Supporting those who support the truth about MJ. Attacks on Charles Thomson false and unjustified.

[DeborahFfrench]

British journalist, Charles Thomson, who you are all no doubt aware, has been working tirelessly for some time now to bring the truth about the gross injustice meted out to Michael Jackson while he lived, into greater public awareness - has been under cyber attack now for the last two days.

A misguided and exceptionally misinformed blogger - Bonnie Cox, author of the 'Michael's Guardian' blog - who is also a member of the 'Tea Party' political group, has maliciously sent out emails and tweets to everyone she knows, claiming that Charles Thomson and Randy Taraborrelli are 'paid hitmen,' hired as part of a Sony conspiracy to destroy Michael Jackson by writing nasty articles about Michael.

Yes, really.

This blogger has also been encouraging people to harass Mr Thomson on twitter, Facebook and at his own website. This blogger - Michael's guardian - has also asked people to 'spy' on Mr Thomson's twitter account and send her so-called 'evidence' of his Sony affiliations.

This is utter nonsense. The basis for this non-existent evidence of Mr Thomson's alter-ego as a 'Sony assassin,' is nothing more than a picture that appeared on Mr Thomson's Facebook page of him and Randy Taraborrelli meeting in LA in June!

This lie has already led to Mr Thomson taking the drastic measure of removing hundreds of people from his Facebook account and locking his tweets. More action may be necessary. This speculative and false 'evidence' is as unfounded as the 'fact-building' engaged in by Sneddon and his ilk when MJ was alive - and is just as dangerous.

Instead of supporting one of the few credible journalists who supports the reality of Michael's innocence, Mr Thomson is now unfortunately being attacked by:

@MUZIKfactory2 on tweet, and by Bonnie Cox aka 'Michael's guardian' on her blog:

http://michaelsguardian.blogspot.com/2010/07/michael-and-j-randy-tarabor...

and also by Ms Cox on twitter as user @bcox64.

This is outrageous behaviour and there are serious concerns now about the apparent capacity of some MJ fans to be believe any ridiculous conspiracy that someone who is old enough - but clearly not wise enough, irresponsibly decides to put up on the web.

There are consequences for this hurtful and untrue libel, and one of those consequences may unfortunately be that Mr Thomson, someone who has dedicated enormous amounts of time trying to uncover the misinformation and years-old slandering of Michael's name - may simply stop doing his invaluable work.

There is an on-going web campaign to petition Rev Sharpton's radio show bookers to invite Mr Thomson on for an interview about Michael Jackson's trial by leaving a message at:

rachel@noerdlingermedia.com

Despite, Mr Thomson's outstanding work exposing the media's complicity in the injustice meted out to Mr Jackson while he lived, and being published by one of the biggest websites in the world - the Huffington Post - the article was ignored by the media.

We can't let the media keep suppressing the truth about the Michael Jackson trial. If the media won't cover the facts on their own, lets give them a push in the right direction.

A campaign was begun petitioning Rev Al Sharpton - a defender of Michael who interviewed Aphrodite Jones when her book came out - to invite Thomson onto his radio show and interview him about the Michael Jackson trial. Rev Al's radio show reaches a huge audience all over America and a global audience on the internet. It could get the truth about MJ's trial to millions of people.

We are hoping to galvanize mass emailing / messaging of the above contacts in Rev Sharpton's team, stating that you would love to hear Charles Thomson interviewed by Rev Sharpton on his show.

Please also include the link to Mr Thomson's explosive article at the Huffington Post:

http://tinyurl.com/37bxbem.

This campaign is being undertaken without communication with Mr Thomson, but we hope he will appreciate our efforts and be willing to be interviewed if Reverend Sharpton's team get in touch with him as a result of this campaign.

Don't let the media bury important information about MJ's trial. If we all focus on this goal now, we will be playing a vital part in helping to change the media's narrative on Michael Jackson.

And if anyone comes across any of this unsubstantiated and completely false information about Mr Thomson being a 'hired sony assassin' on the web (!) - please strongly refute it in no uncertain terms, and direct people to this link where all the information about these attacks is fully explained.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blog...-nonsense.html

Be under no illusions, these attacks are not being done in 'Michael's' name. They are a totally malicious and outrageous attack on an objective, honest journalist who must be wondering what the hell he's done to deserve all this.

Lets hope common sense prevails.

Thank you.

[whollamellie]

wow! as far as i know, there was never a bad blood written by charles thomson on michael. he constantly discredited all those nasty rumours. and what i love about charles is that he did his research and write his articles based on facts. it would take the whole universeto make me believe whatever nonsense this so-called michael guardian, unless charles say it to us himself. i support his true sense of journalism, which continues to disappear nowadays.

[ginvid]

He at one time wrote some nasty things about MJ on another forum. Apparently leading to his being banned. This is from what I have heard from others here.

[elusive moonwalker]

considering how he treated mj on other mj boards before it became the in thing to defend mj then what exactly does he expect. i doubt anyone cares enough one way or the other about thompson to give a reason for such a statement to be released. making him out to be some important person. he goes well with tabloidarell.birds of a feather flock together.

[DeborahFfrench]

With respect and hello's all round, Charles Thomson has never posted things about Michael Jackson that were untrue or designed to hurt him, and he was writing about Mr Jackson long before he died - unlike Bonnie Cox.

From what I understand, some fans have had issues in the past with Mr Thomson's unwillingess to take a Michael-is-perfect-in every-way line as regards some of Michael's decisions and choices while he lived.

But I am also reliably informed that Mr Thomson firmly believes Michael was grossly maligned and mistreated while he lived, and is doing his best to inform people about the gross injustice Mr Jackson endured.

Regardless of how people may feel about Mr Thomson of years past, the fact remains, that he is not a Sony informer or assassin and anyone saying that he is, is spreading misinformation that does not help Mr Jackson's legacy or the focus of the fans on the issue of the continued besmirching of his name.

[elusive moonwalker]

well i guess u can say karmas a bi** .


Thomson has never posted things about Michael Jackson that were untrue or designed to hurt him, yeah im sure mj would have appreciated his self rightous rantings. untrue? well yeah we know he blamed mj for everything that happened to him. funny how hes changed his tuned. guess its the in thing to do now.


and he was writing about Mr Jackson long before he died -yeah dont we all know lol anyone you give to much inportance to mr thompson in creating this thread. i doubt anyone cares either way about what someone else is saying about him. he made his bed long ago and hes certainly no high level journo that has a reputation to protect.thefacts hes getting pictures taking with JRT sums him up. lol

[DeborahFfrench]

Hi elusivemoonwalker,

Are you suggesting it's acceptable for someone to post libelous statements about a person on the web when there is no basis for them?

If you read carefully the articles Mr Thomson has written, it is clear he evidences the bias of the media and the American Justice system against Michael. The attacks by those two formaidable fronts are not portrayed by Mr Thomson as 'being Michael's fault' so your point here seems a tad confused.

[elusive moonwalker]

Are you suggesting it's acceptable for someone to post libelous statements about a person on the web when there is no basis for them? no of course not but its not right the crap he talked about mj either. works both ways. so you are hardly in the right place to garner sympathy for someone who did nothing but attack mj and got themselves banned from mj boards that were very hard to get banned from back in the day.

If you read carefully the articles Mr Thomson has written, it is clear he evidences the bias of the media and the American Justice system against Michael. The attacks by those two formaidable fronts are not portrayed by Mr Thomson as 'being Michael's fault' so your point here seems a tad confused.

the guy goes with the wind and is a hypocrite. he tries to act like some top notch journo.when hes just another person who crapped on mj when he was down and is probably now on a guilt trip .fans who have been around for more than 2 minutes have seen his likes many times and his opinion is as irrelevent or relevent now as it was back when he was spewing hate against mj on the boards.

. now hes flipped and is supporting mj when this case should be perfect for him interms of attacking mj like he did back in the day on other boards.

i doubt anyone thinks he works for sony etc. and frankly i doubt anyone cares. you give to muich importance to the subject and person.no one cares. hence why im the only one here cause the boards are quiet and ive got 30 mins to waste

[ginvid]

It is hard for me to comment on this without seeing the statements first hand that he made. but I have no reason to doubt the testimonies of the members here. And from what I have been told he has said, it is not about thinking Mj was perfect, but about being spirited and attacking MJ. I think that is unacceptable and if some fans have a bit of trouble looking past these thing she has said, Mr Thomson should expect it.

On the other hand, he has spoken up for MJ tremendously since his death on a topic that it seems he has never wavereed on. For that we can be thankful. But it does not negate what he has said on other topics.

So my feelings for this person are mixed. No one deserves to be maligned. Especially based on false information. but from what I have hread it seems Charles at one time did the same to MJ. Maligned him based on what Mr. Thomson felt was the truth. What he felt to be fact.

I think I will have to look into this more to have an informed opinion. And to feel more strongly about the situation one way or the other.

[DeborahFfrench]

Hi ElusiveMoonwalker and ginvid.

Your questions may be valid. But I am certain Mr Thomson will happily answer any questions you have. Please ask them. He is doing such good work and it's unfair that he is being judged for saying things that I have yet to see anyone make any firm or direct quotes about.

His email is: http://www.charles-thomson.net.

Thank you.

[Thrill]

Charles thomson blogpost


tuesday, 20 july 2010
clearing up more nonsense

after discovering yesterday that one individual was impersonating me on tmz, i discovered that another was writing inaccurate articles about me for consumption by thousands of vulnerable and impressionable fans.

Bonnie cox, author of the 'michael's guardian' blog, has recently published two inaccurate and defamatory articles about me and has alluded on her twitter page to the fact that she's planning a third.

Cox, a supporter of the tea party movement who last year wrote on her facebook page that she hoped president obama would get on a plane with one of his 'muslim buddies' and crash, insists on her blog that michael jackson was murdered by sony, 'this is it' is full of body doubles and jackson's friends are being murdered to disguise the truth about his death.

Among the brainless witterings on her blog, she baselessly accuses me of authoring 'false' blogs about michael jackson, suggests that i am only covering him positively for my own financial gain and implies that my friendship with j randy taraborrelli is part of a sony conspiracy to destroy michael jackson.

Four days ago she wrote, "it has been brought to my attention that charles thompson [sic] and the lowlynewshound are are one and the same." her evidence? Well, she didn't have any evidence. Her sources? She didn't have any of those either. And this is a lady who frequently berates the media for its shoddy reporting?

The lowly newshound blog, which has disappeared amidst this latest controversy, contained numerous in-depth articles about michael jackson. Bonnie cox brands the information in the blog 'false' but offers no evidence to corroborate this, writing only that she couldn't believe some of its claims.

Not content with branding the blog's contents 'false' on the sole basis that she didn't like what it said, and accusing me of writing it with absolutely no corroborative evidence, three days later bonnie cox penned a second article claiming that j randy taraborrelli's biography 'michael jackson: The magic and the madness' was sponsored by sony as part of a campaign to smear michael jackson. Not only this, but cox went on to insinuate that because i am friends with randy taraborrelli, i could be in on it.

After i sent bonnie cox several strongly worded instructions to remove this libelous material from her blog, she promised via twitter to retract the inaccurate allegations from her blog:

http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/2508/bonnieapologises.jpg

however, while she amended the blog entries in a small way, she has still left in place speculation that i am the newshound (suggesting that i have had a 'change of micro chip') and questions about the nature of my friendship with randy taraborrelli. She later sent me a message via twitter implying that there was something shady about my friendship with taraborrelli, saying, "i have a photo of you and taraborrelli together. How am i supposed to deal with that?"

the notion that a photograph of myself and j randy taraborrelli is evidence of a conspiracy is laughable. I have made no secret of my friendship with randy taraborrelli and nor has he. We had dinner together in la several weeks ago and both posted the pictures on our facebook pages. I'm not ashamed of our friendship and nor should i be. Taraborrelli is a kind, warm, funny and generous man, and any implication that he's part of a conspiracy to destroy michael jackson is beyond absurd. The idea that a photograph of us together would evidence any shady conspiracy or subterfuge, or would be of any interest to cox's readers, is insane.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/9421/randycharles.jpg

cox has since threatened me indirectly via twitter, writing a message that i'm 'not going to like tomorrow's blog', so apparently her next entry will be filled with even more deluded nonsense.

Cox, by her own admission, only began writing about jackson after his death. I, meanwhile, have a documented history of jackson-related journalism stretching back at least as far as 2008. Ironic, then, that cox should accuse me of being the bandwagon jumper.

Her inexperience shows, too. Among her 'evidence' of randy taraborrelli's anti-jackson agenda she cites bob jones's tell-all book about michael jackson. That would be bob jones who admitted on the stand during jackson's trial that his book contained fabricated information, such as false claims that he witnessed jackson licking the head of a young boy.

Cox also neglects to mention that in a series of tape-recorded telephone conversations between jackson and a female friend, known as the 'glenda tapes', jackson name-checks taraborrelli's book and confirms its accuracy.

A final word: The idea that i have only started writing in jackson's defence since he died and it became profitable is easily disproven by this 2008 interview i conducted with aphrodite jones about her book 'michael jackson conspiracy'.

As for the idea that i am benefitting financially from my articles about jackson's media treatment, my work on the michael jackson case has been conducted largely at my own expense. My most recent huffington post article, 'one of the most shameful episodes in journalistic history', took a month to research and is over 5000 words long. I was not paid for any of my research or writing on that piece. I wrote it because i am passionate about the cause and believe the injustice needs to be highlighted.

Quite how my willingness to spend one month doing unpaid research and writing on a pro-michael jackson article ties in with the theory that i'm part of a sony-controlled anti-michael jackson conspiracy, i'm not sure. You'll have to direct that question to bonnie cox.

http://charlesthomsonjournalist.blogspot.com/2010/07/clearing-up-more-nonsense.html#comments

[Ashtanga]

WOW!!!!!!! :bugeyed

I do not know what to say about it.... :unsure:

[Courtney]

Wow, I don't even know what to say to this.


See what one lie can do...

[yaazgurl]

Well we are sensitive about our Michael. I don't like Tarrobelli and he speaks highly of him so usually birds of a feather flock together.

[DeborahFfrench]

Birds of a feather flock together?........ No smoke without fire?.......... Well, I'm just going by what I heard....

These are the kind of statements I see written about Michael constantly on boards that don't believe he is innocent. So what if Mr Thomson can appreciate Taraborelli as another writer with the same interest? That does not make Thomson a 'Sony insider.'

The idea is ridiculous and this is what is being alleged, and that is why he is being attacked. I have seen no direct quotes or evidence of Thomson's so-called antipathy towards Michael, have any of you?

I had thought of all places, that people at a Michael Jackson forum would not leap to judgement.

[twinklEE]

the problem with new fans is that they dont know nothing, not just new fans but generally fans who haent followed his whereabouts regularly.. they simply know little to nothing even if they are fans since 1968

[DeborahFfrench]

I am not sure what the above comment means in the context of this truth: Michael is dead, but his children survive him, and if they are not to become teenagers in a world that still largely believes their father profoundly harmed children, a huge shift in thinking and access to factual information needs to take place in the public arena.

The shift that is required will mean opening large sections of people who are not fans, to the truth of the huge character assassination that was engineered against Mr Jackson. This isn't about fandom, this is about how Michael's civil and human rights were overriden for gain by a great number of people.

I constantly hear people saying they wish the media would look at what it's done and declare it. That is exactly what Charles Thomson is trying to do - make the public aware of what the media and the American justice system did to Michael. So why is he not better supported?

I urge, no, ask all to stay in the present and look, read and evaluate Mr Thomson on what he contributing now. These endless debates about who was the 'bigger fan', or how long have people been fans do not help Michael - or his children.

[JMie]

drama

[DeborahFfrench]

Yes, a relatively young man died, leaving three children behind in a world that will one day try to tell them their father was a sexual predator. I'd say that's dramatic.

It's also a total disgrace.

Which is why the work we all do now on helping to change the media narrative, or at least help give a competing version an equal platform is so incredibly important.

It is why we are asking people to petition Tom Joyner, Tom Smiley and Rev Sharpton to interview Thomson on their respective radio shows. We are trying to give someone in the media who acknowledges the bias and the injustice done to Michael - a greater opportunity to express that clearly and in a way that cannot be disparaged as fandom.

[JMie]

Yes, a relatively young man died, leaving three children behind in a world that will one day try to tell them their father was a sexual predator. I'd say that's dramatic.

my comment wasn't aimed at you or your words. and it was definitely NOT about Michael and his children.

[DeborahFfrench]

No worries!

I feel it's important we all realize that debates about length or extent of fanship are not what anyone truly concerned with the welfare of that which meant most to Michael - his children, should be focusing on at this point in time.

I really believe what we need to do is work together, all of us, to promote and support all those who are actively trying to change the media's continuing, destructive narrative on Michael Jackson. That means supporting all those who are trying, and are able, to speak to the media effectively. People such as Aphrodite Jones, Barbara Kaufmann, Thomas Mesereau - and Charles Thomson.

We can start by petitioning Rev Al Sharpton - a defender of MJ who interviewed Aphrodite Jones when her book came out - to invite Charles Thomson onto his radio show and interview him about the Michael Jackson trial.

Rev Al's radio show reaches a huge audience all over America and a global audience on the internet. It could get the truth about MJ's trial to millions of people. Rev Al's communications officer is Rachel Noerdlinger. You can email her at:

rachel@noerdlingermedia.com

Please send her polite emails and include the link to Mr Thomson's article at Huffington Post: http://tinyurl.com/37bxbem - explaining that lots of people would tune into Rev Al's radio show to hear such an interview. Don't let the media bury important information about MJ's trial.

I really hope people will participate in this. Whatever our individual thoughts about Thomson and all the different agendas that exist amongst supporters of Michael's legacy - surely we can all unite on the need to challenge the media's current narrative on Michael. If we all do our bit, perhaps we can change it.

We won't know until we try.

[ginvid]

I am all for changing views of people as regards MJ. And, I think it is important for this information to get out.
And, as long as Mr. Thomson keeps his answers specifically on the trial and the media bias and not about his personal feelings of MJ (SMH) then I think it is a worthy cause.

Deborah, you might also want to ask the Legacy team for help with this effort, they may be able to help in organizing something.

[blankyluvdoodoo]

I am all for changing views of people as regards MJ. And, I think it is important for this information to get out.
And, as long as Mr. Thomson keeps his answers specifically on the trial and the media bias and not about his personal feelings of MJ (SMH) then I think it is a worthy cause.

Deborah, you might also want to ask the Legacy team for help with this effort, they may be able to help in organizing something.

i am with u. right now it is important to get that info out in public because people like dd are not going any where soon and that list is long .
but i also trust old member in here ,so this thomson guy must stick to trial and media bias subject ,we don't want any personal view about mj from him or his friend .

[DeborahFfrench]

Thank you so much ginvid and blankyluvdoodoo (!),

I understand your provisos, though of course I cannot and do not speak for Mr Thomson. But having observed for myself the meticulously researched work he is putting out into the public domain, I believe that my confidence in his intentions is not misplaced. I really do feel that Thomson is someone who should be supported.

Lots of people at present are doing the emailing, and I am positive that more en masse effort will yield a positive response. Anything any of you can do here at this forum to push this effort would be massively appreciated - and thank you ginvid for the Legacy idea.

I will contact them.

Be well.

[Alayasha]

^Hi DeborahFfrench,

I believe most people support your position that the truth regarding the allegations and subsequent trial should be reported. In fact, it is a journalists oath and duty to report the truth. The truth never changes; unfortunately, the moral character of the "truth tellers" can and sometimes does change. Though I see no evidence to suggest that Thomason is involved in a Sony conspiracy, I certainly understand the apprehension to embrace him whole-heartedly. In regards to his reporting regarding the trial, I agree with it 100%. That information is readily available to anyone who is truly interested in learning the facts. I'm also familar with some of his previous comments. I'll just say yes, I support you and your quest to have the truth reported in the mainstream media. I just urge you to keep in mind what others have noted because remember, Ian Halperin also say's that Michael is innocent and you know....

[TinaG]

^Hi DeborahFfrench,

I believe most people support your position that the truth regarding the allegations and subsequent trial should be reported. In fact, it is a journalists oath and duty to report the truth. The truth never changes; unfortunately, the moral character of the "truth tellers" can and sometimes does change. Though I see no evidence to suggest that Thomason is involved in a Sony conspiracy, I certainly understand the apprehension to embrace him whole-heartedly. In regards to his reporting regarding the trial, I agree with it 100%. That information is readily available to anyone who is truly interested in learning the facts. I'm also familar with some of his previous comments. I'll just say yes, I support you and your quest to have the truth reported in the mainstream media. I just urge you to keep in mind what others have noted because remember, Ian Halperin also say's that Michael is innocent and you know....

Very well said, Alayasha...I totally agree with you.:yes:

[cinzia]

Okay, I have to ask this.

Where the hell was CT and his lofty ideals before 25 June 2009?

[samhabib]

The suggestion that Charles Thomson was paid by Sony to destroy Michael is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. There are some fans who are upset that he prefers Prince to MJ - in other words, if you're a Michael Jackson fan you're apparently not allowed to listen to other music.

There are some fans, unfortunately, who refuse to hear anything negative about Michael Jackson. For real musicologists for example, the greatest entertainer of all-time lip-synching almost a complete concert tour was damaging to his credibility and his legacy. Michael Jackson historians should know that, not pretend it's not the case.

Michael Jackson fans have to develop a thicker skin. I've never read anything posted by Charles Thomson on any forum that he hasn't justified. I'm not saying he's always correct. I'm saying he was able to justify himself. And if proved wrong he'd accept it.

Everything he's written in his articles (and there are more besides the 'shocking journalism
history' one) have been spot on.

Bonnie Cox talks about wishing Barack Obama being flown on a plane with his 'Muslim friends' and being killed. Anyone who supports that shouldn't call themselves a Michael Jackson fan.

[DeborahFfrench]

Hi Alayash and TinaG,


I understand your position re the example of Halperin. If I may add this: the major difference, of course, between Thomson and Halperin, is that Thomson has never said Michael was guilty, whereas Halperin has made money for years alleging one hyperbolic thing after another, and is obviously only saying Michael is innocent now to curry favour with those he hopes will buy his products.

In direct contrast, Thomson's articles at Huffington Post are hosted without payment to their author, and the extensive and time-consuming research he undertakes has benefited Michael's name and legacy far more than Halperin's ever could - or will.



Hi Cinzia,


June 25 came out of the blue for everyone. From what I understand Mr Thomson had tried on various occasions to get stories into the press about Michael and was turned down. The media's reluctance to even accept - let alone promote the truth about Michael's innocence, is well known and needs no elaboration at this forum. But I think you would agree that since the 25th, Mr Thomson has worked exceptionally hard to try and make the public aware of the bias, injustice and persecution Michael endured.



Hi Samhabib,


At the moment the dust on this nonsense seems to have settled. I am hoping people will rely on their own judgement on this issue and continue, as I do, to support Thomson's efforts. Yes, he wrote strongly opinioniated comments about MJ on a forum years ago - mainly I have to say, urging Michael to take control of his life and be extra vigilant in not unintentionally 'helping' the press smear his name. Thomson also wrote this:


Excerpt from MJJSTAR.COM


by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm


TwistedVision wrote:


" Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber. "



Finally:


I have also seen the racist and otherwise abusive comments sent by MUZIKfactory2 and Bonnie Cox to a number of people and Thomson, and am astounded so few fans have picked up on this. These people have clearly demonstrated that not only are they estranged from the truth, but that they are also in absolutely no position to be hectoring Mr Thomson about ethics or decent behaviour.



Re: Reverend Sharpton Initiative:


I, and many others, are continuing to send emails to Rachel Noerdlinger and we very much hope others will join us.

They may not say yes, but we won't know unless we try.

[Ashtanga]

http://muzikfactory2.blogspot.com/2010/08/all-truth-passes-through-3-stages-first.html (http://muzikfactory2.blogspot.com/2010/08/all-truth-passes-through-3-stages-first.html)


:bugeyed

[PCR]

the problem with new fans is that they dont know nothing, not just new fans but generally fans who haent followed his whereabouts regularly.. they simply know little to nothing even if they are fans since 1968

If someone is new to something/someone, you can't expect them to know it all, don't you think? :cheeky: and to be honest... I don't know if it would be fair to call a 1968 fan a "new" fan, just because s/he was not in the forums. I would just say the forums and the little wars here every now and there are just another part of this "MJ universe", to say so, not the universe itself -_- In fact, I know fans who have been active, very active indeed, in other MJ forums and have no clue about these issues, the same way we might not be 100% aware of the issues happening at their forums. Not to say when the members of those forums speak different languages!

I count myself among those who were not following Michael's whereabouts regularly, so I am grateful to people who were doing so for providing us with information on this kind of things. With that info, we can all make our own informed decitions.

Thanks to those who keep sharing freely!! :clapping:

[DeborahFfrench]

Perhaps it's also time we asked ourselves how any of this helps Michael's legacy?

Does attacking one of the few journalists out there who is writing hard-hitting, uncompromising truth about the injustice and persecution Michael endured make any sense?

Charles Thomson is trying to get that information out there in the mainstream. He used Huffington Post as an opportunity to reach people and talk about something he believed was important and overdue.

For all those aware of the long road ahead for Michael's public vindication, I am asking people to consider the bigger picture. I also have to question the motivation and reasoning of those who think anything is achieved by harrassing another individual.

Mr Thomson is not the enemy here. Old comments he made on a forum that were part of a frank opinion-sharing discussion amongst members not intended for public airing should not -I feel, be confused and judged alongside the outstanding factual work Thomson has consistently put out in the public arena.

Personally I will continue to support the work Thomson is doing now. And ultimately, others will make their own choice. If I may though, all I ask is that 'you' decide - not someone else.

This hoopla is a distraction. One that serves no-one but the one's making all the noise.

[DeborahFfrench]

A quick update:


http://mjssfljunky.tumblr.com/post/926104815/the-muzikfactory-saga


I believe Thomson's public work is worthy of our support. His work has the power to change minds and hearts. This is the goal, the only goal that is important.


Is the voice of MUZIKfactory2 the authority on ethical behaviour she purports to be?

The decision is yours.

[PCR]

I remain quite confused about this. I was not there to see the full context of those disgusting comments, I have no idea of the intention to do so, the reactions of other members, the reason of those, etc.

Whatever, I guess everyone, including MUZIKfactory2 acknowledge the importance of Charle's articles, so I think I understand that is out of the question.

At least that is what I think they all agree about :unsure:

[PCR]

A quick update:
http://mjssfljunky.tumblr.com/post/926104815/the-muzikfactory-saga (http://mjssfljunky.tumblr.com/post/926104815/the-muzikfactory-saga)


Junky... is this the same "Junky" from michaeljackson.com forum?

:scratch:

[DeborahFfrench]

I don't know if it's the same person. All I know mjssfljunky provides fairly vivid evidence of 'where' MUZIKfactory2 is coming from, and is candid about she herself was attacked by MUZIKfactory2.

Can the calibre of Charles Thomson's work - the work he intended for public consumption that is - even be compared?

Michael Jackson has plenty of fans and that's fantastic of course. But what he doesn't have, is enough journalists speaking about the gross injustice and falsehoods that are still attributed to his name and character.

You don't have to like Charles Thomson. But the truth is, we need Charles Thomson. The very qualities which made him controversial as a moderator on MJSTAR are, paradoxically, the very qualities which make his public work so hard-hitting and powerful.

