JethroTull Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Firstly, nobody forced anybody to come here. You read the title, make a decision whether you want to view the posts or NOT. We are all mature. Second, when somebody dies, whether you know them or not, I think most people reflect on the deceased life - the good, the bad, etc. Yes we like to remember them in a positive sense. But we are all flawed. I'm not looking to bad mouth Michael. I just acknowledge his flaws and wished he could have lived a more spiritual life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4urlife Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 But, I will refer you to this article from The Daily Mail written by Ian Halperian. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/artic...months-ago.html Interesting article. Kind of tabloid-ish, but interesting anyway. And it brought up something I always wondered about. MJ always struck me as being the closet-case type. It was always my opinion that some of his odd behavior stemmed from the fact that he was desperately trying to deny who he really was. No doubt afraid of his mother's disapproval, being that she is supposedly very religious. The last 20 years or so could have been a whole lot different if he had just accepted it (assuming that he was in fact gay, of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longdistancewinner Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I'm not sure if y'all even recognize this isn't my thread. I was simply addressing the hypocrisy of telling people to keep their negative comments in a separate thread and then going into said thread to complain. You don't need to try to shame me asking how I'd feel – I didn't start the thread. There were much more offensive posts in the original thread than there are in here. And there is a difference in making disparaging remarks and simply discussing KNOWN behavior and eccentricities. There's a lot of disrespect here for things different people hold dear, that others dismiss, whether religion, politics, or in this case, Michael Jackson. Better to ignore it than to feed it. This thread would probably already be on page 2 or 3 by now otherwise. THAT was the only issue I was addressing. Oh, only the first part of my post was directed towards you, the rest is directed to no one in particular. Perhaps I should've been clearer on that. Sorry about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 This thread needs to be shitcanned. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 I was definitely no fan of Michael Jackson the person, but I have enough respect for his talent and his abilities to know this thread is waaaaaaaaaay out of line. The guy hasn't even been buried yet and already people are lining up to take craps on his head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Da-Lo Posted July 2, 2009 Author Share Posted July 2, 2009 Wow... such animosity and hatred from...wait...those that love Jacko? I never posted a thing on the other threads about Mike. I figured that with all the "PRO" threads, whats wrong with a little "CON" thread. Get off all your high horses PC patrol. Also you guys are using the term musician a little loosely aren't you? Remember Janet talking about that pet chimp and how they were afraid it was going to crush Jermaine Jackson's baby's skull... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 A business friend of Michael's released some unseen photos of the three children. At least now they won't have to wear masks out in public. They all had these odd vacant looks, like they grew up on a polygamist compound in Utah. Weird that they aren't even Michael's blood, but they are going to be swimming in his money. I'm sure they will write a book one day about what it was like to live with Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 A business friend of Michael's released some unseen photos of the three children. At least now they won't have to wear masks out in public. They all had these odd vacant looks, like they grew up on a polygamist compound in Utah. Weird that they aren't even Michael's blood, but they are going to be swimming in his money. I'm sure they will write a book one day about what it was like to live with Michael. Well at last - the rest of the world is pondering this question but finally we have it on authority , exclusively right here on the Zeppelin forum! What a scoop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pagemeister Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Well at last - the rest of the world is pondering this question but finally we have it on authority , exclusively right here on the Zeppelin forum! What a scoop! It has already been reported that MJ is not the biological father of any of his kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Well at last - the rest of the world is pondering this question but finally we have it on authority , exclusively right here on the Zeppelin forum! What a scoop! That was not even the point of my post. That was how you interpreted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Wow... such animosity and hatred from...wait...those that love Jacko? I never posted a thing on the other threads about Mike. I figured that with all the "PRO" threads, whats wrong with a little "CON" thread. Get off all your high horses PC patrol. Also you guys are using the term musician a little loosely aren't you? Remember Janet talking about that pet chimp and how they were afraid it was going to crush Jermaine Jackson's baby's skull... Dude, you miss the point. No use explaining though, it'd sail right over your head. I'll be frank here. I can't stand MJ, neither personally nor musically. But he meant a lot musically to a lot of people here, and I respect that. It's clear that you don't. At least let the body cool for a while, man. And besides, what if it had been Jimmy that passed, and a bunch of rap dudes started dissing him? How would you feel? What would YOUR reaction be? Take a while. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 It has already been reported that MJ is not the biological father of any of his kids. I've seen no definitive proof of this - just speculation - but I'd be happy to concede to any report which shows this without doubt. It's all the presenting speculation as fact that really pisses me off in this whole scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 That was not even the point of my post. That was how you interpreted it. I was commenting on a part of your post, and didn't "interpret" it, just read it exactly as it was written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 It is not genetically possible for a black man to father three lily-white kids. Those children have no appearance of being bi-racial. Which they would be if their natural parents were Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe. Even the most light-skinned child of a bi-racial couple still carries the appearance of being bi-racial. Those kids are whiter than me and both my parents are of Northern European ancestry. If it comes out that he did indeed father those kids I'm going to be damn shocked because that means he just flipped hundreds of years of accepted science and genetics the bird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Valid points Elizabeth - no argument from me - except that it is possible for a black man to have white kids and has happened in the past. Three would be stretching it a little tho. However - until it is officially confirmed that they are not his kids, considering that he and his family CLAIM that they are, none of us have any damned business to be stating that as a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 This might interest you http://multiracial.com/site/content/view/459/27/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Valid points Elizabeth - no argument from me - except that it is possible for a black man to have white kids and has happened in the past. Three would be stretching it a little tho. The kids would still appear to have been fathered by a black man, though. There would be some genetic link in their physical appearance that links them. My teacher in 5th and 6th grades was the daughter of a black man and a white woman and she was paler than I am now, but she still had the broad nose and very curly, coarse hair that her father had. You can't expect people to see two apples and two oranges and not say there are four pieces of fruit on the table. All it takes is two working pairs of eyes to see that there is a very, very, very distinct possibility that he didn't father those kids. Again though, if it turns out he did.......science needs to study him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 You might be interested in the link that I just posted - I realise you wouldn't have seen it before you posted this. ^ It answers your points. (*edit - to a degree anyway) Plus like I said I am not arguing that they ARE his kids - just that we have no right at this moment to claim it as FACT that they aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rover Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 It is not genetically possible for a black man to father three lily-white kids. Those children have no appearance of being bi-racial. Which they would be if their natural parents were Michael Jackson and Debbie Rowe. Even the most light-skinned child of a bi-racial couple still carries the appearance of being bi-racial. Those kids are whiter than me and both my parents are of Northern European ancestry. If it comes out that he did indeed father those kids I'm going to be damn shocked because that means he just flipped hundreds of years of accepted science and genetics the bird. Even though Michael has had around 25 plastic surgery alterations/nose jobs/skin treatments.... That doesn't change the basic DNA that was there as the beginning..... and so.... that basic DNA should show through with any biological kids MJ has had. Same original DNA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knebby Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I really think my point is being missed here but oh well - some will get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_72 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 I really think my point is being missed here but oh well - some will get it. Knebby, I totally get what you are saying!! WHO CARES if those kids may or may not be his biologically? The fact is that he raised them and loved them and according to all of his friends was a great and loving father, so that is all that should matter in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninelives Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 Knebby, I totally get what you are saying!! WHO CARES if those kids may or may not be his biologically? The fact is that he raised them and loved them and according to all of his friends was a great and loving father, so that is all that should matter in the end. :yesnod: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 *DISCLAIMER* Not saying any of this is valid or real...Honestly I don't know fuck all about the "Huffington Post". But if it is... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/28/d...o_n_222027.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Knebby, I totally get what you are saying!! WHO CARES if those kids may or may not be his biologically? The fact is that he raised them and loved them and according to all of his friends was a great and loving father, so that is all that should matter in the end. I believe it was my post a day or two ago that started this discussion. First of all I agree with you. I should have been more succinct in the point I was making. And that is, when people die and leave money to people they aren't technically related to, it leaves a very bad taste in the mouths of blood relatives who get snubbed. It happens quite often. The person who dies is not thinking clearly and doesn't realize the hurt they leave behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 Knebby, I totally get what you are saying!! WHO CARES if those kids may or may not be his biologically? The fact is that he raised them and loved them and according to all of his friends was a great and loving father, so that is all that should matter in the end. I don't think anyone here is stating he didn't love the children, claim them as his own or provide for them in the best way he knew how. I also didn't see anyone here saying he was a bad father. The two have nothing to do with each other. They are obviously not his children biologically, but that doesn't mean he isn't their father legally and emotionally and in all the other ways that count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.