Knebby Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 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. Interesting point, and one that I agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danelectro Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Since when does "blood relations" have anything to do with who is named as a beneficiary of an estate? There is no obligation to name blood relatives as beneficiaries nor is it inconsiderate or an indication the recently deceased was out of their mind when they named beneficiaries in their will. My relatives aren't named as my primary beneficiaries in my will and they never will be unless the primary beneficiary passes away. It’s my estate I get to decide how it is managed if I die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigzepfan Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 MJ was an incredible entertainer. Singer and Dancer. As far as his other antics - sleeping with children, dangling his newborn over a balcony, forcefeeding his child a bottle = screw him. As far as this thread and all others - if you don't like the topic, don't join in. I don't respond to topics that I don't agree with. I might read them to learn from others(good and bad) but I keep quiet. I don't go where I'm not wanted - like the MJ appreciation thread. I never even glanced at it. His negative actions greatly outweigh his positive influences, obviously in my opinion. I'm American and strongly agree with our First Amendment. If you want to bash the guy for his negative actions you've got every right to do so. Jimmy will get bashed by drug-free groups and womens rights groups for his actions. We are all known/remembered by our mistakes and our achievements/accomplishments- they are a part of us when we are alive and when we are dead, buried or not. Some will talk about the positives and some will talk about the negatives. Like it or not that's how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Da-Lo Posted July 9, 2009 Author Share Posted July 9, 2009 I find it interesting that someone left the comment that I should have let the body cool off before I started this thread. Interesting because I didn't know plastic could get all that hot. Aww...Snap! You would think that if Wacko was the father of those kids they would at least have a decent tan. So my opinion is that either it was a biological occurance never scene in human history or it was the... I mean com'mon! Look at this! Did anyone hear about the scene they cut from Bruno with Latoya Jackson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2bitnogoodjive Posted July 9, 2009 Share Posted July 9, 2009 But he meant a lot musically to a lot of people here, and I respect that. I have got to wonder about that. Clearly a lot of people here are fans of his but this kind of surprised me. What kind of response do you think a thread about MJ's music would have gotten here on LZ.com if he was still alive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pagemeister Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 What kind of response do you think a thread about MJ's music would have gotten here on LZ.com if he was still alive? True, for some, a Michael Jackson thread would have gone over like a joke, before a couple weeks ago. But the interesting thing is that, now people are taking another look and realizing that he did have an amazing voice, and was an amazing performer. Michael Jackson Youtube views have gone into the millions. He sold 800,000 albums last week, and had all top 10 spots on the Billboard Pop Catalog charts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xtazy Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 What kind of response do you think a thread about MJ's music would have gotten here on LZ.com if he was still alive? If I knew there were still people on this forum listening to MJ I would have started a thread for him a long time ago. But anticipating all those ignorants that waited for an opportunity to bash him...I thought that it was better not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creditmoonforthename Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 This is not a place for hate, just a place to write your thoughts about balconies, plastic surgery, Elvis and the like. Share your favorite memories of Jacko. Anyone remember that time Mike went shopping with ABC's Martin Bashir and bought a bunch of crap? Martin was like..what the blazes? Martin Bashir is a jerk. I know the dude has pituitary tumor and while I don't wish any ill on him, he furthered his career by betraying Michael's trust and editing his documentary to make Michael out to be a creep and only correcting himself once Michael died to appease Michael's friends, fans and his own critics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creditmoonforthename Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 I find it interesting that someone left the comment that I should have let the body cool off before I started this thread. Interesting because I didn't know plastic could get all that hot. Aww...Snap! You would think that if Wacko was the father of those kids they would at least have a decent tan. So my opinion is that either it was a biological occurance never scene in human history or it was the... I mean com'mon! Look at this! Did anyone hear about the scene they cut from Bruno with Latoya Jackson? Wait a second...Diane Dimond? Is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Da-Lo Posted July 10, 2009 Author Share Posted July 10, 2009 So did they all get the same plastic surgery to look like each other? Or did