Wow, you are very optimistic. I hope you are right, but I don't think so. There are still many, many MJ haters out there. You can find them on any MJ-related article or YT video posted. They won't all of the sudden go away. The information about Michael has been available for years yet many people choose not to believe it. And the media is still not forgiving to MJ. In the future, the main focus will hopefully be on his music and dance alone, but I am afraid his name will always be associated with the accusations. But perhaps the future generations who did not experience the media witch hunt during the trial will look at the cases from a more neutral perspective and focus on the fact that he was acquitted of all charges.
Well, it's the same principle here. If you don't want to contribute to Frank Cascio's financial gains, just don't buy the book. Simple as that
your statements never have credibility when you reduce them to personal fan attacks.
no it's no way the last word.
you got the wrong impression, I'm apologizing for that.
you are all 'allowed' to go on as long as you want... I'm surely not the one allowing or not allowing anything here.
And yes you're right, it's my choice to go into threads or not... and it's my problem that I'm interested in reading ppls opinion and am very much the kind of that I don't wanna miss a thing.
But it comes very much down to that the Cascios in this thread are more discussed than Michael is.
And the whole Cascios theme, believing them or not is more around than Michael really is... and yep that makes me personally sad.
But yep... maybe I should take your advice and just not come into threads anymore... however lol I'll not promise that!
ok lol sorry 144,000 (where is this number coming from btw?) right now I'm wondering if you meant me at all... or maybe Erik I must admitt... uhhh stupid me!
At this point, nothing would surprise me. They could release something like this as a children's book.
now that has my interest..
.......nnaaa...just kidding..
Actually, there's more to that than meets the eye. Take Mozart and Chopin for example. Even to this very day historians are still diggin' through who loved whom, did Mozart actually marry someone while being in love with her sister, who were the muses and coloratura sopranos inspiring him etc.
Chopin's relationship with George Sand is still being dissected. "Historians" are still digging up and analyzing Tschaikovsky's sexual orientation.
Franz Schubert syphilis is still being analyzed.
I'm sure many are familiar with Milos Forman's "Amadeus"- people either loved that one or hated it for the way it displayed Mozart.
Mozart's music is his legacy, Lord knows- but that doesn't mean his financial circumstances weren't analyzed for the world to know.
Someone here wrote that there's no harm to writing that MJ went fishing or went for a walk in the woods- and I tend to agree. Michael was a human living a human life- it doesn't mean a free for all to dissect everything you wouldn't want to world to know about you. And there's a clear difference between describing a fishing trip (to quote that example) and an attempt of humiliating someone- these books are certainly out there.
Due to the nonstop abuse of Michael, people tend to jump the ultimate gun.
There have been some very valuable accounts by those who loved MJ- and you can hear the love and respect in their voices.
For example David Nordahl gave a wonderful interview, Seth Riggs certainly told his story, June Gaitlin told hers- I think it would be grave injustice to label everyone that dares to divulge just about anything about the person Michael Jackson as a traitor of privacy.
Michael Jackson was not only betrayed in this world- he is also very beloved and to a degree it pains me that those that do love him truly get labeled all sorts of things under the sun.
Also, why are we talking about 'tell all' books- that is a tabloid term used by tabloids. The actual press release is certainly speaking a different language and I am simply cautious to pick up a verbal practice that is meant to screw with my brain. 'Tell all' is a way of labeling and a judgement that I would like to reserve for those who have proven themselves to be in the 'tell all' category of books.
There was more than just betrayal in Michael's world and love and adoration should also allowed to be expressed and it doesn't have to be done in a sterile, fraidy-cat way. Nothing the Cascios have ever said justifies the labels that people try to stick on them.
Michael has the great gift of seeing someone's entire potential- who they could be beyond the daily grind, the vision he saw artistically he also manage to see in people.
Did that get him into trouble because people often failed to live up to Michael's good willed perception of them?
Of course.
He often saw what people could be, deep down. Maybe we should try that approach more often ourselves.
There must be some middle ground. Michael refused to acknowledge how his actions would be seen underneath the sheen of perversion in some people's own sick minds, holding people to high ideals- while some of us tend to jump the gun on just about anyone in his surroundings and labeling them all kinds of things under the sun.
Maybe we all could find some middle ground?
Actually, there's more to that than meets the eye. Take Mozart and Chopin for example. Even to this very day historians are still diggin' through who loved whom, did Mozart actually marry someone while being in love with her sister, who were the muses and coloratura sopranos inspiring him etc.
Chopin's relationship with George Sand is still being dissected. "Historians" are still digging up and analyzing Tschaikovsky's sexual orientation.
Franz Schubert syphilis is still being analyzed.
I'm sure many are familiar with Milos Forman's "Amadeus"- people either loved that one or hated it for the way it displayed Mozart.
Mozart's music is his legacy, Lord knows- but that doesn't mean his financial circumstances weren't analyzed for the world to know.
Someone here wrote that there's no harm to writing that MJ went fishing or went for a walk in the woods- and I tend to agree. Michael was a human living a human life- it doesn't mean a free for all to dissect everything you wouldn't want to world to know about you. And there's a clear difference between describing a fishing trip (to quote that example) and an attempt of humiliating someone- these books are certainly out there.
Due to the nonstop abuse of Michael, people tend to jump the ultimate gun.
There have been some very valuable accounts by those who loved MJ- and you can hear the love and respect in their voices.
For example David Nordahl gave a wonderful interview, Seth Riggs certainly told his story, June Gaitlin told hers- I think it would be grave injustice to label everyone that dares to divulge just about anything about the person Michael Jackson as a traitor of privacy.
Michael Jackson was not only betrayed in this world- he is also very beloved and to a degree it pains me that those that do love him truly get labeled all sorts of things under the sun.
Also, why are we talking about 'tell all' books- that is a tabloid term used by tabloids. The actual press release is certainly speaking a different language and I am simply cautious to pick up a verbal practice that is meant to screw with my brain. 'Tell all' is a way of labeling and a judgement that I would like to reserve for those who have proven themselves to be in the 'tell all' category of books.
There was more than just betrayal in Michael's world and love and adoration should also allowed to be expressed and it doesn't have to be done in a sterile, fraidy-cat way. Nothing the Cascios have ever said justifies the labels that people try to stick on them.
Michael has the great gift of seeing someone's entire potential- who they could be beyond the daily grind, the vision he saw artistically he also manage to see in people.
Did that get him into trouble because people often failed to live up to Michael's good willed perception of them?
Of course.
He often saw what people could be, deep down. Maybe we should try that approach more often ourselves.
There must be some middle ground. Michael refused to acknowledge how his actions would be seen underneath the sheen of perversion in some people's own sick minds, holding people to high ideals- while some of us tend to jump the gun on just about anyone in his surroundings and labeling them all kinds of things under the sun.
Maybe we all could find some middle ground?
