Daily News - October 15, 2009 [ Lots of interesting stuff! ]

[Arabian Knight]

Actually… Honestly… I loved what Michael said (if he said it), let’s read it again:

“You don’t understand — if I’m not there to receive these ideas, God might give them to Prince.”

Not only that this makes me smile for his child-like nature, but also you can see that even Michael believes that God prefers to give the ideas FIRST to him before anyone else, and if Michael is not there then Prince will be God’s second choice!! Here I also sense a lot of respect from Michael towards Prince as a second best. Additionally (and most importantly) Michael knows that he is the best.

Just my thoughts

Update: As per Kenny Ortega’s interview on Oprah’s show he clearly confirms that Michael was joking when he said that…

PS. With all due respect, Michael is better than Prince.

 

[Dr.Feelgood]

I exactly remember Halloween last year...he took my letter and I begged him for a second duet with Janet. Happy times. I hope it is true, would be wonderful to hear both on one track.
He's just too kind for words

 

[princessleia]

Can you please provide the link to this? Sorry to contradict but Randy Phillips of AEG is the one who stated that the insurance covered accidental drug overdose: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31716678

From all the articles I've seen on this my understanding is that they only had insurance for accidents which excluded "illicit" drug use - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32336957

I guess all depends on how you interpret "illicit taking of drugs".

Maybe a scenario involving drugs that is not "illicit/illegal" would be covered (maybe if someone dies of drug complications while taking properly prescribed doses or something similar?) I think AEG believes the drug use in this case is not illicit so t it's covered.

I don't think though that any insurance company on the planet will agree with them and say that taking ICU anastethics at home without proper monitoring is just fine, surely this has to be illicit drug use, whether it's illegal or not in the strict sense (I'm not sure if it's technically illegal or not since propofol is not a controlled substance, but I'm almost sure that an insurance company will not want to pay in this situation).

So IMO it's highly unlikely that overdose was specifically covered, I don't think any insurer would issue such a policy. An accidental death insurance and differing interpretations of illicit drug use sounds much more likely, and it would also explain the contradicting statements on whether overdose is covered or not.