the aliens that inhabit there bodies make them this way? Jeepas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 Michael should have set himself up in a reality TV show a la Ozzy. He probably would have made more money as a reality TV show star than as a pop star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterMcLov1n Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 He was a very private person and I doubt he would have done that. Did anyone else notice in the rehearsal pics for "This is It" that Michael's jaw and face REALLY changed? Almost like it was restored to Dangerous-era Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Lena_Zep Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I can't believe this thread is still here!!! Leave MJ alone! Great musician or not just drop it! Freak or not - drop it! 90% plastic or not - -II- Gay or not - ... Pedophile or not - ... He IS King of Pop. BUT there will always be people who think he's the King of Po(o)p. Geez, drop it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 I can't believe this thread is still here!!! Leave MJ alone! Great musician or not just drop it! Freak or not - drop it! 90% plastic or not - -II- Gay or not - ... Pedophile or not - ... He IS King of Pop. BUT there will always be people who think he's the King of Po(o)p. Geez, drop it already. Please, raise your standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JethroTull Posted July 16, 2009 Share Posted July 16, 2009 He was a very private person and I doubt he would have done that. Well of course he wouldn't participate in a reality TV show. There was a reason why he was private. There is no way he could be seen hooked up to intravenous and all the other nonsense that was probably going on, etc, etc, etc, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmie ray Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 Please, raise your standards. Plastic pedophiles are the new standard, for today's advanced thinkers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Da-Lo Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 I can't believe this thread is still here!!! Leave MJ alone! Great musician or not just drop it! Freak or not - drop it! 90% plastic or not - -II- Gay or not - ... or not - ... He IS King of Pop. BUT there will always be people who think he's the King of Po(o)p. Geez, drop it already. Is this a questionnaire? Lets see... Leave MJ alone! Great musician or not just drop it! Freak or not - YES 90% plastic or not - HECK YES Gay or not - REALLY? YOU HAVE TO ASK? or not - CULKIN, GARY COLEMAN, FRED SAVAGE? He IS King of Pop. NOT, NEVER, NO BUT there will always be people who think he's the King of Po(o)p. TRUE DAT SISTA~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahfin Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 When can you speak ill of the dead? By Tom de Castella It's a month since the death of Michael Jackson - an event which triggered much worshipful coverage of the singer's life. Has enough time passed for a more impartial assessment of the man? When Michael Jackson died the global media cleared the decks for the King of Pop. But not everyone was reading the script. "This guy was a pervert," said Peter King, Republican state congressman for New York. "He was a child molester, he was a paedophile, and to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country?" The British satirical magazine Private Eye summarised the media's U-turn on Jackson thus: "What you didn't read in all the newspapers: 'Mad Paedophile Dead: Yesterday a 50 year-old mentally ill paedophile died in America.'" Our traditional response to a person's death can be summed up by the Latin "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" - roughly translated "don't speak ill of the dead". But in the information age, where the news keeps on rolling and the notion of deference has long since been replaced by a fascination with fame, how does the old maxim hold up? Click here to read the remainder of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jimmy Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Well, I think Micheal Jackson doesn't suck, but pop music in general is... merdaccia (search the translation ).That's not good music in my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven2blue Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 When can you speak ill of the dead? By Tom de Castella It's a month since the death of Michael Jackson - an event which triggered much worshipful coverage of the singer's life. Has enough time passed for a more impartial assessment of the man? When Michael Jackson died the global media cleared the decks for the King of Pop. But not everyone was reading the script. "This guy was a pervert," said Peter King, Republican state congressman for New York. "He was a child molester, he was a paedophile, and to be giving this much coverage to him day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country?" The British satirical magazine Private Eye summarised the media's U-turn on Jackson thus: "What you didn't read in all the newspapers: 'Mad Paedophile Dead: Yesterday a 50 year-old mentally ill paedophile died in America.'" Our traditional response to a person's death can be summed up by the Latin "de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est" - roughly translated "don't speak ill of the dead". But in the information age, where the news keeps on rolling and the notion of deference has long since been replaced by a fascination with fame, how does the old maxim hold up? Click here to read the remainder of the article. I liked this