The Great Debate - Poll of Polls

deano said:

Sanhabib.

You seem to have very twisted, probably selective, ideas on what should be considered 'proof' or not.

You seem to be saying that; if one of the Jacksons said something happened then it should be accepted unless posters on here can prove otherwise - is that right?

Is it only members of the Jackson family that this applies to, or does the apply to everybody?*

Perhaps you can enlighten me, as I'm confused.

Click to expand...

Let me help you with your confusion.*

Members of the Jackson family as well as Cory Rooney and other interested parties have claimed the vocals are fake. I want the 'believers' to prove them wrong. Not to slander them. Not to cast doubts on their characters. Because if they do that, i can equally cast aspersions on the people involved in claiming the vocals are legitimate.

I want 'believers' to prove that the family, Cory Rooney and other interested parties are lying.

Understand that most fans - even on this poll here on MJJC - doubt the*authenticity of the*vocals on the Cascio songs.*

So the onus is on the people who are selling those songs as legitimate to prove they are legitimate. So far they've provided precisely ZERO evidence. Just uncorroborated claims.

Are you still confused? Is that still 'twisted' for you? Prove that the family are lying. That's what I'm asking.

samhabib said:

So the onus is on the people who are selling those songs as legitimate to prove they are legitimate. So far they've provided precisely ZERO evidence. Just uncorroborated claims.

Click to expand...

legally speaking - you are wrong. There's presumption of innocence and it's presumed to be a MJ album.

"the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" so whoever is claiming an illegitimate album/vocals are the ones with the burden of proof.


- regardless can we please stop asking for proof from either side -

ivy said:

- regardless can we please [stop] asking for proof from either side -

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a useless request which neither side can satisfy.

I feel the MJ voice/accent thread is a good alternative of gaining some insight. The proof angle will just go round in circles, no one will win, and it'll just get people's backs up.

AnnieRUOkay89 said:

Seriously, you're a mess...As far as me saying Franks name weren't on the bottles, laughable, because in nowhere in my post did I say that.

Click to expand...

Completely incorrect. You claimed there were 'other' alias' on them and that Frank's had nothing to do with the 'pill bottle'. Right here in fact...

AnnieRUOkay89 said:

Sorry to break it to you, but factually, Frank had nothing to do with whatever pill bottle was discovered, there were other alias' on them, you keep throwing him into that as if he was involved, when there's not the slightest indication that he was. Talk about slander, the only slander is coming from you.

Click to expand...

AnnieRUOkay89 said:

I didn't slander the Jackson Clan.

Click to expand...

Yes you did.

AnnieRUOkay89 said:

I disputed your reasoning with facts

Click to expand...

No you didn't.

AnnieRUOkay89 said:

I said it's hypocritical that you believe he's being 100% honest without such proof that this meeting ever happened, yet at the same time, call Sony and The Estate liars for the same reason. It's utter stupidity, seriously, and you should cut it out.

Click to expand...

Firstly most fans doubt the authenticity of the vocals. Not just me. Most fans. Even by MJJC's own poll. So the majority of the fans doubt the tracks are completely legitimate. The onus is on the Estate and Sony to prove the vocals are legitimate. They've provided precisely NOTHING to support the legitimacy of the tracks. Absolutely nothing.*

'Hypocrite'? 'A mess'? 'Stupid'? And not once do the Mods warn you? Incredible.*

ivy said:

legally speaking - you are wrong. There's presumption of innocence and it's presumed to be a MJ album.

"the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" so whoever is claiming an illegitimate album/vocals are the ones with the burden of proof.


- regardless can we please stop asking for proof from either side -

Click to expand...

Legally speaking, sellers should be able to prove their claims. If I bought a Mercedes and it drove like a Fiat, I'd want to know why.

Hasn't the Estate proved their claims by the statement they released, plus the various people involved backing those claims up? The fact that the Estate released that statement means that they are legally sound unless hard evidence proves that they are cheating the people. So, legally speaking... The fact that they've released the product, have credited MJ as the lead singer and has released a statement affirming their claims would put them in a tight legal bind should they be found out to be fraudsters. Ergo, without proof, there is no way to combat the Estate. Granted, none of us can gather proof for the obvious reasoning that we are merely fans and do not have access to home videos/studio sessions. So... This is basically a standstill.

samhabib said:

Legally speaking, sellers should be able to prove their claims. If I bought a Mercedes and it drove like a Fiat, I'd want to know why.

