Latest on MJJC

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

twinklEE said:
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
Click to expand...

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:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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:
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Where the hell was CT and his lofty ideals before 25 June 2009?
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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!
 
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
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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:)
 
Last edited:
DeborahFfrench said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
^ Gotta applaud everything 144,000 wrote in the post above me. Sums up my feelings on the matter.
 
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.
 
144 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.
Click to expand...

This.
I totally agree.
All my respect, 144,000.
 
144 said:
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?
Click to expand...

i love you
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?

144 said:
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.
Click to expand...



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....fuck the media. That article is the perfect proof of that...disgusting isn't even the correct word. sigh.....
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
144 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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 fucking 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.
 
samhabib said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
samhabib said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top