comment: If we're going to judge someone, forget popularity and glitter, ask; Did they make the world better? Did they genuinely improve another person? Did they perform any genuinely altruistic benevolent act? Did they accumulate wealth and fame for the benefit of others? If the answer to any of the above is yes, then they have done something worth mentioning. Otherwise stop bothering me about them. Andy Wilcock, Tunbridge Wells Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I liked this comment: If we're going to judge someone, forget popularity and glitter, ask; Did they make the world better? Did they genuinely improve another person? Did they perform any genuinely altruistic benevolent act? Did they accumulate wealth and fame for the benefit of others? If the answer to any of the above is yes, then they have done something worth mentioning. Otherwise stop bothering me about them. Andy Wilcock, Tunbridge Wells I think old Andy's being a bit sanctimonious there. There's a lot to be said for "Did they give countless hours of musical pleasure to people around the globe, thus enhancing the quality of their lives?" People who do that very often also give large gobs of money to charities, which would get them a check-mark on at least the first three questions, even if their wealth wasn't accumulated solely for the benefit of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It's unfortunate that the child scandals have eclipsed some significant humanitarian efforts like We Are the World, and the Heal the World Foundation. However you weigh him, he has great substance on the good side, even if the bad were true. I'm not saying his alleged abuses were justifiable, but let's not forget all the charitable work he did, and the awareness of those things which he helped bring into the public forum via his music and fame. He did some mighty great things which should not be swept under the carpet of scandal. If you're measured by your deeds, be measured by all your deeds equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven2blue Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think old Andy's being a bit sanctimonious there. There's a lot to be said for "Did they give countless hours of musical pleasure to people around the globe, thus enhancing the quality of their lives?" People who do that very often also give large gobs of money to charities, which would get them a check-mark on at least the first three questions, even if their wealth wasn't accumulated solely for the benefit of others. I agree that musicians and other artists do give large amounts of money to charity and not always publically. There is no way to know how much money Jackson gave away. He probably did quite a bit. The comment reminded me of how easy it is to judge people on appearances, focusing on the negative and ignoring the positive contributions they have made. I agree with Andy in that looking back on a person's life we should talk about their altruism, benevolence, ect. Well put, Ev "If you're measured by your deeds, be measured by all your deeds equally" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evster2012 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Anybody with money can write a check. Bringing about massive public awareness through tireless giving of ones time is something else. Even if he did do some deplorable (and unproven) things, the light he shined on the suffering of children should not be discounted. There comes a time When we head a certain call When the world must come together as one There are people dying And it's time to lend a hand to life The greatest gift of all We can't go on Pretneding day by day That someone, somewhere will soon make a change We are all a part of God's great big family And the truth, you know love is all we need [Chorus] We are the world We are the children We are the ones who make a brighter day So let's start giving There's a choice we're making We're saving our own lives It's true we'll make a better day Just you and me Send them your heart So they'll know that someone cares And their lives will be stronger and free As God has shown us by turning stone to bread So we all must lend a helping hand [Chorus] We are the world We are the children We are the ones who make a brighter day So let's start giving There's a choice we're making We're saving our own lives It's true we'll make a better day Just you and me When you're down and out There seems no hope at all But if you just believe There's no way we can fall Well, well, well, well, let us realize That a change will only come When we stand together as one [Chorus] We are the world We are the children We are the ones who make a brighter day So let's start giving There's a choice we're making We're saving our own lives It's true we'll make a better day Just you and me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aquamarine Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 But also, just as a music fan, I'd argue that if he'd given people a lot of pleasure through his music, that's a huge positive too--that even leaving charity work aside, if you believe in music as a positive force in the world--which I do--the fact that somebody was very good at it and brought pleasure to millions counts a lot in determining their legacy. Andy seemed to think only selfless charitable acts got you any points, but I can't agree with that. Some musicians who were complete rascals otherwise have still enhanced my life by their music (Ike Turner, for instance), and would get a lot of points from me in the Eternal Ledger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.