The web tantrums by Mf2 and Cox are distractions. The big picture has always been the accusations and the real damage that has been done to Michael's legacy, and anyone who seeks to repair and restore that - deserves and needs our support.

Mr Thomson has mine.

[elusive moonwalker]

Where the hell was CT and his lofty ideals before 25 June 2009?
slagging mj off

good ole mjstar. an embarassment to the mj community. even called out by mjs own spokeperson.

is the cheer leader his mum lol

[DeborahFfrench]

As I said, the decision about how anyone feels - if anything, about Charles Thomson, is for each individual to make. I am not sure that the degree of amusement elusive moonwalker seems to find in all this, is warranted however.

Following the link that was sent to me ( re mjssfljunky,) unearthed alarming harassment and a disturbing history of MUZIKfactory2's behaviour on the web. Yet, this is the person we are now supposed to believe has 'exposed' Charles Thomson?

What exactly has been exposed? As TwistedVision, Thomson seems to be expressing frustration at some of MJ's choices, and he does it in an uncompromising - some would say - harsh way. However, these opinions were shared on a private forum for members only and never intended for public consumption. They were also written three years ago. Most importantly, they were written before Michael died.

No-one could have anticipated that.

What Mr Thomson felt three years ago about MJ's image and life choices is not important. But the work he has produced for public view - is.

Here is a comment written by Thomson as 'TwistedVision' that was strangely omitted by MUZIKfactory2 in her travels back to the past:


Excerpt from MJSTAR.COM

by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm

TwistedVision wrote:


" Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber. "


I am not - as 'elusive moonwalker' imagines, in any related to Mr Thomson. What I am, however, is someone who is not prepared to throw away all the good Charles has done, on the basis on the obsessive web trolling of a clearly unbalanced individual.

Michael Jackson has millions of fans, but none of them could do a thing about stopping the onslaught of media and legal attack for nearly two decades.

Michael Jackson's legacy needs not only fans, but advocates -people who can speak powerfully and publicly about the outrageous attacks on his liberty, reputation and person.

[samhabib]

As I mentioned earlier, everything he posted on MJStar he justified. I don't agree with everything he said but he justified what he said.

It's ridiculous that that blogger has underlined his preference for Prince. Why is that offensive? Because he prefers Prince? How absolutely childish!

[elusive moonwalker]

my opinion of him is based on his posts that i have read over the years on message boards. nothing more. same as many other fans that have been around for more than 2 minutes

[Thrill]

Charles have been attacked by Jazmeen (MUZIKFACTORY2) on her blog recently (check out her blogpost about him http://muzikfactory2.blogspot.com/2010/08/all-truth-passes-through-3-stages-first.html).

He has now responded to her accusations.


Monday, 9 August 2010
A Final Word on the Lunacy by CHARLES THOMPSON

I have spent the last two weeks in the mediterranean, scuba diving and the such like, but the vacation was marred somewhat by the knowledge that in my absence yet more tripe was being published about me all over the internet.

In the last two weeks an entire blog has been set up for the sole purpose of slagging me off. The blog - created by a fanatic called Yazmeen, who last month launched numerous racist tirades against her followers on twitter - claims that I am a 'hypocrite' and cites as its proof a bunch of old comments I made on a message board.

The comments, hen-picked from thousands made on the website in question, include me bemoaning Michael Jackson's decision to appear in public with a young boy after announcing his London residency last year and stating repeatedly that the star was to blame for a lot of his own negative press.

And if you think that's evidence of 'hypocrisy' then I suggest you invest in a dictionary.

My work on Michael Jackson has centred almost exclusively on the allegations of child molestation made against him in 1993 and his trial on similar charges in 2005. Using the Michael Jackson case as a vehicle to explore wider social ills, my articles contend that the case against Jackson was flimsy at best and the media's coverage of his trial was utterly shambolic.

Nowhere among the comments on Yazmeen's blog do I say anything to the contrary.

Look over the comments and you will see me complaining about Jackson's insistence on miming the majority of his latter performances, lamenting his apparent laziness and blaming him for many of the PR disasters that defined his later career - all comments that I still stand by to this day, many of which I even reiterated in my fairly recent interview with Lorette Luzajic; an interview I plugged on this very blog without any shame or apprehension.

What you will not see anywhere among the comments which Yazmeen claims prove my 'hypocrisy' are any statements endorsing the media's right to call somebody a child molester when they have been acquitted by a jury. You will see no comments trumpeting the work of those who have profited by accusing Jackson of molesting children and no argument in favour of the media's trial coverage.

In fact, if you look closely enough you will actually find comments in which I berate former Jackson associates for making lurid claims about his personal life in exchange for column inches; comments in which I say he should avoid such duplicitous associates in the future.

So far from evidencing 'hypocrisy', the comments Yazmeen has unearthed actually serve only to prove my consistency.

Yazmeen has been attacking me publicly and emailing me privately for several weeks now. While I was on vacation she offered to stop harrassing me if I told her everything I knew about the O2 announcement and the This Is It concerts. What I knew was limited and uninteresting and I gladly told her, thinking it would finally give me some peace. I even offered her detailed advice about how to investigate Jackson's concert rehearsals for herself and wished her good luck in her research.

However, Yazmeen is convinced that I am lying to her and keeps accusing me of holding back information, particularly regarding Sony's involvement in the O2 gigs. No matter how often I tell her that I don't know anymore than I've already told her, she keeps emailing me back threatening that if I don't tell her what I know, she will keep slandering me on her blog.

While I know little at all about Sony's involvement in the O2 gigs, it is clear to see why they would be chipping in. The publicity surrounding the concerts was sure to result in an enormous boost in record sales, from which Sony would obviously profit hugely.

Their redesigned Michael Jackson website was launched to coincide with the concert announcement, all modelled on the Off The Wall album art, presumably in anticipation of a 30th anniversary re-release of the album. The hype surrounding the concerts would have done wonders for the album's sales.

Additionally, Sony was responsible for the majority of Jackson's solo back catalogue meaning that any CDs or DVDs sold at the O2 during Jackson's residency would be earning them money. When you take all of this into account, the question is clearly not why Sony would be involved in This Is It, but why they wouldn't. Apparently, though, this common sense explanation isn't sinister enough for Yazmeen, so she keeps pressuring me for a less flattering one. When I can't produce one, she takes to her blog and slags me off again.

Furthermore, given that she keeps writing ridiculous and inaccurate articles about me, I occasionally feel the need to publicly defend myself as I am doing here. When I do, she acts completely outraged - as though it's perfectly acceptable for her to keep libelling me but not pefectly acceptable for me to defend myself - and sends more emails threatening even more slander.

This culminated in her latest assault on my character, in which she nastily outed me as a gay man, as though that in itself is a legitimate reason for her followers to turn on me. This was something she'd threatened to do last month while pressing me for info on Sony.

In an email on July 29th she wrote, "I screencapped your posts both on MJ and James Brown forums & a queer site.... I am NOT trying to expose you but your denials and attempts to discredit ME is leaving me no choice.... I wanna know why Sony was involved in AEG concert. I wanna know more about MJ wanting to back out. I want INFORMATION. Keep your source, give me information."

I gave her all the information I had. She outed me anyway.

Yazmeen's latest article about me proves that those currently attacking me have absolutely no idea where to draw the line between what is and is not acceptable. They see themselves as crusaders fighting desperately to bring Jackson's 'murderers' to justice and, as far as they're concerned, nothing is sacred. They don't care who they hurt, who they slander, who they intimidate or who they baselessly accuse of murder.

A person's private life and their professional life are separate entities and it is unacceptable to raise the former in an argument about the latter. In my professional life, I am a journalist and I take that role seriously. I never publish an article for mass consumption unless it has been deeply researched and thoroughly fact-checked.

But I do not apply the same rigorous fact-checking procedures to comments written on my personal social networking accounts - and nor should I. It is absurd to claim that I am compromised in my professional life by comments made on message boards or networking sites on a non-professional basis.

But what's more absurd is Yazmeen's decision to unnecessarily reveal my sexuality to her readers. My sexual orientation is completely and utterly irrelevant to my profession, so to publicly declare it in a below-the-belt attempt to discredit my work was beyond petty. It i
was downright spiteful.

The fact that Yazmeen genuinely thought her followers would see my sexuality as a character flaw of some kind - proof of my unreliability - serves only to diminish whatever faint glimmer of credibility she and her supporters may once have laid claim to. Those who take their orders from a homophobic internet bully with a propensity for racist diatribes are not worth worrying about. I shan't mourn their departure from the Charles Thomson fan club. Yazmeen is welcome to them.

What it boils down to is this: As far as these people are concerned, I am not a big enough fan - and for that, I must be punished. The smear campaign against me began several weeks ago when I made some comments on my personal twitter page about Michael Jackson's struggles with drug and alcohol dependencies at various stages in his career.

I was bombarded with angry messages from fans insisting that Jackson had never been addicted to any substance in his life and scolding me because commenting on his alleged addictions was 'not helping Michael' and 'could prejudice Dr Murray's trial'.

Since when is it my job to ensure that everything written on my personal twitter page is 'helpful' to Michael Jackson? I'm not Jackson's spokesperson, I'm a journalist - and I wasn't even writing in a professional capacity when I made the comments. Furthermore, the idea that me writing to a paltry 250 followers on twitter is going to shift the foundations of Dr Murray's criminal trial is laughable.

Since Jackson's death his own relatives, including sister Janet, have given candid interviews in which they state that they knew Jackson had drug problems and tried repeatedly to stage interventions. That these bloggers are so self-righteous as to assume that they know more about Jackson's private life than his own family members highlights the shocking extent of their delusion.

When you cite these interviews, the bloggers speculate that the star's siblings have somehow been drawn into an evil conspiracy to wrongly paint their brother as an addict and destroy his reputation, or simply dismiss the family members by claiming Jackson wasn't close to them.

Bottom line: I don't purport to know more about Jackson's private life than his own family members, and for that reason I have become the victim of a prolonged campaign of abuse.

The 'discovery' of my controversial message board posts has riled these fans further. Many of Jackson's fans live in a bubble of denial and mandatory self-delusion. Lots of fansites censor all their news content on the basis that anything positive is true and anything negative is 'medialoid garbage'. Anything they don't want to hear is branded a lie.

A lot of Jackson's fans cannot handle any negativity whatsoever. Some fansites will even ban you for stating proven facts, such as discussing the star's stint in rehab in 1993, debating the morality of miming concerts for paying audiences, talking about his wigs or complaining that he let kids into his bedroom after the Jordy Chandler debacle.

These fans don't seem to realise that in refusing to ascribe Jackson any blame for any of the bad things that happened to him, they effectively paint him as an invalid, incapable of making any decisions for himself - everything is always somebody else's fault. Unless it's positive, at which point Jackson transforms into a shrewd businessman and all round genius. They want to have their cake and eat it and anybody who challenges their sanitised and unrealistic image of the star immediately becomes the subject of threats, abuse and character assassination.

While the majority of emails, tweets and other communication I receive from Michael Jackson's fans are friendly, supportive and complimentary, there are those - led by Yazmeen and other fanatical bloggers - who take the view that unless a person writes 100% positively about Michael Jackson at all times, they are a hater, a hypocrite or even a hired agent in Sony Music's apparent conspiracy to murder the popstar. For these people, it is all or nothing. You either believe he was 100% right all of the time, or you're an asshole.

Why must one be a raving fan in order to believe in Jackson's innocence? What does my opinion on Jackson's music have to do with my opinion on his trial? I don't have to agree with Jackson's decisions in order to recognise the ludicrousness of the case against him in 2005. I don't even have to like him. What I think of Jackson, his music, his performances or his decisions is totally irrelevant.

To call my negative comments evidence of 'hypocrisy' is patently ridiculous because I have remained entirely consistent in my attitude. I've never defended incidents like the baby dangling episode and I never will. It is entirely indefensible. So is Jackson's decision to let children into his bedroom after 1993 and, perhaps more importantly, his decision to broadcast it to the world using Martin Bashir as a mouthpiece. The list goes on and on.

Yazmeen's logic is flawed on every level. Her contention is that by writing about Jackson's innocence and at the same time not agreeing with a lot of his career decisions I am somehow contradicting myself, but there is no correlation between the two. It is perfectly legitimate to hold one opinion about one issue and a different one about another.

Yazmeen's argument is, effectively, that anybody who says they like apples but hate pears is a hypocrite.

Where is the hypocrisy? I was writing articles about Jackson's innocence all the way back in 2008 and I'm still doing it now. Whether or not I agree with Jackson's miming, find his extensive surgery aesthetically pleasing or enjoy his post-Thriller musical output has nothing to do with my thoughts on his trial, which have provably not changed.

I am growing tired of answering these delusional claims on a point by point basis. I think this will be my final blog on the subject. My detractors have already been roundly discredited, not least by their own cockamamie conspiracy theories about body doubles and Sony assassins, and anybody who continues to hang on their every word is not going to be swayed by logic or reason.

Those who choose to lend their support to paranoid fantasists with provable racist and homophobic attitudes are undesirables. I won't lose any sleep over their decision to stop supporting my work.

My final comment on the situation: That these fans are branding me a hypocrite is made all the more hilarious by their own blatant hypocrisy.

When Jackson was on trial his hardcore fans preached 'Innocent until proven guilty' until they were blue in the face. Now his doctor is on trial and they show up at all his court hearings to scream 'murderer' in his face. It's one rule for Michael Jackson and another rule for everybody else. Constitutional rights must be upheld when their idol is on trial, but are meaningless when somebody they don't like is put in the same situation. And the hypocrisy doesn't end there.

Jackson's hardcore fans complain ceaselessly about his unfair media treatment but at the same time have absolutely no hesitation about publishing inaccurate, libelous information all over the internet about anybody they take a dislike to, be it branding somebody a liar or a hater or outright accusing them of murder.

Jackson preached love, acceptance, understanding and charity - an ethos that his hardcore fans claim they wish to perpetuate - but they see nothing wrong with directing horrifying abuse at anybody who dares to disagree with them on any issue.

In one breath they preach 'L-O-V-E' and in the next they unleash racist tirades and death threats. Those who are now gunning for me were, a few weeks ago, spamming Jackson's shattered brother Randy - who recently suffered a mild heart attack - with shameful diatribes accusing him of looting his brother's bank accounts in order to fund an addiction to hard drugs. A message of support sent to me from a Jackson family member said they've even gone after Jackson's grieving, 80-year-old mother.

Where my attitudes towards Jackson are concerned, there is no hypocrisy to speak of. Where those attacking me in his name are concerned, there is plenty.

[DeborahFfrench]

For years, the fans have wanted and hoped the media or someone in the media would tell the truth about Michael's life.

What they got was someone who themselves has a complicated 'relationship' with Michael. Someone who knows how the media works and how it can, as an entity, manipulate even the most innocuos of contexts. The frustration heard in Thomson-as-TwistedVision's comments, is the sound of someone who could see how the media would spin the circumstances Michael found or placed himself in.

It was also the voice of a 19 year old.

How sad that someone who's done such incredible work for Michael in the public arena in the years since then, is now being essentially threatened by someone who is clearly unbalanced. For Thomson to be blackmailed with disclosure of his sexuality (as if there's something wrong with being gay) by Yazmeen (MUZIKfactory2) is nothing short of a disgrace and a total affront to Michael's message.

This is a link to someone who has tracked the kind of output Yazmeen leaves on the web.

http://mjssfljunky.tumblr.com/post/926104815/the-muzikfactory-saga

The truth is, Charles Thomson's articles about Michael, written years later as a qualified journalist, have been dedicated to trying to highlight the tremendous injustice Michael suffered. But Thomson's defence of MJ didn't just begin at the Huffington Post, despite the accusations of Yazmeen and Cox - and those who blindly repeat them.

Badly researched claims that Charles Thomson only started writing positively about Michael Jackson after his death are in fact, provably wrong. In 2008 Thomson wrote an article about Aphrodite Jones's book, which at the time Jones said was the best article ever written about her work. That article is here:

http://www.charles-thomson.net/aphrodite.html

As far back as 2007, Thomson working as a reporter at MJStar, led a campaign against Jacques Peretti's awful documentary 'What Really Happened'. Nearly 50 minutes long, Thomson, when researching the piece, counted approximately 43 inaccuracies - i.e just under one a minute.

As well as encouraging fans to complain to OFCOM and the PCC, respectively UK television and press complaints bodies, Thomson personally organized MJStar's chasing of OFCOM, ITN and Channel 4 for answers over the countless inaccuracies the documentary included. At this link you can see him updating fans on his progress step-by-step as he does battle with Channel 4's press officer:

http://www.mjstar.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1392&sid=8303f395717457243a6814e48b576a7e&start=30

I suggest readers read back from here and actually read the article Thomson wrote about Jacques Peretti's so-called documentary, which BTW aired in the UK in 2007.

Doesn't quite tally with the heavily skewed picture that muzikfactory2 paints with her highly selective quotes does it?

In all the posts I found, TwistedVision seems to just want MJ to straighten himself out and take control of his life.


Excerpt from MJSTAR.COM

by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm

TwistedVision wrote:

"Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber. "


Do have any of us have any idea how many people Thomson may have already reached with his Huffington Post articles? Neither do I. But if he changed even one mind, then that is one less who believes the horrendous lies about Michael.

Thomson stated strong opinions on a forum three years ago that weren’t complimentary about some of Michael’s life-choices, image or tours.


On the big issue, the only issue that counts, Thomson has consistently supported the reality of Michael’s innocence, and profound collusion of the media that ignored this.

The rush to now throw away everything Thomson has been trying to accomplish for MJ is borne out of a lie. Charles Thomson, has in fact been supportive of Michael in a real and practical way for many years, and casual comments that were never intended for public consumption should not be confused with that.

Does it benefit Michael to not support Charles Thomson's work? Then, perhaps look again at why you are being asked to do so.

And who's doing the asking.

[PCR]

Ok, so I see that:

1) People claimed Charles was not TwistedVision and yes, he was; he has no problems to confirm that (just recently).

2) CT claims he is being attacked by an obsessed woman who keeps track of the "negative" comments he made some years ago.

3) Some people who thought CT wasn't TwistedVision now keep track of the comments/posts made by those who keep track of CT's comments (thought they say keeping track of these things is not that "normal" :scratch:...)

4) CT remains loyal to his pre-25th June personal opinions on MJ behaviour, opinions he made under the name "TwistedVision"

5) Everyone agrees CT articles are good to show how wrong media has been with MJ.

That's it.
Solved.
Now we all have our opinions.

End of the drama?
:unsure:

(I just wonder what they will do in some years with the comments/posts/tweets they are keeping
of each other now :mello:)

[144,000]

For years, the fans have wanted and hoped the media or someone in the media would tell the truth about Michael's life.

What they got was someone who themselves has a complicated 'relationship' with Michael. Someone who knows how the media works and how it can, as an entity, manipulate even the most innocuos of contexts. The frustration heard in Thomson-as-TwistedVision's comments, is the sound of someone who could see how the media would spin the circumstances Michael found or placed himself in.

It was also the voice of a 19 year old.

How sad that someone who's done such incredible work for Michael in the public arena in the years since then, is now being essentially threatened by someone who is clearly unbalanced. For Thomson to be blackmailed with disclosure of his sexuality (as if there's something wrong with being gay) by Yazmeen (MUZIKfactory2) is nothing short of a disgrace and a total affront to Michael's message.

This is a link to someone who has tracked the kind of output Yazmeen leaves on the web.

http://mjssfljunky.tumblr.com/post/926104815/the-muzikfactory-saga

The truth is, Charles Thomson's articles about Michael, written years later as a qualified journalist, have been dedicated to trying to highlight the tremendous injustice Michael suffered. But Thomson's defence of MJ didn't just begin at the Huffington Post, despite the accusations of Yazmeen and Cox - and those who blindly repeat them.

Badly researched claims that Charles Thomson only started writing positively about Michael Jackson after his death are in fact, provably wrong. In 2008 Thomson wrote an article about Aphrodite Jones's book, which at the time Jones said was the best article ever written about her work. That article is here:

http://www.charles-thomson.net/aphrodite.html

As far back as 2007, Thomson working as a reporter at MJStar, led a campaign against Jacques Peretti's awful documentary 'What Really Happened'. Nearly 50 minutes long, Thomson, when researching the piece, counted approximately 43 inaccuracies - i.e just under one a minute.

As well as encouraging fans to complain to OFCOM and the PCC, respectively UK television and press complaints bodies, Thomson personally organized MJStar's chasing of OFCOM, ITN and Channel 4 for answers over the countless inaccuracies the documentary included. At this link you can see him updating fans on his progress step-by-step as he does battle with Channel 4's press officer:

http://www.mjstar.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1392&sid=8303f395717457243a6814e48b576a7e&start=30

I suggest readers read back from here and actually read the article Thomson wrote about Jacques Peretti's so-called documentary, which BTW aired in the UK in 2007.

Doesn't quite tally with the heavily skewed picture that muzikfactory2 paints with her highly selective quotes does it?

In all the posts I found, TwistedVision seems to just want MJ to straighten himself out and take control of his life.


Excerpt from MJSTAR.COM

by ruue » Sat Sep 29, 2007 4:46 pm

TwistedVision wrote:

"Interesting.. Bruce Swedien said in recent years that MJ owed him money and that he thought MJ could be a paedophile.

Quite a U-turn. Perhaps MJ should think twice before trusting this backstabber. "


Do have any of us have any idea how many people Thomson may have already reached with his Huffington Post articles? Neither do I. But if he changed even one mind, then that is one less who believes the horrendous lies about Michael.

Thomson stated strong opinions on a forum three years ago that weren’t complimentary about some of Michael’s life-choices, image or tours.

So what?

On the big issue, the only issue that counts, Thomson has consistently supported the reality of Michael’s innocence, and profound collusion of the media that ignored this.

The rush to now throw away everything Thomson has been trying to accomplish for MJ is borne out of a lie. Charles Thomson, has in fact been supportive of Michael in a real and practical way for many years, and casual comments that were never intended for public consumption should not be confused with that.

Does it benefit Michael to not support Charles Thomson's work? Then, perhaps look again at why you are being asked to do so.

And who's doing the asking.

there is no SO WHAT. when you consider the viciousness of them, and the fact that they were piled on top of other viciousness on top of other viciousness on top of other viciousness. do NOT minimize any part of what Michael went through. because it all accumulated to kill him. there is no SO WHAT. take yourself back there to that time. and to the intensity of it all. to how deep it was, and the fact that it came from all corners of the globe and it's media. and it was aimed at one small human being. unless you were that human being...there is no SO WHAT. i lived through time, and i wasn't even the target, and it nearly killed me. that's how much i hurt for Michael through that time. lest you forget. were you there? are you that desensitized, that you can say...SO WHAT??

you're not helping your case, when you bring up a 'so what'.

i wish that any of us, who find it easy to say 'so what', for anything that was aimed at Michael, considering the earthload that was aimed at him, could have walked two moons in his moccasins.

he's dead now,


so the very least you can do, is deal with the uphill battle. it's awhole lot less than Michael had to deal with. and you and he and we are still alive. we didn't get what Michael got.

remember, they were all hidden behind whatever, and slinging all the fiery arrows. MJ was the quiet one, out in the open, receiving all the slings and arrows. now everybody is asking for sympathy, after they threw all the bombs MJ's way, from behind their hiding places, in large numbers of people and bombs. they all exploded on MJ. and now, they receive a short stint of flack from fans, and they want immediate relief. MJ's dead. they received nowhere near what MJ received. by himself. and already you are desensitized enough to lob a 'so what'? after being on the outside looking in? and you don't understand why this is a hard pill to swallow?

[DeborahFfrench]

Hi 144,000


I understand that you feel strongly. My words " So what? " may have come across a tad insensitively and that is absolutely not my intention, so please accept my retraction of that.

From my perspective, Thomson's comments on MJSTAR were not nearly as vicious as those he has recieved from Mf2etc, who seems extremely confused about Thomson's non-connection to Sony and the ethics of how to behave on the web. I also find it odd that there seems to be little sense of outrage for the racist, homophobic tactics of Yazmeen towards him.

If you look back through the rest of MJSTAR's pages from the link in my last post, you can see that Thomson actually initiated the mass protest against Peretti's disgraceful program on MJ, and has been writing in defence of Michael well before 2009.

The idea that we should turn our backs on someone who has been an incredible advocate for Michael, on the basis of highly selective comments written years ago when he was barely out of his teens, on the urging of highly volatile personalities is astonishing to me.

Thomson is allowed to have opinions, I am sure now that he is years older, he may even have phrased some of those opinions differently. However, he hasn't been given that chance.

How can private opinions on a fan site be given the same weight as the public, factual work he has put out for public consumption? And what kind of supporters of Michael's true legacy are we if we cannot take the time to look at the good work Thomson also did on MJSTAR, and acknowledge the great work he has done since?

Why didn't MJ2 acknowledge that part of Charles's time at MJSTAR? I wonder?

I understand that you feel emotional about this. This episode has been a shock for many. But it is also perhaps vital that we think about more than just our individual feelings. That means recognizing that on the most damaging issue that concerns Michael's legacy - i.e the continuing belief by large amounts of people that Michael harmed children - Charles Thomson has consistently and powerfully championed Michael's innocence.

That is the big picture - and that is what is most important.

I have no doubt Thomson's work on the repellent treatment Michael received at the hands of the US justice system and the media will continue. I just hope people will allow him to do that without attacking him over remarks he made years ago, before he qualified as a professional journalist and chose to use that platform to defend Michael Jackson's name and character in the public arena.

[DeborahFfrench]

I have removed the " So what " part of my last bigger message as I think, on reflection, it could be interpreted as insensitive and I wouldn't want that to get in the way of what I'm trying to say.

[144,000]

well...you see..there are no 'private' comments on the internet. and from your perspective Thomson's comments 'aren't as vicious'. but his comments weren't aimed at you. they were aimed at Michael. and there are other versions of 'so what'. like..when you sort of excuse what he said, by saying 'he was in his teens'..or..cliche' phrases like..'it happened a long time ago. you see..in MJ's case..it wasn't long ago.

and a teenager is not a baby. the term 'young and stupid'. doesn't fly. nobody really thinks they are stupid, at that very moment they make those comments. you and Thomson have to face the music. his comments were deadly. you have to see them for what they were. every comment lobbed at Michael related to his private life, and children. all of them did. so...they related to the child molestation thing. it's hard to respect someone who doesn't face the music..and see the comments for what they truly were. and i'm not thinking about my personal feelings. hey...the comments weren't aimed at me. but MJ being the quiet one really desensitized a LOT of people. he may have been a quiet flower...but he was still a tender gentle flower. and it shouldn't take for him to have been loud and bombastic for people to see how deadly their verbiage was. so..you're just going to have to keep on fighting, because if he was allowed his opinions...so was everybody else. if he cares about MJ's legacy..which, in reality, is secure, (because there is nothing like earning a good name to seal your own legacy..and MJ did that. anybody with a brain can see that.) then he will fight through this..understand the animosity...understand you reap what you sow...understand that you have to learn your lesson...and count your lucky stars that at least..you are still alive. if he really cares about the already sterling invincible legacy of Michael(the meek inherit the earth) then...let him show his mettle..and prove himself. i would have to. anyone would have to. MJ did.(why do you think so many people are suddenly on a guilt trip, selling MJ lunchboxes to schoolkids?..besides the money angle) if this man is sincere about MJ's legacy..then nothing will stop his fight...and he will understand the animosity.

Aphrodite Jones earned her mettle...and MJ fans have learned to respect her. so, Thomson has to understand the fairness of the playing field. earn it..deal with it...and see what happens. that's really all i can say. no promises. because MJ is dead.

i'm not a fan of people attacking people because of their race and preferences. that's a separate issue.

as far as the general tone of mistrust...that is something Thomson has to fight through.

[Buttercup]

^ Gotta applaud everything 144,000 wrote in the post above me. Sums up my feelings on the matter.

[144,000]

Michael was verbally murdered. people think that words are to be minimized, compared to guns and swords and such.

no dice. nothing can be further from the truth. everybody knows the power of words. everybody knows they give both life and death. anybody ever bullied knows the power of words.

Michael wasn't trusted for his work habits. he was harrassed to death because people didn't agree with his business choices or his decison to raise his children and rest. they hassled him to death. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. than can NOT be forgotten. and it was NOT long ago at all..and it happened over a steady and protracted LONG ASS period of time. and each person that participated in it, helps to populate much of the earth. and the media part of it, magnifies it. and internet IS part of the media. and it was ALL aimed at one little person.

see it for what it is.

see it for what it is.

it all relates to MJ's innocent choices in life concerning children. his business affairs were centered around his care for children. everything about him was. so everything is intertwined.

see it for what it is.

it has to be dealt with.

[PCR]

Aphrodite Jones earned her mettle...and MJ fans have learned to respect her. so, Thomson has to understand the fairness of the playing field. earn it..deal with it...and see what happens. that's really all i can say. no promises. because MJ is dead.

This.
I totally agree.
All my respect, 144,000.

[JMie]

there is no SO WHAT. when you consider the viciousness of them, and the fact that they were piled on top of other viciousness on top of other viciousness on top of other viciousness. do NOT minimize any part of what Michael went through. because it all accumulated to kill him. there is no SO WHAT. take yourself back there to that time. and to the intensity of it all. to how deep it was, and the fact that it came from all corners of the globe and it's media. and it was aimed at one small human being. unless you were that human being...there is no SO WHAT. i lived through time, and i wasn't even the target, and it nearly killed me. that's how much i hurt for Michael through that time. lest you forget. were you there? are you that desensitized, that you can say...SO WHAT??

you're not helping your case, when you bring up a 'so what'.

i wish that any of us, who find it easy to say 'so what', for anything that was aimed at Michael, considering the earthload that was aimed at him, could have walked two moons in his moccasins.

he's dead now,


so the very least you can do, is deal with the uphill battle. it's awhole lot less than Michael had to deal with. and you and he and we are still alive. we didn't get what Michael got.

remember, they were all hidden behind whatever, and slinging all the fiery arrows. MJ was the quiet one, out in the open, receiving all the slings and arrows. now everybody is asking for sympathy, after they threw all the bombs MJ's way, from behind their hiding places, in large numbers of people and bombs. they all exploded on MJ. and now, they receive a short stint of flack from fans, and they want immediate relief. MJ's dead. they received nowhere near what MJ received. by himself. and already you are desensitized enough to lob a 'so what'? after being on the outside looking in? and you don't understand why this is a hard pill to swallow?

i love you

[DeborahFfrench]

Hi,


I feel I need at this point to be totally honest and open my heart. I have been trying for a few days now to talk to people, understand how they feel, but in my heart of hearts I realize I have been approaching it as a battle - and that is not the right way.

People are entitled to their own opinions, their own judgements and their own beliefs.

In my heart, I want vindication for Michael. I want the media to understand, acknowledge and declare what they did to this man, this brother, this father, and this incredible human being. They won't do it willingly and they have successfully marginalized those who speak up for Michael - countless testimony from children who Michael helped, the voices of Liz Taylor, Aphrodite Jones, Barry Gibb and Robin, Travis Payne, Dave Dave, Thomas Mesereau, Michael's family - and even his own children, and many more.

Those voices have been ignored.

Sure, the media will talk about how great Michael's music is, how much debt he does or doesn't have, his possesions and all the rest of it - but always in the text, underneath and sometimes blatantly, the accusations, the smirks, and the non-apology is there.

The injustice, all of you feel, the fan community feels, I feel, and undoubtedly Michael's family and true friends feel is inescapable, overwhelming, and it hurts.

Daily.

The reason I have been asking for some amount of non-judgement for Charles Thomson, is because in a way, counting him out also for me feels like an injustice. Yes, nowhere near the scale of someone being torn apart, held down and brutalized for most of his adult life - as Michael was, but an injustice all the same.

The comments Charles made on MJS don't represent all of him. What I mean is, they are not the whole picture. In 2007, after the Jacques Peretti programme aired, a programme which consisted of pretty much 99% lies and hearsay, Charles wrote an article about it and organized the members of MJS to protest en masse to OFCOM and the PPC. It did no good of course, but the protest was made.

I read the many comments on that site Charles wrote where he encouraged, caojoled and asked for support from the forum members to keep up the protest, and I heard in those comments fire and outrage about a blatant case of media manipulation and distortion. It brought home to me a realization.

Charles may have been too harsh about his views on Michael's look or his vocals on History and repayment of debts etc - but when it came down to the outright lies the media continue to promote about something as serious and as reuganant as child abuse - he stood up and said this is wrong.

Since he qualified as journalist, as well as having to do the normal work of a jobbing journalist, Charles has been attempting to get positive, truthful stories about Michael into the press. Tellingly, the break was Huffington Post. An American online newspaper, no UK media outlet is as yet interested in hearing or writing the truth about Michael.

The truth remains, Charles used that platform, did serious research and took the time to write the truth. He did it because it was important to him, and because he knows and believes it's important for Michael and his children.

One day when someone sits Michael's children down and has to tell them about their father's life, I don't believe they will care of someone doesn't think their father sang live on HIStory, or whether someone liked or disliked their father's hairstyle - but they will care, and be profoundly hurt whether or not people think their father harmed children.

This lie, this epic, shattering lie is too big, too horrific, and so completely not who Michael was, that it must be exposed. The media will not listen to the people who knew Michael, and as long as neither accuser comes forward large sections of the public will continue to believe the implied and expressed doubts and innuendo the media continues to promote.

Aphrodite is doing great work, the fans are doing great work, but we need more than one journalist, more than two journalists - we need the tide to dramatically change so that more people in the media who know something beyond vicious was done to Michael Jackson, will find the courage to stand up and say it - or at least listen to those journalists that are.

The support by all of us for journalists who are already saying it, I believe, is crucial.


144,000 you said:


" Aphrodite Jones earned her mettle...and MJ fans have learned to respect her. so, Thomson has to understand the fairness of the playing field. earn it..deal with it...and see what happens. that's really all i can say. no promises. because MJ is dead.

i'm not a fan of people attacking people because of their race and preferences. that's a separate issue.

as far as the general tone of mistrust...that is something Thomson has to fight through. "


You spoke honestly about what you feel and I feel those words inside me as words of pain and grief -and an abiding love for Michael. I will end by saying just this:

I believe Charles will earn back the trust that some feel they cannot feel for him right now, and I hope he continues to fight to get the truth about Michael's innocence heard. I hope that even if some of you have stopped listening to Charles now, that the millions out there who still believe a lie about an incredible man called Michael Jackson - will one day hear, and believe what Charles Thomson has to say.

In fact, this isn't just a hope.

It's a prayer.

[144,000]

you know you speak as if the media has gotten some type of victory. not really. i believe that nobody on this board, no matter what their beliefs, is without having one thing in common...everbody here now sees the media for what it is, and doesn't take it seriously, and doesn't respect it at all. so..if it thought it had influence in this world...there is a planet full of MJ fans who see the media as a buffoon that doesn't exist...that is not worthy of respect. it's just something that is there...thanks to its treatment of Michael. if i were a member of the mainstream media now....i'd feel kind of hopeless, because by association, i cannot be trusted. so..in death, Michael has won a victory against them. he has caused a whole legion of fans to really be the enemy of the media. and that's really something the media can't afford. but..that's too bad.

Michael has taught his fans to have minds of their own, when it comes to the media. that is a mighty victory. the fans make up a big population of the world. and i feel sorry for the rest of the world, whose minds are being operated for them by the media.

so, while there was a time when the media held the capsule of what is legitimate world history...there is a place where the capsule of history is legitimate, now, that is more powerful than the media. that is the history of Michael Jackson. it's encapsuled in the hearts of his fans.

and let's not underestimate his children. we really don't know what would hurt them or not hurt them, concerning what is said of their father. and i have to believe, they already know about him. they don't need our help. i believe they already know how great he is. Paris said so. and in so many words, so did Prince. they said words for all of us to hear. and the kids should take comfort in knowing that the real history of Michael Jackson is safe in the hearts of his many many many fans. the media doesn't count for anything, here.

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

Who knows what his children already know. For all we know, they could already be very aware of the horrible time their dad went through. Maybe Michael explained it himself to them, personally i don't think thats the case, but how can we know for sure?


you know you speak as if the media has gotten some type of victory. not really. i believe that nobody on this board, no matter what their beliefs, is without having one thing in common...everbody here now sees the media for what it is, and doesn't take it seriously, and doesn't respect it at all. so..if it thought it had influence in this world...there is a planet full of MJ fans who see the media as a buffoon that doesn't exist...that is not worthy of respect. it's just something that is there...thanks to its treatment of Michael. if i were a member of the mainstream media now....i'd feel kind of hopeless, because by association, i cannot be trusted. so..in death, Michael has won a victory against them. he has caused a whole legion of fans to really be the enemy of the media. and that's really something the media can't afford. but..that's too bad.

Michael has taught his fans to have minds of their own, when it comes to the media. that is a mighty victory. the fans make up a big population of the world. and i feel sorry for the rest of the world, whose minds are being operated for them by the media.

so, while there was a time when the media held the capsule of what is legitimate world history...there is a place where the capsule of history is legitimate, now, that is more powerful than the media. that is the history of Michael Jackson. it's encapsuled in the hearts of his fans.

and let's not underestimate his children. we really don't know what would hurt them or not hurt them, concerning what is said of their father. and i have to believe, they already know about him. they don't need our help. i believe they already know how great he is. Paris said so. and in so many words, so did Prince. they said words for all of us to hear. and the kids should take comfort in knowing that the real history of Michael Jackson is safe in the hearts of his many many many fans. the media doesn't count for anything, here.



Exactly, not so long ago i read this...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-thomson/one-of-the-most-shameful_b_610258.html

And that's just simply disgusting, the media indeed doesn't count for shit in this...not one bit. From now on i will second guess EVERY damn thing in the media about anything and never jump to conclusions. I'll do my own research on anything when possible....**** the media. That article is the perfect proof of that...disgusting isn't even the correct word. sigh.....

[cinzia]

I keep reading here and there, other forums how CT is doing this for Michael or words to that effect. Even here: "He did it because it was important to him, and because he knows and believes it's important for Michael and his children."

And yet when I read what he says, he makes it plain this is not about Michael, per se, but about highlighting media bias.

Which indicates to me, that much as we would wish him to be a supporter of Michael's, any support he gives to Michael is only as it relates to CT's battle against media bias.

This is not to minimize what he has done. Not at all. HufPo has a big readership and hopefully his articles have changed some opinions.

I just don't trust him. He writes well and long may that continue but there is something about him that makes me want to ask, what's in it for him? I felt this way even before all this came up.

And I would like to ask anyone, how do we really know that what is posted in that mjj whatever junky website truly is from MF2. There is a lot of awful stuff there but how do we know she wrote it? Or tweeted it or whatever...? Just asking.

[144,000]

suffice it to say, that huffington post article is strong..and should remain. it's appreciated. but please..don't anyone try to guilt trip me for how i feel. just remember all that has happened to Michael. and don't forget anything.

[samhabib]

This has become so ridiculous that it's almost laughable!

You DON'T have to be a Michael Jackson fan to write intelligent, cerebral, thought-provoking and, most importantly, accurate articles about him. For the record, he IS a fan. Just not a mindless, fawning sycophant like the 'fans' who are offended by his personal comments on fanboards.

The notion that Charles isn't 'a big enough fan' hence he has no right to write articles about MJ is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.

Bonnie Cox is a racist. A proven racist. So before anyone wants to take her opinion seriously they have to first look past that. Muzikfactory is a proven racist who threatened Charles Thomson with publicly 'outing' his sexuality if she didn't get the responses she wanted. Effectively making a judgement on his sexuality with the intention of embarrassing him in front of her homophobic followers.

Who are the 'real' Michael Jackson fans?

[Staffordshire Bullterrier]

suffice it to say, that huffington post article is strong..and should remain. it's appreciated. but please..don't anyone try to guilt trip me for how i feel. just remember all that has happened to Michael. and don't forget anything.


Oh but that will never happen, personally i see what happened to Michael, all the injustice. One of the biggest injustices in years, one person..and even before any trial, all media had already convicted him. It's no wonder why alot of people out there still doubt MJ's innocence, it just sucks that whenever i'm at a party or just around people that i am afraid to bring up MJ, simply of the 'risk' that some ****ing idiot decides to talk shit and pretty soon more people will follow suit with 'where smoke is , is fire...welllll i don't know about his innocence man' and more of that gibberish. I am afraid this will always remain the same, the man will never be 100% aquitted for still alot of (stupid-ass) people in the world.

Right now i don't have a girlfriend, but plenty of times i think about when i get a girlfriend again...how i hope to god that she at least apreciates Michael or just believes in his innocence, if she doesn't...and still doesn't after i show her all there is to know. That would seriously suck. Cause Michael has of course been a part of my life since my 5th. The media in general is to blame of everything IMO. Along with those horribly evil families of course.

[ginvid]

This has become so ridiculous that it's almost laughable!

You DON'T have to be a Michael Jackson fan to write intelligent, cerebral, thought-provoking and, most importantly, accurate articles about him. For the record, he IS a fan. Just not a mindless, fawning sycophant like the 'fans' who are offended by his personal comments on fanboards.

The notion that Charles isn't 'a big enough fan' hence he has no right to write articles about MJ is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.

Bonnie Cox is a racist. A proven racist. So before anyone wants to take her opinion seriously they have to first look past that. Muzikfactory is a proven racist who threatened Charles Thomson with publicly 'outing' his sexuality if she didn't get the responses she wanted. Effectively making a judgement on his sexuality with the intention of embarrassing him in front of her homophobic followers.

Who are the 'real' Michael Jackson fans?

It's possibly stupid because it is something you have made up yourself. No one here in this thread including those who are offended by what he has said has even alluded to this here. Your blanket statements about your fellow fans on this board, is not only sickening but mean spirited and unnecessary. It is very easy to point out the valid arguments you made without resorting to offense and name calling.

And for the record being upset at what someone has said about MJ on fan boards is valid if that is how a person feels. It is simplistic to think that anyone who does is simply being sycophantic and is dumbed down with regards to MJ.

Why don't you try being a little more sympathetic to your fellow fans. it is a mantra everyone can try to follow.

Thank you.

[144,000]

This has become so ridiculous that it's almost laughable!

You DON'T have to be a Michael Jackson fan to write intelligent, cerebral, thought-provoking and, most importantly, accurate articles about him. For the record, he IS a fan. Just not a mindless, fawning sycophant like the 'fans' who are offended by his personal comments on fanboards.

The notion that Charles isn't 'a big enough fan' hence he has no right to write articles about MJ is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.

Bonnie Cox is a racist. A proven racist. So before anyone wants to take her opinion seriously they have to first look past that. Muzikfactory is a proven racist who threatened Charles Thomson with publicly 'outing' his sexuality if she didn't get the responses she wanted. Effectively making a judgement on his sexuality with the intention of embarrassing him in front of her homophobic followers.

Who are the 'real' Michael Jackson fans?

you certainly aren't helping your case. nor does your attitude help Michael or his children. it's your attitude that his children could use less of. it's your attitude that is proof that MJ's music is the true loyal thing. powerful enough to attract even his enemies.

how could someone with such vitriolic stuff as you spew out, be taken seriously, even when he cries 'racist'? if indeed, who you say, was racist, nobody is going to investigate what you said, just because of what comes out of your mouth, between your claims. how can you ever be looked at as a victim, when you are such an attacker, yourself? you are proof of the phrase 'reap what you sow'. or..'you get out of it what you put in it'. and your words are a reminder of what Michael went through..the bully words that kill. you asked for it, when you decided to post as you did. and it's hard to see someone as objective, when they have their own subjective vitriol. and it's even harder when that person's defender is exactly the same. and someone isn't objective when they take one moment to mention the report of what happened in the courtroom, but, in practically the same breath, talk as if he is frightened by MJ not being ashamed to be around children. if you can plainly see someone is innocent, you don't act like it's a crime for him to be around children. you should stop worrying about public image, when it is YOU who makes up the public, and you can start with yourself...look at the man in the mirror and carry the right banner that represents the great public image that Michael deserved, and deserves forever.

[samhabib]

^ Sorry - the fans I was referring to were the Bonnie Cox's and the Muzikfactory2's of the world. People who tried to damn someone for his justified comments on an MJ fan forum.

Don't try to bully me by calling me a 'killer'. Get the record straight. Michael Jackson was a PUBLIC figure. He knew it. We knew it. Michael was not a child. He was an adult. Michael Jackson publicly voiced his own opinions about other public figures (eg. Paul
McCartney is 'cheap' according to his own autobiography). So if he was open to commenting on public figures, he would expect comment about himself - being a public figure.

Yes Michael was innocent. He still would have been better advised to not share his room with children post-1993. I don't even see how that's debatable. If he wanted a positive public image he should have worked at it. Not allow it to spiral out of control.

He would have been better served by his fans if they wanted better for him and his public image - not just accept and glorify anything and everything.

I've read some fans talking about the 'baby-dangling' incident as 'nothing serious'. That's what I'm talking about. There were some fans who defended that - 'nothing serious'. It was an absolute disaster for Michael Jackson's public image. An absolute disaster. But these fans just stood there unwavered saying 'not serious'?!?

That's what I'm talking about. Not people on this thread or necessarily on this board.

But, in future, don't try to refer to me as a 'killer'. If Paul McCartney died a year after Moonwalk came out, would Michael have been a 'killer' for calling him 'cheap'? Right.

[144,000]

^ Sorry - the fans I was referring to were the Bonnie Cox's and the Muzikfactory2's of the world. People who tried to damn someone for his justified comments on an MJ fan forum.

Don't try to bully me by calling me a 'killer'. Get the record straight. Michael Jackson was a PUBLIC figure. He knew it. We knew it. Michael was not a child. He was an adult. Michael Jackson publicly voiced his own opinions about other public figures (eg. Paul
McCartney is 'cheap' according to his own autobiography). So if he was open to commenting on public figures, he would expect comment about himself - being a public figure.

Yes Michael was innocent. He still would have been better advised to not share his room with children post-1993. I don't even see how that's debatable. If he wanted a positive public image he should have worked at it. Not allow it to spiral out of control.

He would have been better served by his fans if they wanted better for him and his public image - not just accept and glorify anything and everything.

I've read some fans talking about the 'baby-dangling' incident as 'nothing serious'. That's what I'm talking about. There were some fans who defended that - 'nothing serious'. It was an absolute disaster for Michael Jackson's public image. An absolute disaster. But these fans just stood there unwavered saying 'not serious'?!?

That's what I'm talking about. Not people on this thread or necessarily on this board.

But, in future, don't try to refer to me as a 'killer'. If Paul McCartney died a year after Moonwalk came out, would Michael have been a 'killer' for calling him 'cheap'? Right.

first of all..cheap? how does that compare to what Michael went through? do you even know what that word means, even if he said it? first of all, it's alleged that he said it, because it's in print. and secondly, a business word? a word that indicates he might have outbid Paul for a catalogue? what is that? how is that anything even worth talking about? how does that even compare to the subject at hand? it doesn't. there is nothing wrong with that term. nothing.

secondly, yes...your words are those of a killer. a killer with verbs. if you're going to set a standard, you damn well better accept what you put out. otherwise your argument about Michael is totally invalid.

and it's still invalid. because your statements about what MJ allegedly said about Paul are alleged and print. you didn't see Michael bandying about in interviews being looselipped about ANYBODY. he's the only one who set that standard. and MJ being a public figure is your lame reason for assanine bully attacks? that is truly a lame set of reasoning. so what if he's public..does that make him less human??

you love to distribute vitriol, so you deserve vitriol.

all MJ did was strive to make people happy and protect children. he did nothing to distort that, except in the minds of twisted people.

there are so many unbelievable horrors being done to children, by people who clearly made themselves public by being brought to trial for them. and nobody pays attention to that. children raped. a woman who drowned all five of her sons. children murdered.

but because Michael Jackson is Michael Jackson, he's treated like a criminal for being the only person who looked out for kids. no fan who defended him deserves any vitriol from you or anybody else.

for you to make the statements you make and support those who make them...that's what the children have to be afraid of.

you and others who speak like you should have just paid more attention to the real plights of children, instead of throwing bombs at the one ambassador children really had.

why did fans go out of their way to defend MJ?

because the detractors have the most twisted concept of good and evil, ever witnessed.

if you feel the comments against MJ that you felt are justifiable, are justifiable, then your views of good and evil are just as twisted.

there is absolutely NO excuse for the evil that was wrought upon michael. not ONE excuse. and if you think there is, then you're in the same boat with the media.

you really seem ok with certain words put out against Michael, but you sure do suddenly have a problem, when some words are directed back at your use of words, don't you? which brings up another points. unlike you and those that agree with you, i don't bring up your personal life and you as a person, but i am strictly limiting my commentary to your word usage, and your approval of such word usage to describes Michael's personal life and life habits. so i really can't be called a bully, because i'm criticizing your words and the words you approve of. those words were killer words, words designed to destroy Michael's life, because they attacked his personal life and habits, and hounded his personal life and habits. killer words. bully words. accumulated bully words by many. against one person. against Michael. indeed, you either used them, or approved of them, so you have to own up to them. even if you don't, they still are attributable to you.

it really is ironic..perhaps deliberate that the term 'twisted vision' is used on those forums, because the evil treatment of Michael really did come from those with a twisted vision of good and evil. whether it be his personal life, or the trial, because it really is all intertwined, because his whole life was about being an ambassador to children. people who used the term 'public figure' to 'justify' their evil words, really do have that twisted vision, and consequently didn't pay attention to any of the TRUE evils going on in the world. on purpose. or they minimized the TRUE evils in comparison, which is, basically, the same thing.

and the true evils are as far removed from Michael as the east is from the west.

[samhabib]

It's alleged because it's in print? What on earth does that mean? It was HIS autobiography! What are you talking about? His own autobiography. How is it 'alleged'? It's HIS book!

He talks about a public figure. So he's aware that people will talk about him - being a public figure.

So you've claimed i'm a 'killer' and that I 'agree' with 'justifiable' comments. I said the comments were 'justified' not 'justifiable'. When Charles posted his comments on other forums he 'justified' his comments. Whether I agree with them or not is neither here or there. He justified his points. Even if they were incorrect. But he backed them up. And other fans were able to engage with him and challenge those opinions.

You've called me a 'killer'. That's bullying. However you want to look at it. It's a cheap tactic to derail an adult conversation.

[144,000]

It's alleged because it's in print? What on earth does that mean? It was HIS autobiography! What are you talking about? His own autobiography. How is it 'alleged'? It's HIS book!

He talks about a public figure. So he's aware that people will talk about him - being a public figure.

So you've claimed i'm a 'killer' and that I 'agree' with 'justifiable' comments. I said the comments were 'justified' not 'justifiable'. When Charles posted his comments on other forums he 'justified' his comments. Whether I agree with them or not is neither here or there. He justified his points. Even if they were incorrect. But he backed them up. And other fans were able to engage with him and challenge those opinions.

You've called me a 'killer'. That's bullying. However you want to look at it. It's a cheap tactic to derail an adult conversation.

it's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated? you're going to claim that never happened? that's naive. it's still not a video where you get to see his lips moving and see and hear what he is saying.

secondly, the comment can never be compared to what you claimed to be 'justified' or however you wish to configure the word. for Michael to say he was able to outbid Paul McCartney is not comparable to attacking someone's personal life.

thirdly, you called Michael an adult. so, you qualify that anything i say to you, is part of an adult conversation.

fourthly, there's nothing cheap about comparing your words to somebody else's personal life.

you are the one who either used or approved of the words. no one held a gun to your head and told you whether or not to use or approve of the words. one of many who did. and MJ is dead. words can kill.

reporting what those words did, is reporting. not bullying.

but like you, everybody can interpret, can they not?

you're on a public board, along with me. and i'm bringing the point home, and that is equal to facing the music.

did you or did you not help to pile on Michael Jackson? is he, or is he not dead? did you or did you not excuse yourself because of the public figure claim?

you are taking a gigantic leap from alleged words regarding one person buying a catalogue from another, to words that support twisted thoughts of child molestation.

you are somehow saying that two completely unrelatable things are relatable. and you know that is not true.

you want to pretend like the damaging words you support are comparable to something that is completely non damaging. and you know that the two do not compare.

and ultimately, you are reaching...reaching very far to somehow say that MJ brought his death upon himself, while absolving yourself and those you support of anything that came out of your mouths.

you are really trying to find a way to say that you can put it out, but it cannot come back to you.

but Michael, who did nothing that justifies the attacks against him, should receive recompense, nonetheless. and the fans that have a problem with that, are sycophants. everybody else you accuse, has a label attached to them, as far as you are concerned. but your actions and those you approve of, should remain untouchable?

that's quiet insidious, but it doesn't work that way, in the real world.

somebody being a public figure, doesn't excuse people on the internet. and it doesn't justify the attacks against Michael.

you are making a gigantic effort to justify what happened to Michael for absolutely no reason, (and you're trying to turn it into a reason) and absolve your word usage at the same time, and those words of others of whom you do approve, because you claim they justified them. and your effort is over the top, as i can see here. maybe the question you posed, should be posed back to you. who ARE the real Michael Jackson fans? your special effort to protect yourself and certain other people, but leave Michael out there as the target, doesn't help your case. and let me remain consistent. if you attack his personal life, and the fact that he still stayed around children, then you're cancelling out whatever facts were brought up to vindicate him at trial, because you are condoning the atmosphere that MJ shouldn't have been trusted around children. forget about the fact, that your zealous campaign is overlooking that Thomson brought up that there was evidence that the kids didn't sleep in MJ's room. but what if they did? sleepovers in adult homes, featuring children, are centuries old. why is it such a crime in MJ's case? unless you and Thomson have second thoughts about MJ and children, and those thoughts are negative, then you should have no problem with him having been around kids. no problem at all.

and then, on top of that, you claim that Thomson was able to back up comments that may be incorrect. not making sense doesn't help your argument, much, either.

[samhabib]

What complete and utter nonsense. The classic kind of post that apologised for every failing of Michael Jackson.

"It's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated?"

That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in ages. So it's the 'printing companies' fault that Michael referred to Paul McCartney as cheap? Are you saying this with a straight face? Let's remember that in the Oprah interview Michael endorses this same autobiography, 'get my book, Moonwalker (sic)".

So, again, Michael is a victim but this time at the hands of a 'printing company'? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if you are it's completely ludicrous. And proof of a lack of reason.

Again, I'd suggest that the 'fans' who were apologists for Michael Jackson's every failing were the ones that ruined him.