Click to expand...

are you making your own laws now? or mixing up what you want with what is the law?

Example :Watch commercials and you'll see sentences like "4 out of 5 dentists recommend.." . Where are the legal proof for such claims?

It's simple. "Michael" is legally presumed to be a "Michael Jackson" album. Whoever challenges this is the one with the burden of proof.

and again as we all know no one from either side can prove anything, I strongly suggest to let go of this "show me proof" talk.

ivy said:

legally speaking - you are wrong. There's presumption of innocence and it's presumed to be a MJ album.

"the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges" so whoever is claiming an illegitimate album/vocals are the ones with the burden of proof.


- regardless can we please stop asking for proof from either side -

Click to expand...

Uhh, it depends on the country actually.

In the USA you have to prove that someone is guilty. In some other European countries, for example, if someone press charges against someone, this latter has to prove his innocence.

It is true that Michael was American citizen, but the issue of the album seems international. So all depends to which court you go. How about headquarters in Japan and what is the judicial system over there? Innocent untill proven guilty?

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

Uhh, it depends on the country actually.

In the USA you have to prove that someone is guilty. In some other European countries, for example, if someone press charges against someone, this latter has to prove his innocence.

It is true that Michael was American citizen, but the issue of the album seems international. So all depends to which court you go. How about headquarters in Japan and what is the judicial system over there? Innocent untill proven guilty?

Click to expand...

Don't know anything about Japan. But isn't the album released by "Epic Records" which is an American company?

ivy said:

Don't know anything about Japan. But isn't the album released by "Epic Records" which is an American company?

Click to expand...

Indeed it is. But who has the final word in all this? Sony US or Sony JP?

Of course if you go to an American court you need to prove someone is guilty. But that wouldn't be the case if someone pressed charges against Sony in Europe. So which court would be more competent? Local or international?

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

What crap now? This is really pushing it too far.

Haven't you noticed that some non-doubters constantly label people as conspiracy theorists and make them look dumb? Yet no warnings?

The other day someone told me directly to shut up and nobody from the staff saw that. Ok you are humans. But I am not the kind to report things easily, because it is childish.

Now, when Sam expresses his opinion that he cannot understand how people can believe it is Michael on those songs he gets a warning.

Why don't you delete all our non-believers posts and ban Sam and some of us forever?

Click to expand...

THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT!

I'm really getting sick and f*cking tired of you lot jumping on every little thing I do. Samhabib was clearly winding up a member saying crap like 'you posted I hate samhabib' which is totally untrue.

I feel like you're choosing to see what you see and ignore. FFS.

EDIT: samhabib, that's what I meant by cut the crap. Clear enough now??

StaceyMJ said:

THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT!

I'm really getting sick and f*cking tired of you lot jumping on every little thing I do. Samhabib was clearly winding up a member saying crap like 'you posted I hate samhabib' which is totally untrue.

I feel like you're choosing to see what you see and ignore. FFS.

EDIT: samhabib, that's what I meant by cut the crap. Clear enough now??

Click to expand...

Wow! Did I insult you the way you are insulting me?

I am not selectively jumping on every little thing you do, I am reacting to comments which are quite unfair regardless who says it. Why would I jump on you? I even don't know you.

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

Wow! Did I insult you the way you are insulting me?

I am not selectively jumping on every little thing you do, I am reacting to comments which are quite unfair regardless who says it. Why would I jump on you? I even don't know you.

Click to expand...

???

You didn't even respond to what I was saying. You know what, just carry on. I'm done with trying to keep any kind of order in this thread.

StaceyMJ said:

???

You didn't even respond to what I was saying. You know what, just carry on. I'm done with trying to keep any kind of order in this thread.

Click to expand...

Listen, first calm down.

Second, explain to me what did I get or do wrong here to make you feel "sick and f*cking tired" of me?

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

Listen, first calm down.

Second, explain to me what did I get or do wrong here to make you feel "sick and f*cking tired" of me?

Click to expand...

You see the post I quoted? That. I'm tired of being accused of favouring people who don't think the vocals on the album authentic. Why would it bother me what anybody thinks? I'm just trying to keep order in here. That is all. But I'm getting bombarded by you and others in this thread, by PM and anything I say gets completely ignored. It's impossible. I'm sorry for blowing up at you. I just really am at my wits end with this situation. Maybe it's time for me to step away from all this. Apologies.

StaceyMJ said:

You see the post I quoted? That. I'm tired of being accused of favouring people who don't think the vocals on the album authentic. Why would it bother me what anybody thinks? I'm just trying to keep order in here. That is all. But I'm getting bombarded by you and others in this thread, by PM and anything I say gets completely ignored. It's impossible. I'm sorry for blowing up at you. I just really am at my wits end with this situation. Maybe it's time for me to step away from all this. Apologies.

Click to expand...

Stacey, first :better:. Relax, I have nothing against anyone in this forum. I said the same thing to Ivy yesterday and quoted some insults that doubters were receiving from non-doubters. As far as I am concerned I never reported anyone.

Second, I have never sent you a pm regarding all this fuss, have I?

Third, I am not bombing you. I am responding to the comments be it you or anyone else without any intention of hurting or insulting. I just can't stand what seems to me injustice, so I react.

When I read "cut the crap" addressed to SamHabib for a tiny reason, while in the "Jason Dude" thread some of us, me included, got insulted for our opinions, despite the fact tha the thread was closed, no staff warned the wrongdoers. That's why I was a bit surprised and reacted to your "cut the crap" comment.

But yesterday I spoke about it with Ivy and it's ok now, we have turned the page and already moved on.

Are we good now?

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

Stacey, first :better:. Relax, I have nothing against anyone in this forum. I said the same thing to Ivy yesterday and quoted some insults that doubters were receiving from non-doubters. As far as I am concerned I never reported anyone.

Second, I have never sent you a pm regarding all this fuss, have I?

Third, I am not bombing you. I am responding to the comments be it you or anyone else without any intention of hurting or insulting. I just can't stand what seems to me injustice, so I react.

When I read "cut the crap" addressed to SamHabib for a tiny reason, while in the "Jason Dude" thread some of us, me included, got insulted for our opinions, despite the fact tha the thread was closed, no staff warned the wrongdoers. That's why I was a bit surprised and reacted to your "cut the crap" comment.

But yesterday I spoke about it with Ivy and it's ok now, we have turned the page and already moved on.

Are we good now?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, even though I quoted you my post wasn't directed solely at you. I guess this is just me boiling over after weeks of trying to keep some kind of control on this situation. Truth is this release has torn the fans, and in threads like this it is hard to co-exist.

I am cool to turn the page, there's nothing I'd like more, honestly. I would just appreciate it if you could all appreciate the situation here and that it's hard for me and other staff to deal with this. It really isn't nice to be accused of things that aren't true. That's all.

But yes, I will leave it here and hope the thread can get back on topic in a respectful way?

I am not happy with this... I can only say to "believers", don't report a "non-believer" anymore, it doesn't do anything good. Goodmeaning mods who try to keep order in threads are adressed for it in a way it makes them go on their knees...

Bumper Snippet I must say that you're tactically uncredible.

ivy said:

are you making your own laws now? or mixing up what you want with what is the law?

Example :Watch commercials and you'll see sentences like "4 out of 5 dentists recommend.." . Where are the legal proof for such claims?

Click to expand...

Everything they claim has to be provable. Every survey they conduct has to hold up to scrutiny. Are you honestly claiming that they can make claims like the example you've given without being able to prove it?

No. I'm not making my own law. Or mixing up anything, The law, in the UK, is the Trades Description Act. And if I were Sony, I'd shut the majority of fans up - who doubt the tracks authenticity - with proof. If they have it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Descriptions_Act_1968?wasRedirected=true

Garden said:

I am not happy with this... I can only say to "believers", don't report a "non-believer" anymore, it doesn't do anything good. Goodmeaning mods who try to keep order in threads are adressed for it in a way it makes them go on their knees...

Bumper Snippet I must say that you're tactically uncredible.

Click to expand...

Lol, umm, thanks? Actually, I am not sure if I understood what you meant by tactically incredible :scratch:

StaceyMJ said:

I'm sorry, even though I quoted you my post wasn't directed solely at you. I guess this is just me boiling over after weeks of trying to keep some kind of control on this situation. Truth is this release has torn the fans, and in threads like this it is hard to co-exist.

I am cool to turn the page, there's nothing I'd like more, honestly. I would just appreciate it if you could all appreciate the situation here and that it's hard for me and other staff to deal with this. It really isn't nice to be accused of things that aren't true. That's all.

But yes, I will leave it here and hope the thread can get back on topic in a respectful way?

Click to expand...

Cool, no hard feelings Stacey. I am rather a forgiving joker than an angry man you know, so no worries. :cheers:

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

Lol, umm, thanks? Actually, I am not sure if I understood what you meant by tactically incredible :scratch:

Click to expand...

Well... I am not sure either, it is rather confusing I'm afraid. It's late and I'll go back to Zen modus
No confusing feelings anymore now *goes back to Zen*

Night

BUMPER SNIPPET said:

Cool, no hard feelings Stacey. I am rather a forgiving joker than an angry man you know, so no worries. :cheers:

Click to expand...

I'm glad we can move forward. Again apologies for my outburst :blush: Peace out!

Garden said:

Well... I am not sure either, it is rather confusing I'm afraid. It's late and I'll go back to Zen modus
No confusing feelings anymore now *goes back to Zen*

Night

Click to expand...

Ok, slaap wel ;-)

samhabib said:

Everything they claim has to be provable. Every survey they conduct has to hold up to scrutiny. Are you honestly claiming that they can make claims like the example you've given without being able to prove it?

No. I'm not making my own law. Or mixing up anything, The law, in the UK, is the Trades Description Act. And if I were Sony, I'd shut the majority of fans up - who doubt the tracks authenticity - with proof. If they have it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Descriptions_Act_1968?wasRedirected=true

Click to expand...

okay "has to be provable" and "must to prove it" is two different things. and you are mixing those two up.

Let's go back to the example that I have given " 4 out of 5 dentists recommend" is a line used by Trident since 1960s. Apparently they have been making this claim based on a survey they carried out but almost 40 years later still no details of this survey has been made publicly available.

It's the same thing with "Michael" album. Estate and Epic has come out and said "2 forensic experts and several people that worked with MJ said this is the vocals of Michael Jackson and we are confident with our results". Basically they are saying "we made some tests and it backs up / prove what we are saying".

But "must they prove it?"

Again as Trident gum doesn't come with a copy of the survey done among the dentists , "Michael" album don't need to come with a copy of the forensic expert reports or testimonies of people.

And as I said before if you are making a claim of these statements are false , burden is on you for challenging them.

btw - Trades Description Act is the law that allows you to sue companies for fraud. See below

If you consider that you are asking no more than your legal rights, in the last resort it is up to you to enforce them by taking the trader to court in a civil action - no one else can do that on your behalf.

and again if you still want "show me proof" then you really shouldn't be harrassing people here but legally challenge Epic/Estate.

samhabib said:

Completely incorrect. You claimed there were 'other' alias' on them and that Frank's had nothing to do with the 'pill bottle'. Right here in fact...





Yes you did.

Click to expand...

There were other alias' other than Frank Tyson on whatever was found, that's what I said, I never said his name wasn't on the pill bottles. I'd appreciate it if you stopped trying to put words in my mouth. All I said was, you're basically assuming this person had anything to do with the situation, without any proof at all. If that's the case, how do you explain the other alias? That's a whole different topic, but you're once again accusing people without anything substantial to back your claim.

samhabib said:

No you didn't.

Click to expand...

I don't know how it was slander, when everything I posted regarding their past was a fact. You claim these other individuals are shady, without any proof, yet I give you facts about the names mentioned shady history. You can't dispute it so the best you can say is it's slander. But alright.

samhabib said:

Firstly most fans doubt the authenticity of the vocals. Not just me. Most fans. Even by MJJC's own poll. So the majority of the fans doubt the tracks are completely legitimate. The onus is on the Estate and Sony to prove the vocals are legitimate. They've provided precisely NOTHING to support the legitimacy of the tracks. Absolutely nothing.*

'Hypocrite'? 'A mess'? 'Stupid'? And not once do the Mods warn you? Incredible.*

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but you showcase these acts, on your own. I just don't understand how you can back one side, with a shady history (backed with facts), and no proof to support their claim. Yet, attack another side for being shady, without anything substantial to support the statement, and for having no proof to support their own statements.

