. MJ had his day and now it's over. He is a freak and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children of any age. He totally sickens me.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #39 posted 11/20/02 9:41am

Cloudbuster

avatar

kisscamille said:

I saw this on cnn and I thought it was disgusting. MJ is a total freak and I don't understand why anyone would give this man a child/baby to raise as his own. I wish he would just go away and I also wish that people would stop giving him awards that he does not deserve. MJ had his day and now it's over. He is a freak and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children of any age. He totally sickens me.



And people judging others based purely on how the media potray them sickens me.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #40 posted 11/20/02 9:46am

kisscamille

Give it a rest asshole!!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #41 posted 11/20/02 9:51am

VinaBlue

avatar

Krystystystyna said:


The towel was their to protect the child's identity.


Identity? What about the child's LIFE or peace of mind? With or without a towel covering it's head, this is not something you do with a baby. I wouldn't even do this with a pet! Their movements can be unpredictable, and you just don't put any living thing in a situation where something can go wrong and cause death!

Did you see how it was struggling? Imagine being totally helpless and not knowing what is happening to you because a towel is over your head. And if he didn't put a towel over it's head, do you think that the image of being held over a rail wouldn't stay with the child forever? What about the feeling of being held up that high? These things stay in your unconscious. A baby is still forming very basic instincts and views of the world.

I can't believe how anyone can rationalize what he's done. I know it was only for a few seconds, but this is just not something that should occur to anyone at anytime!!! The only excuses can be mental illness or taking too many drugs, otherwise this is just plain STUPID!!! And too stupid to be allowed to handle any responsibility like children.

As for the statement he issued, you gotta know he has publicity people to help him with that, right? Please, issuing that statement is the "right" thing to do, after doing the WRONG thing. What do you think he's gonna say? "I do this all the time and I don't know what everyone is so upset about?" He may be an idiot, but he is rich and can get away with anything. THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #42 posted 11/20/02 10:01am

PFunkjazz

avatar

Krystystystyna said:


The towel was their to protect the child's identity. He knows how it feels to have his face all over the newspapers, he doesn't want his children to go through that. He doesn't want to public scrutinizing his children's faces, to see if they do or do not resemble Michael. He thought he'd have a good enough grip holding the child with one harm.



How 'bout NOT SHOWING THE BABY AT ALL? As it is the chilld was treated in a careless fashion like it was a thing; a new toy and not a person at all.

I don't buy any of your explanation becasue if he were really concerned about their identities he could have easily kept them in seclsuion. As it is, their "conception" (adoption/kidnapping?) and very upbringing comes off as no more than a demented PR plot.
test
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #43 posted 11/20/02 10:06am

mltijchr

avatar

just when you think Michael can't do anything stranger..


This whole situation really is sad. I really feel for those children with him, whether they are actually his or not. Had that baby fallen, the media would be all over this for the next year at least.

It's easy for us- none of whom actually know Michael- to say "he needs help"..

as obvious & as true as that is, with each bizarre, non-music related episode, it really seems that Michael is way beyond that. For Michael, it stopped being about the music years ago..

barring a real musical statement of high quality,
Michael's life is simply a huge train wreck about to happen-
in slow motion.


All that can really be done is to pray for those children.. that some day they would have some semblance of a "normal" life..

little chance of that happening any time soon, under the current circumstances..
I'll see you tonight..
in ALL MY DREAMS..
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #44 posted 11/20/02 10:06am

Cloudbuster

avatar

PFunkjazz said:

Krystystystyna said:


The towel was their to protect the child's identity. He knows how it feels to have his face all over the newspapers, he doesn't want his children to go through that. He doesn't want to public scrutinizing his children's faces, to see if they do or do not resemble Michael. He thought he'd have a good enough grip holding the child with one harm.



How 'bout NOT SHOWING THE BABY AT ALL? As it is the chilld was treated in a careless fashion like it was a thing; a new toy and not a person at all.

I don't buy any of your explanation becasue if he were really concerned about their identities he could have easily kept them in seclsuion. As it is, their "conception" (adoption/kidnapping?) and very upbringing comes off as no more than a demented PR plot.


Talking about demented PR plots, let's talk about Prince and his desperate cries for attention over the last decade!

rolleyes
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #45 posted 11/20/02 10:09am

PFunkjazz

avatar

Natasha said:[quote]Maybe Michael just doesn't Realize stuff. quote]


I'll grant you that fathers can be pretty stupid, clumsy and useless around newborns. Some are great, right off the bat, but those that have a life style that pulls them away from the child or they're constantly traveling with them to new surroundings may be disorienting the child unnecessarily. There's more than enough stimuli in an infant's world than to add travel and hotel stays and public showings to noisy fans.
test
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #46 posted 11/20/02 10:11am

PFunkjazz

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

PFunkjazz said:

Krystystystyna said:


The towel was their to protect the child's identity. He knows how it feels to have his face all over the newspapers, he doesn't want his children to go through that. He doesn't want to public scrutinizing his children's faces, to see if they do or do not resemble Michael. He thought he'd have a good enough grip holding the child with one harm.



How 'bout NOT SHOWING THE BABY AT ALL? As it is the chilld was treated in a careless fashion like it was a thing; a new toy and not a person at all.

I don't buy any of your explanation becasue if he were really concerned about their identities he could have easily kept them in seclsuion. As it is, their "conception" (adoption/kidnapping?) and very upbringing comes off as no more than a demented PR plot.


Talking about demented PR plots, let's talk about Prince and his desperate cries for attention over the last decade!

rolleyes



You talking to wrong guy, buddy. I've laffed loud and often at Prince's dementia. Both are admitted whack jobs, but I don't see what this has to do with child safety.
Stick to the point!
test
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #47 posted 11/20/02 10:15am

Cloudbuster

avatar

PFunkjazz said:

Cloudbuster said:

PFunkjazz said:

Krystystystyna said:


The towel was their to protect the child's identity. He knows how it feels to have his face all over the newspapers, he doesn't want his children to go through that. He doesn't want to public scrutinizing his children's faces, to see if they do or do not resemble Michael. He thought he'd have a good enough grip holding the child with one harm.



How 'bout NOT SHOWING THE BABY AT ALL? As it is the chilld was treated in a careless fashion like it was a thing; a new toy and not a person at all.

I don't buy any of your explanation becasue if he were really concerned about their identities he could have easily kept them in seclsuion. As it is, their "conception" (adoption/kidnapping?) and very upbringing comes off as no more than a demented PR plot.


Talking about demented PR plots, let's talk about Prince and his desperate cries for attention over the last decade!

rolleyes



You talking to wrong guy, buddy. I've laffed loud and often at Prince's dementia. Both are admitted whack jobs, but I don't see what this has to do with child safety.
Stick to the point!



Child safety?

Well, how about Prince not allowing Mayte to have scans during her pregnancy to see if all was well in the womb.

We all know how that turned out!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #48 posted 11/20/02 10:23am

PFunkjazz

avatar

Cloudbuster said:




Child safety?

Well, how about Prince not allowing Mayte to have scans during her pregnancy to see if all was well in the womb.

We all know how that turned out!



I'm not quite sure what you're on about (this wa pre-termright?), but comparing PRINCE and MJ against each other with me is like pissing in the wind. I don't doubt they're both whack jobs and lack the basic sense tobe a parent.

Quibble with someone who knows (and cares!) about the REPORTED details of the Prince-Mayte courting/marriage/birth/stillborn/dissoultion thing. I've got a very unpopular and vicious opinion of those events and wil contrive things to make it fit my view.
test
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #49 posted 11/20/02 10:26am

Cloudbuster

avatar

PFunkjazz said:


I've got a very unpopular and vicious opinion of those events and wil contrive things to make it fit my view.



What's your view?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #50 posted 11/20/02 10:32am

PFunkjazz

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

PFunkjazz said:


I've got a very unpopular and vicious opinion of those events and wil contrive things to make it fit my view.



What's your view?



Whew! I don't really want to say here because it is defammatory but think of getting a Christmas gift you thought you wanted until you unwrapped and got bored with it, so you took it back and settled for gift certificates.
test
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #51 posted 11/20/02 10:35am

Cloudbuster

avatar

PFunkjazz said:

Cloudbuster said:

PFunkjazz said:


I've got a very unpopular and vicious opinion of those events and wil contrive things to make it fit my view.



What's your view?



Whew! I don't really want to say here because it is defammatory but think of getting a Christmas gift you thought you wanted until you unwrapped and got bored with it, so you took it back and settled for gift certificates.



I get you!

Peace x
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #52 posted 11/20/02 11:31am

locoarts

avatar

I think what grosses me out the most now that I have seen the footage like 50 times.. is just how MJ's first thought is to cover the babies face with a towel..

* that is why he has that strange grip on the child

* and when the baby starts to wiggle.. MJ's first thought is to make sure the towel doesn't fall off..his other hand doesn't go under the child.. it goes for the towel.

it is sooo sick to see that he is only thinking to have famous kids.. not mormal kids.. he always wishing he had a normal childhood.. BUT when he has kids he makes them "circus side show freaks" with towels on their heads, making them stand by a window so starngers can cheer for them and him?

then the baby.. he is more worried about the towel and maybe a "photographer" taking a photo of his kids face.. then IF the kid falls to his death???

* just his split second actions.. of deciding to NOT support the babies bottom when he wiggled..

MJ chose the towel and maybe "we" the public seeing his face. over making sure the child didn't fall.

wow, what a sick scumbag.

Totally proves he is only out for himself and his fame.. on some sick level.

** He is beyond music.. having a few decent songs from the 1970's - 1980's..

to having a sickness of having to be "famous".. his ego is totally out of control & really he is a danger to himself & or anyone around him.

This is the Moment where the american parents & public & media is going to slam him completely for good.

Not having a major label to cover up all your crap..you done so they can squeeze another few dollars out of you..

NOW MJ is on his own.

~what can possibly be next from this train wreck?
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #53 posted 11/20/02 11:37am

Thecherryloon

locoarts said:

I think what grosses me out the most now that I have seen the footage like 50 times.. is just how MJ's first thought is to cover the babies face with a towel..

* that is why he has that strange grip on the child

* and when the baby starts to wiggle.. MJ's first thought is to make sure the towel doesn't fall off..his other hand doesn't go under the child.. it goes for the towel.

it is sooo sick to see that he is only thinking to have famous kids.. not mormal kids.. he always wishing he had a normal childhood.. BUT when he has kids he makes them "circus side show freaks" with towels on their heads, making them stand by a window so starngers can cheer for them and him?

then the baby.. he is more worried about the towel and maybe a "photographer" taking a photo of his kids face.. then IF the kid falls to his death???

* just his split second actions.. of deciding to NOT support the babies bottom when he wiggled..

MJ chose the towel and maybe "we" the public seeing his face. over making sure the child didn't fall.

wow, what a sick scumbag.

Totally proves he is only out for himself and his fame.. on some sick level.

** He is beyond music.. having a few decent songs from the 1970's - 1980's..

to having a sickness of having to be "famous".. his ego is totally out of control & really he is a danger to himself & or anyone around him.

This is the Moment where the american parents & public & media is going to slam him completely for good.

Not having a major label to cover up all your crap..you done so they can squeeze another few dollars out of you..

NOW MJ is on his own.

~what can possibly be next from this train wreck?


that's a bit melodramatic.You taking lessons off Sly?

Besides MJ will always have Europe and the rest of the World.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #54 posted 11/20/02 3:44pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Where is Dansa's comments? lol

Michael is completely insane!! eek stab

He will possibly have his children taken away (rightly) and be up for child endangerment.

Dam sumbitch needs to be peed on by apes.

mad johnwoo

You MJ supporters are sick. Remember, MJ hates Prince.
All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #55 posted 11/20/02 6:23pm

mistermaxxx

PFunkjazz said:

Krystystystyna said:


The towel was their to protect the child's identity. He knows how it feels to have his face all over the newspapers, he doesn't want his children to go through that. He doesn't want to public scrutinizing his children's faces, to see if they do or do not resemble Michael. He thought he'd have a good enough grip holding the child with one harm.



How 'bout NOT SHOWING THE BABY AT ALL? As it is the chilld was treated in a careless fashion like it was a thing; a new toy and not a person at all.

I don't buy any of your explanation becasue if he were really concerned about their identities he could have easily kept them in seclsuion. As it is, their "conception" (adoption/kidnapping?) and very upbringing comes off as no more than a demented PR plot.
I figured your Tired Posts would come.you are Funny.why don't you hide George Clinton's Face?you got alot of Nerve.who are you now Dr.Phil? your P-Funk Crew acts like they have Been hanging over a Rail.P-Funk Needs a Michael Jackson too Bring some Life too there Tired ASS!
mistermaxxx
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 2 of 2 <12
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Wacko Jacko almost kills baby!!!