The 'fans' that supported him lip-synching 90% of the HIStory tour, rather than the ones who knew that it was damaging to his legitimate musical legacy.

The 'fans' that brushed off the baby-dangling incident rather than realising the impact it would have on Michael's public image.

The 'fans' who supported him in sharing his bedroom with children post-1993, rather than the ones who knew it would outrage the public at large and kill his public image.

The 'fans' that blamed everyone other than Michael Jackson for his problems, rather than the ones who wished he'd take more care.

THOSE fans were the ones that ruined him and his public image. THOSE fans are the ones who, when they should have been caring about him and looking out for him, apologised for him.

THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'.

Not so far away from your claims that anything negative in Michael's own autobiography were the 'printing companies' fault. You know... because Michael could never say anything bad about a public figure. Must have been someone elses fault?!?

And re the 'justified' comment. Here's an analogy for you. Some people believe that man was created by God - and justify their claims with documented 'evidence'. Some people believe that man evolved from apes - and justify their claims with documented evidence. Who is right? Both arguments have been justified but surely only one is right? Hence, agree or disagree with them, Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air. Like your 'printing company' claim.

[144,000]

What complete and utter nonsense. The classic kind of post that apologised for every failing of Michael Jackson.

"It's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated?"

That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in ages. So it's the 'printing companies' fault that Michael referred to Paul McCartney as cheap? Are you saying this with a straight face? Let's remember that in the Oprah interview Michael endorses this same autobiography, 'get my book, Moonwalker (sic)".

So, again, Michael is a victim but this time at the hands of a 'printing company'? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if you are it's completely ludicrous. And proof of a lack of reason.

Again, I'd suggest that the 'fans' who were apologists for Michael Jackson's every failing were the ones that ruined him.

The 'fans' that supported him lip-synching 90% of the HIStory tour, rather than the ones who knew that it was damaging to his legitimate musical legacy.

The 'fans' that brushed off the baby-dangling incident rather than realising the impact it would have on Michael's public image.

The 'fans' who supported him in sharing his bedroom with children post-1993, rather than the ones who knew it would outrage the public at large and kill his public image.

The 'fans' that blamed everyone other than Michael Jackson for his problems, rather than the ones who wished he'd take more care.

THOSE fans were the ones that ruined him and his public image. THOSE fans are the ones who, when they should have been caring about him and looking out for him, apologised for him.

THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'.

Not so far away from your claims that anything negative in Michael's own autobiography were the 'printing companies' fault. You know... because Michael could never say anything bad about a public figure. Must have been someone elses fault?!?

And re the 'justified' comment. Here's an analogy for you. Some people believe that man was created by God - and justify their claims with documented 'evidence'. Some people believe that man evolved from apes - and justify their claims with documented evidence. Who is right? Both arguments have been justified but surely only one is right? Hence, agree or disagree with them, Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air. Like your 'printing company' claim.

well..if you can claim that MJ fans supporting him ruined him, that is classic denial on your part.

if you are a blind supporter of anything in print, then that sounds like a media sympathizer. you don't check anything that is reported on tv or printed in a magazine?

considering that everything you believe is copy and paste from the media, and rumors from naysayers, i can safely stand by everything i said about you. it's your words that destroyed him. i stand by that.

i said everything with a straight face. i don't look at tv with blind belief like you do. you sound exactly like what was said in the media. exactly. so you are no different from them. i stand completely by everything i said about your words, and the words you support.

'every failing of Michael Jackson.' there's also envy in that statement of yours.

you're drawn to these sites, so you can bash him?

how 'sweet'. you have absolutely no unequivocal evidence to support anything you or Thomson said. and then you bring religion into it and tear down the beliefs of many..which proves that you come from a place where you have decided to believe what you believe, just because you want to believe it.

you're coming from a vindictive place...not a factual place.
your words and the words you say are 'justified', killed him. you heard me. i said it. i'm done. your statements concerning Paul McCartney do not stand the smell test, at all. taking over a catalogue business speak doesn't qualify as destructive conversation, but deciding to make reason absent, would allow you to make such a totally off base comparison.

do you know what makes everything you say void? you know what really makes all your arguments hollow?
what happened at the o2 arena. some destroyed legacy, huh?
so...you're still here...that's how destroyed his music legacy is. you still have an interest in his music. your presence here, and the sellouts at the o2 arena make every one of your arguments totally void. but your words are no less destructive to the soul of a human being. there are plenty of fans, that are a living breathing continuation of his legacy. so say goodbye to all your arguments. and even if you leave(though you're being here now, makes your defense null and void) you can be replaced. nothing ever did, or ever can destroy his legacy..and he did NOTHING to ruin his image or legacy. his true fans(legions of them)are proof. and because of that, your vindictiveness turned poison words against the fans, themselves.

also...fans greeting him everywhere he went, right to his last day...proof that his legacy could never be destroyed. you had plenty of chance to leave the fanbase, if his legacy was so damaged, but you hung around so you could fling the poison verbal arrows.

and lastly...you broke a site rule. you defied the autopsy report and just called Michael a drug addict. you defied a medical report, so your a study in contradiction. and are now supporting a flat out lie, and are so vindictive that you break site rules.

you use all the inflammatory words that determine that you are not coming from a factual place...just a vindictive place. words on the order of 'utter nonsense', and 'apologist'.

quite frankly, the atmosphere can do without the poison verbal arrows. since when does Michael need 'fans' like that?

[samhabib]

More utter nonsense.

Michael Jackson endorsed his own autobiography. But you're that desperate to distance him from the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' comment that you deny that Michael a. approved his own autobiography and b. endorsed his own autobiography.

You're having a very difficult time understanding my definition of 'support'. Glorifying someone's failings in the face of the facts isn't 'support'. Calling Janet Jackson a liar, for example, isn't supporting Michael Jackson.

You've proved that you can't work out what I've meant by 'justified'. The analogy I gave you about the creation if man showed two different opinions. I didn't say I agreed with one or the other. But you've claimed that I've offended the religious among us? How ridiculous. Read what I wrote. Not what I didn't write. I showed the two different points of view. I didn't say which one I agreed with. For the record, however, I believe in God. Which proves that you're desperate to slander anyone you don't agree with - tabloid like.

[Ashtanga]

.............................................. :sigh:

[144,000]

More utter nonsense.

Michael Jackson endorsed his own autobiography. But you're that desperate to distance him from the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' comment that you deny that Michael a. approved his own autobiography and b. endorsed his own autobiography.

You're having a very difficult time understanding my definition of 'support'. Glorifying someone's failings in the face of the facts isn't 'support'. Calling Janet Jackson a liar, for example, isn't supporting Michael Jackson.

You've proved that you can't work out what I've meant by 'justified'. The analogy I gave you about the creation if man showed two different opinions. I didn't say I agreed with one or the other. But you've claimed that I've offended the religious among us? How ridiculous. Read what I wrote. Not what I didn't write. I showed the two different points of view. I didn't say which one I agreed with. For the record, however, I believe in God. Which proves that you're desperate to slander anyone you don't agree with - tabloid like.

..like ur supporting Michael?

you believe in God?
ur not slandering anyone who doesn't agree with YOU?
ur not making a JUDGEMENT call on a saintly individual who did goodwill for children?(even though you've never been inside his walls to make that judgement call) You're not SLANDERING Michael? *hypocrisy to try to hide from truth*
well..i guess we'll see how God feels about all this on the day of reckoning...
no hiding behind 'cleverness', deception, and false 'care'. no allowance for a lame attempt to hide or protect a love of money. no chance of hiding behind saying: 'well i heard it on tv so it must be true!' nochance to say something is 'objective thinking', if it isn't.

who will have the clear conscience, who will be straight with God about all this...

no one can fool God..or mock God..that's for sure.

*evil world*

[samhabib]

Absolute drivel.

Where have I slandered Michael Jackson? Show me one example where I've slandered him.

You believe that Michael Jackson's autobiography is not approved by Michael Jackson. You believe he didn't endorse it - even though there is video evidence (the Oprah interview) where he does endorse it. You baselessly blame a 'printing company' for the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' line in the book. Who's trying to hide the truth here?

[Ashtanga]

.................................................. .......... http://mob88.photobucket.com/albums/k166/chamerazzi/thriller.gif

[144,000]

Absolute drivel.

Where have I slandered Michael Jackson? Show me one example where I've slandered him.

You believe that Michael Jackson's autobiography is not approved by Michael Jackson. You believe he didn't endorse it - even though there is video evidence (the Oprah interview) where he does endorse it. You baselessly blame a 'printing company' for the 'Paul McCartney was too cheap' line in the book. Who's trying to hide the truth here?

why would you see yourself as doing anything wrong, here? i'm not surprised, though it's pointed out over and over the slander you committed. i'm not going to keep going over it. it's already been pointed out. there is no use arguing with you. what you did, you did.

like we said...it's not up to us

[samhabib]

In other words "You didn't slander Michael Jackson but I can't say that because I've already baselessly accused you of slandering Michael Jackson for no other reason but the fact that I didn't agree with you".

Got it.

[144,000]

In other words "You didn't slander Michael Jackson but I can't say that because I've already baselessly accused you of slandering Michael Jackson for no other reason but the fact that I didn't agree with you".

Got it.

your reasoning reminds me of a world leader or two..very scary...like i said, i don't have to face you and you don't have to face me when it's all said and done...

[samhabib]

As opposed to your lack of reasoning?

Here's the challenge. You've accused me of slandering Michael Jackson. Very easily then, where have I slandered him? No cryptic responses, no beating around the bush... show me an example of where I've slandered Michael Jackson...

[144,000]

As opposed to your lack of reasoning?

Here's the challenge. You've accused me of slandering Michael Jackson. Very easily then, where have I slandered him? No cryptic responses, no beating around the bush... show me an example of where I've slandered Michael Jackson...

i have a hard time with repetitive posts. it's all posted, straightforward. throughout this thread. and the last post i posted before this one is really what you should have looked at.the most. if they're brought up again, you'll deny again. i'd be a fool to continue after this post, no matter what you say.

[samhabib]

Waffle. Complete waffle.

You know I haven't slandered Michael Jackson. But you're that desperate to portray me as a 'hater' and as a 'killer' that you can't admit it. You've baselessly accused me of slandering Michael Jackson and when asked for just one example you've started talking complete nonsense. How absolutely ridiculous.

Just provide one example. Just one. If you can't, and we both know you can't, don't waste your time.

[ginvid]

How about I end this for the both of you? Move on, Please! You both do not agree. It is obvious. But, now the conversation has gone way off topic and it has been going on for too long. Let's get back to Charles Thompson and charges against him or in other words, let's get back to what this thread is about. :flowers:

(On another note, :offtopic: so what if MJ called Paul cheap. He absolutely was. And, he only has himself to blame for his not having his catalog of Beatles material. Why can't MJ have said this especially if it is true? No need to reply to this, I was just thinking out loud. If you would like to reply, PM me. Here, we can just go back to the main topic. :ph34r:)

[Buttercup]

Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air.

I don't see how he justified comments like "There were bits of skin actually hanging off his nose." If someone wants to do a critical analysis about Michael's work, that's fine. I've seen a lot of fans have such discussions, and the conversations usually turn out quite interesting. But comments like I posted above are just plain mean, and definitely not justified no matter how you want to slice it.

[samhabib]

He justified it by making reference to pictures at the time. Is he right? I don't think so. Did he justify his comments? Yes.

I've seen fans referring to Paris' bellybutton and claiming that her bellybutton is proof Michael is her father. They've justified their comments with photos. Are they right? I don't know. Have they justified their comments? Yes.

Ginvid - Michael's well within his rights to talk about Paul. But then, equally, he should expect people to talk about him. That was the point of that particular comment. Michael had every right to talk about Paul. And, that being the case, fans shouldn't expect different rules for people talking about Michael.

[144,000]

He justified it by making reference to pictures at the time. Is he right? I don't think so. Did he justify his comments? Yes.

I've seen fans referring to Paris' bellybutton and claiming that her bellybutton is proof Michael is her father. They've justified their comments with photos. Are they right? I don't know. Have they justified their comments? Yes.

Ginvid - Michael's well within his rights to talk about Paul. But then, equally, he should expect people to talk about him. That was the point of that particular comment. Michael had every right to talk about Paul. And, that being the case, fans shouldn't expect different rules for people talking about Michael.

it's still in print. take the trip from the print to the mouth. it's a long way. there is the possibility with all those books in print, that there was something that Michael saw in his copy that wasn't in other copies. there is precedence for that. if you want to say something is impossible, that is your mind, talking.

and in effect, if you take a stab at michael you shouldn't be not expecting people to not take a stab at what you said, in order to protect him.

there is no justification for lies about drugs. that is your slander.

you overlooked an autopsy. now there it is, for the second, maybe third time. and you bypassed the autopsy to convenience yourself. i put the word autopsy in bold letters, just in case you can't see it, this time. no evidence of years of a body worn by drug addiction. you would bypass medical evidence..the the truths from the professions of medicine and science, if you THINK it would help your agenda. which, of course, it can't.

your definition of 'justification' is nonsense. i've never heard of that in my life. how do you justify something if you're wrong?

and so now you admit to talking about him. only you want to reduce it to the word 'talk' as opposed to what it is...slander. you know...the word that Michael used in his song 'tabloid junkie'? your words are just like that.

[samhabib]

So in some copies Michael refers to Paul as cheap and in some copies he doesn't? That makes sense to you? OK. It doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it's absolutely ludicrous.

Get your facts right. I never called Michael Jackson a drug addict. So get off your high horse. Janet Jackson called him a drug addict and I referenced her. Is she a liar? A killer? A hater? Well? Answer that... is Janet Jackson a 'killer' of Michael Jackson?

[144,000]

So in some copies Michael refers to Paul as cheap and in some copies he doesn't? That makes sense to you? OK. It doesn't make sense to me. In fact, it's absolutely ludicrous.

Get your facts right. I never called Michael Jackson a drug addict. So get off your high horse. Janet Jackson called him a drug addict and I referenced her. Is she a liar? A killer? A hater? Well? Answer that... is Janet Jackson a 'killer' of Michael Jackson?

call it ludicrous, that doesn't make it untrue. sure makes it possible. you can't prove otherwise. plus..the possibly non existant comment is not on the order of slanderous. first, it isn't proven(so it's moot)..secondly, it is nowhere near the category of what you called Michael.

so you claim i'm on a high horse, because i caught you in a lie, and you're lying again.

claiming i am on a high horse is your admission to calling him an addict. in his song, he likened slanderous comments like that, to crucifying the God he serves, let alone what they did to him. you can't face it, can you?

did i predict your denial? absolutely. now that you don't believe the coroner's report, let me ask another question and see if you refuse to answer that one too. do you believe in medical science?

[samhabib]

This is the most ridiculous thing i've ever read in my whole life.

Michael's comments on McCartney are non-existent? Are you seriously suggesting that? Brilliant haha :)

I've denied what? You claim that I called Michael Jackson a drug addict. Show me where I've called him a drug addict. It should be very simple.

[144,000]

What complete and utter nonsense. The classic kind of post that apologised for every failing of Michael Jackson.

"It's not hard to understand. so it's called his autobiography. is he the printing company? you're going to tell me that a printing company doesn't ever fudge on words a person may have stated?"

That's probably the most absurd thing I've read in ages. So it's the 'printing companies' fault that Michael referred to Paul McCartney as cheap? Are you saying this with a straight face? Let's remember that in the Oprah interview Michael endorses this same autobiography, 'get my book, Moonwalker (sic)".

So, again, Michael is a victim but this time at the hands of a 'printing company'? Are you seriously suggesting that? Because if you are it's completely ludicrous. And proof of a lack of reason.

Again, I'd suggest that the 'fans' who were apologists for Michael Jackson's every failing were the ones that ruined him.

The 'fans' that supported him lip-synching 90% of the HIStory tour, rather than the ones who knew that it was damaging to his legitimate musical legacy.

The 'fans' that brushed off the baby-dangling incident rather than realising the impact it would have on Michael's public image.

The 'fans' who supported him in sharing his bedroom with children post-1993, rather than the ones who knew it would outrage the public at large and kill his public image.

The 'fans' that blamed everyone other than Michael Jackson for his problems, rather than the ones who wished he'd take more care.

THOSE fans were the ones that ruined him and his public image. THOSE fans are the ones who, when they should have been caring about him and looking out for him, apologised for him.

THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'.

Not so far away from your claims that anything negative in Michael's own autobiography were the 'printing companies' fault. You know... because Michael could never say anything bad about a public figure. Must have been someone elses fault?!?

And re the 'justified' comment. Here's an analogy for you. Some people believe that man was created by God - and justify their claims with documented 'evidence'. Some people believe that man evolved from apes - and justify their claims with documented evidence. Who is right? Both arguments have been justified but surely only one is right? Hence, agree or disagree with them, Charles Thomson 'justified' his comments, ie. referenced them with sources, as opposed to plucking them out of thin air. Like your 'printing company' claim.

wanna do a spin job on that? never mind the other stuff. answer this time, with an answer, instead of a question. interesting how you use the word 'destroy', only when it's convenient for you.

[samhabib]

What makes this all the more ridiculous is the fact that, not only does Michael endorse his autobiography on the Oprah interview, but there's also a photoshoot of him holding the book - effectively promoting it. So, for you to say the book is incorrect, is to say that Michael Jackson actively promoted a book that he knew was incorrect. Are you saying that Michael Jackson is a hypocrite?

[144,000]

What makes this all the more ridiculous is the fact that, not only does Michael endorse his autobiography on the Oprah interview, but there's also a photoshoot of him holding the book - effectively promoting it. So, for you to say the book is incorrect, is to say that Michael Jackson actively promoted a book that he knew was incorrect. Are you saying that Michael Jackson is a hypocrite?

more red herrings, and inability to answer questions on your part? every time i got you, you keep dodging.

[samhabib]

wanna do a spin job on that? never mind the other stuff. answer this time, with an answer, instead of a question. interesting how you use the word 'destroy', only when it's convenient for you.


"THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'."

Right... where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? I've posted that there are fans that have accused Janet Jackson as being a liar for referring to Michael as an addict. Where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? You need to work on your comprehension. Are you calling Janet Jackson a liar? Well?

[144,000]

"THOSE fans are the fans that now seek to destroy the Jackson family, claiming that they know Michael better EVEN than his own flesh and blood. THOSE are the fans that claim that Janet Jackson is a liar and 'looked uncomfortable' when referring to Michael as an 'addict'."

Right... where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? I've posted that there are fans that have accused Janet Jackson as being a liar for referring to Michael as an addict. Where have I said he was an addict in that paragraph? You need to work on your comprehension. Are you calling Janet Jackson a liar? Well?

more dodging. why are you bringing up Janet Jackson if you're not saying he's an addict? my grasp of comprehension is on the mark. your denial is pathological.

[samhabib]

more red herrings, and inability to answer questions on your part? every time i got you, you keep dodging.

What are you even talking about? Got me? Your argument is completely nonsensical. Michael Jackson promotes a book that, according to you, has lies in it. Are you, therefore, calling Michael Jackson a liar?

[144,000]

What are you even talking about? Got me? Your argument is completely nonsensical. Michael Jackson promotes a book that, according to you, has lies in it. Are you, therefore, calling Michael Jackson a liar?

now you leave one subject for another. more denial. i told you there is no proof for your argument in millions of book copies.

now you answer my question..why are you bringing up Janet Jackson, if you're not calling MJ a drug addict?

[Buttercup]

He justified it by making reference to pictures at the time. Is he right? I don't think so. Did he justify his comments? Yes.


This is the definition of "justify" I'm using.

http://i33.tinypic.com/15qrhw0.png

So, no, he did not justify it.

Also, he did not post the photo he was alluding to, and I have never seen any photos with "bits of skin hanging off of" Michael's nose (as Thomson wrote). It was unconstrained chat about another, involving details not confirmed as being true. AKA "gossip". It was not "justified" comments.

[144,000]

This is the definition of "justify" I'm using.

http://i33.tinypic.com/15qrhw0.png

So, no, he did not justify it.

Also, he did not post the photo he was alluding to, and I have never seen any photos with "bits of skin hanging off of" Michael's nose (as Thomson wrote). It was unconstrained chat about another, involving details not confirmed as being true. AKA "gossip". It was not "justified" comments.

samhabib accuses me of nonsense, hasn't accepted that definition of 'justify', though it is printed in a dictionary.

[samhabib]

now you leave one subject for another. more denial. i told you there is no proof for your argument in millions of book copies.

now you answer my question..why are you bringing up Janet Jackson, if you're not calling MJ a drug addict?

I posted it as a comment about some fans. That they're willing to slander ANYONE who gets in the way of what they wish to believe about Michael. Even his beloved sister.

[samhabib]

This is the definition of "justify" I'm using.

http://i33.tinypic.com/15qrhw0.png

So, no, he did not justify it.

Also, he did not post the photo he was alluding to, and I have never seen any photos with "bits of skin hanging off of" Michael's nose (as Thomson wrote). It was unconstrained chat about another, involving details not confirmed as being true. AKA "gossip". It was not "justified" comments.

He certainly did justify it. It was 'reasonable' to him.

He has DEFINITELY posted photos while referring to it. Was he correct? I don't think so. But did he refer to a photograph? Yes he did.

[Buttercup]

He certainly did justify it. It was 'reasonable' to him.

He has DEFINITELY posted photos while referring to it. Was he correct? I don't think so. But did he refer to a photograph? Yes he did.

"Who remembers those pics of MJ in the pink shirt with Rabbi Boteach? There were bits of skin actually hanging off his nose in those photos."

With all do respect, the above is what he wrote. With that comment, he posted no photos of what he claimed. Referring to an alleged photo of skin hanging off of Michael's nose, does not equal justifying his comments. Actually posting said photos (of skin hanging off of Michael nose) along with his comments, would have. Instead, you have gossip.

Also, when you write "It was 'reasonable' to him" — you left off the first part of that definition. Let me post it again:

http://i33.tinypic.com/15qrhw0.jpg

Justifying one comments does not mean just being reasonable to oneself, it must be shown or proven to be right or reasonable. Those bolded words are the important part. One has to prove their comments for them to be justified. This isn't up for debate. This is the definition in the dictionary.

[ginvid]

Hey Guys, I feel I need to warn you once more. Please focus on the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do Janet's comments. It has everything to do with what Charles Thompson said. That is it. Do not keep posting off topic. Do not bring up drugs unless Charles spoke about it. Do not bring up Janet unless in reference to Charles. I interceded hoping this squabbling between the two of you would be squashed. Yet, I was ignored. Please consider it a final warning. If you want to continue this discussion, please PM one another. Or let the convo drop.
Thanks!

[samhabib]

"Who remembers those pics of MJ in the pink shirt with Rabbi Boteach? There were bits of skin actually hanging off his nose in those photos."

With all do respect, the above is what he wrote. With that comment, he posted no photos of what he claimed. Referring to an alleged photo of skin hanging off of Michael's nose, does not equal justifying his comments. Actually posting said photos (of skin hanging off of Michael nose) along with his comments, would have. Instead, you have gossip.

Also, when you write "It was 'reasonable' to him" — you left off the first part of that definition. Let me post it again:

http://i33.tinypic.com/15qrhw0.jpg

Justifying one comments does not mean just being reasonable to oneself, it must be shown or proven to be right or reasonable. Those bolded words are the important part. One has to prove their comments for them to be justified. This isn't up for debate. This is the definition in the dictionary.

Or they have to SHOW their comments to be REASONABLE. Which, to him, they were.

[samhabib]

Hey Guys, I feel I need to warn you once more. Please focus on the topic of this thread. It has nothing to do Janet's comments. It has everything to do with what Charles Thompson said. That is it. Do not keep posting off topic. Do not bring up drugs unless Charles spoke about it. Do not bring up Janet unless in reference to Charles. I interceded hoping this squabbling between the two of you would be squashed. Yet, I was ignored. Please consider it a final warning. If you want to continue this discussion, please PM one another. Or let the convo drop.
Thanks!

Dropped.

Back to Charles Thomson. I posted somewhere else the fact that you don't have to be a fan to write accurate articles about Michael Jackson. He wrote excellent, accurate articles about Michael Jackson yet that wasn't good enough for some people. He wasn't a 'big enough fan' for some people.

For the record, he is a huge Michael Jackson fan.

[Buttercup]

Or they have to SHOW their comments to be REASONABLE. Which, to him, they were.

That's the thing though. He did not show his comments were reasonable. As I previously wrote:


Referring to an alleged photo of skin hanging off of Michael's nose, does not equal justifying his comments. Actually posting said photos (of skin hanging off of Michael nose) along with his comments, would have. Instead, you have gossip.

And again, as I wrote, it's not about being reasonable to oneself. To be justified, you must show or prove — and that means to others. Turning in an essay to a teacher or professor, with the excuse "it was reasonable to me", will get you a big old F.

[144,000]

Buttercup...thanks for being here. you're a good soldier. keep up the good fight.

MJ was too good for this world...the battle to keep his deserving legacy alive doesn't deserve what it continues to get from the darkness.....and being here is tough...if i have to leave this site...it's gunna be with me continuing the fight for his legacy.

even with Michael being an innocent victim..this fight is so hard...especially with infiltration...and enemies saying they are fans, but it is the way of this world. MJ ran into enemies saying they were fans, everyday of his life..

it's good to know he had many real fans, such as yourself, Buttercup.

i guess i shouldn't be surprised at infiltrations. life's not fair. if good was rewarded with good instead of bad, MJ would still be here.

[DeborahFfrench]

Again, I have to bring up the point. Do we really think that when MJ's children are told about what their father endured, they will care about what people thought of his surgeries, tours etc?

It is the accusations that will hurt them, and on that issue Thomson has remained firmly in Michael's corner. This is really all I am saying. The big picture is about the effects of the continual assault on Michael's legacy on that basis.

We may all wish Charles had different views about Michael's performances, looks etc, and who even knows in his heart of hearts whether he would still phrase it exactly as he did -despite what he said on his blog.

In his public work, the work that is potentially read by people who erroneously believe MJ harmed children, all they see when they read Charles's work is a sterling defence of Michael Jackson.

[samhabib]

That's the thing though. He did not show his comments were reasonable. As I previously wrote:



And again, as I wrote, it's not about being reasonable to oneself. To be justified, you must show or prove — and that means to others. Turning in an essay to a teacher or professor, with the excuse "it was reasonable to me", will get you a big old F.

No. In mathematics - where there is a right and a wrong answer - you will get an F. In art - you will get judged by your interpretation, based on your own justifications.

So if two people are talking about one photo - that is open to their interpretation of what they are seeing. Some people, for example, could look at a picture of Angelina Jolie and say 'she's anorexic'. Another person could say 'she looks amazing'.

[Snow White 1937]

Michael Jackson publicly voiced his own opinions about other public figures (eg. Paul
McCartney is 'cheap' according to his own autobiography).
Uhm... are you talking about "Moonwalk"? I have 2 copies in English, one in French and one in German. I don't remember reading in any of them that MJ called Paul cheap! Could you please tell me which chapter? I have read the book numerous times (first time in 1991), so I think I know it pretty well. Michael has nothing but praise for Paul McCartney in his book. He mentions their first meeting and talks about "Girlfriend" in chapter 4. Then Michael mentions him again in chapter 5 where he talks about "Say Say Say", "The Girl Is Mine" and the ATV music publishing catalogue. In fact, the word "cheap" doesn't occur in the entire book.