I just don't get it.

samhabib said:

Everything they claim has to be provable. Every survey they conduct has to hold up to scrutiny. Are you honestly claiming that they can make claims like the example you've given without being able to prove it?

No. I'm not making my own law. Or mixing up anything, The law, in the UK, is the Trades Description Act. And if I were Sony, I'd shut the majority of fans up - who doubt the tracks authenticity - with proof. If they have it.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Descriptions_Act_1968?wasRedirected=true

Click to expand...

If that's the case, what are you waiting for? Take them to court.

ivy said:

okay "has to be provable" and "must to prove it" is two different things. and you are mixing those two up.

Let's go back to the example that I have given " 4 out of 5 dentists recommend" is a line used by Trident since 1960s. Apparently they have been making this claim based on a survey they carried out but almost 40 years later still no details of this survey has been made publicly available.*

It's the same thing with "Michael" album. Estate and Epic has come out and said "2 forensic experts and several people that worked with MJ said this is the vocals of Michael Jackson and we are confident with our results". *Basically they are saying "we made some tests and it backs up / prove what we are saying".*

But "must they prove it?"

Again as Trident gum doesn't come with a copy of the survey done among the dentists , "Michael" album don't need to come with a copy of the forensic expert reports or testimonies of people.

And as I said before if you are making a claim of these statements are false , burden is on you for challenging them.*

btw - Trades Description Act is the law that allows you to sue companies for fraud. See below

If you consider that you are asking no more than your legal rights, in the last resort it is up to you to enforce them by taking the trader to court in a civil action - no one else can do that on your behalf.

and again if you still want "show me proof" then you really shouldn't be harrassing people here but legally challenge Epic/Estate.

Click to expand...

Yes. Sounds like Trident's claim is as dubious as the Estate's, in that case. Although you originally alluded that they hadn't even conducted a survey when you said "Watch commercials and you'll see sentences like "4 out of 5 dentists recommend.." . Where are the legal proof for such claims?"

Harassing? Interesting choice of word.

If people believe the songs are legitimate, they believe Taryll is lying. It's as simple as that. I'd like to know on what basis. By no stretch of the word is that 'harassment'. If people can't prove that he's a liar, then they have no right to claim he is one. *

serendipity said:

If that's the case, what are you waiting for? Take them to court.

Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant.

wow you guys really love talking in circles, don't you?

To me honestly I can't 'hear' Michael in these songs. Could it be he tried sounding completely new, sure could be... however my ears got a lot of Michael Jackson through many decades lol and they can't adapt to those songs being Michael Jackson songs, so to me as a person these songs are no Michael Jackson songs.
Yeah call those Cascio songs as they are more known for that than that many ppl would really call them Michael Jackson songs, well I suppose that is life in the music industry nowadays, you try to sell, you don't care that much about really giving talent a chance.
That's ok to me, as it's not really my professional field and to take these songs on the Michael album... well that's just logical from this standpoint then... ppl are entitled to their decisions and their motives that is simply all up to the estate and Sony and the Cascios (yep also from that standpoint out not really Michael Jackson IN there) so I accept it's their decision.
Would I've done that? certainly not, at least never on the very first album coming out after Michaels passing with the 'title' Michael... however it wasn't my decision and I can live with it.
They just certainly don't sound Michael to me nor do they 'feel' Michael to me. But that's subjectively only me.

Oh and btw I didn't buy the Michael album yet, not because I do boycott it cuz I'm against Sony or because I feel betrayed cuz of the Cascio songs or something, more because I only buy what I subjectively like.
Doesn't mean I don't like every song on the album, doesn't mean I'm not a Michael Jackson fan, doesn't mean I do not support his legacy... means only his legacy to me was put out there by Michael Jackson himself... noone else will ever change this or even be able to scrap on it.

Ok sorry for interrupting you guys having fun talking in circles... just felt I'd give my subjectivly opinion. Have fun!