WhoIsIt89;4012977 said:And again, why is all the harsh and frustration filled comments from your side against us, going unnoticed?
It didn't. In my original "why the anger" post, I ended it with we - meaning all of us - showing respect to each other. In the later post I complained about fighting - which requires at least two parties. So it's not going unnoticed. But as last tear commented let's not act like your "side" has been angels. Starting from the "hardcore" fans comments and claiming knowing more than people who are educated / work in this industry etc. there have been negative comments towards other people. Neither one is okay. As for frustration - I only sense anger and frustration from your "side", and other "side" for the most of the time not really caring.. And when did we had "sides" in this regard? Isn't this division among fans getting tired as well? Sure we don't agree on every regard (not limited to the hologram) but do we really need to divide ourselves into sides?
Things can get heated when people simply misconstrue words, and put forth these false labels, simply because we don't see things their way.
so now you realize how that hardcore / causal labels was problematic? Or do you only have a problem when it is done to you?
Fact is, we just don't appreciate being taken for fools, and will gather whatever we can and point out whatever we can, to show that they take us for fools and to prove to them that we know better so they won't try to do it again.
Okay but don't hold your breath.. because if I'm being honest, on the grand scale of things, I don't think what a group of fans say matter that much
even though we realize they're trying to play us for a bunch of fools.
see this "play us for a bunch of fools" is quite intriguing to me.
I'll try to explain it. In advertising industry some people complained that product placement and/or having celebrities to hold / use certain products in movies/ programs etc was playing the public as fools because they weren't being told that celebrities were being paid for that use of the product. However research showed that close to 90 percent of public knew that celebrities being paid for it. So they didn't need anyone come out and say to them "we are paying these celebrities" and therefore they weren't being fooled.
You keep giving the example of how they advertised it "MJ you have never seen" and how it was playing you for a fool but did they really? For example David Copperfield had been advertised as making Statue of Liberty disappear when it didn't and everyone knew that it was an illusion. So they weren't really being lied to or being played as fools. Similarly I believe - at least speaking as general public and some of the fans - know that Michael is dead and nothing presented could be Michael. Even if it's a 100% animation and no impersonator, it can't be Michael or real. So if that's how I approached to this situation, I was aware what they were saying wasn't to be taken literally and they haven't played or fooled me. Very similar to the initial example I don't need them to be explicit and say "btw that ain't real Michael" as I already know it. And to be honest if they did that I would personally take it as an insult to my intelligence. So are they really playing us as fools? or do we really need to spoon fed the very basic information? I'm not sure. I guess each to it's own in this regard.
And because of it, we're obsessed?
And this is a nice example of twisting what I said. I said "that takes a certain level of dedication and even obsession". Why not select dedication as the word describing you, why focus on obsession? It's not my problem that you choose to act like obsession describes you, rather than dedication. Currently I would see it as a highly interest topic but if this discussion continues for 4 years I would have no problem of calling it an obsession then.
In that case, everyone can't be right, but I have a better understanding of where you're coming from.
and I'm glad that we have a better understanding.
LastTear;4013054 said:What struck out at me was the quote from Jermaine which is quite old that the brothers are working on new music, somehow the journalist has taken that to mean there will be a virtual concert. - I really don't know how he arrived at that from that Jermaine quote.
That comes from an interview in 2012 , after the Tupac Hologram. Jacksons was asked back then about their thoughts about Tupac hologram and they said they liked it, it could have been Michael and they could tour with him. Journalist is recycling that old interview. Oh and the mention of a hologram came from Jackie not Jermaine. and later they stated they didn't mean a tour with a hologram, just that they liked the idea of a hologram etc.
some quotes from that
Jackson’s brother Jackie told The Sun: “It could have been Michael - absolutely. Wouldn’t that be wonderful?” He added, “As a matter of fact, we had that idea two years ago for Michael’s Cirque du Soleil show”, referencing The IMMORTAL World Tour dance-music-light extravaganza currently touring the States.
Last edited: