If you were to interview Michael, what questions would you like to ask him?

[MJ is my life]

And do you get out of the wrong side of the bed every day?

Says you

 

[kelley]

Great thread.

I think asking him about musical influences would just put him into autopilot, and he would just list the people he thought you wanted to hear.

You'd probably get better answers asking him about his favourite food or something.


Jesus ****** Christ. How old are you?!

And do you get out of the wrong side of the bed every day?


For a start, there's "3 million children die every minute". That's just embarrassing.

And how do you know this is a lie and not him simply being wrong about something?

You automatically assume malicious intent for him saying this when it could simply be he was misinformed or simply got it wrong.

It could also be hyperbole which is used by MJ detractors towards him all the time. Like when you all say he lied about everything or in every interview. That is simply not true but you will use that kind of language anyway.

 

[kelley]

Those people sold stories to tabloids and we only have their word for it that they did it with Michael's consent. I would need to hear it from someone who was still a friend to Michael and who did not sell stories to tabloids before taking it as a fact. Ex-friends and people who sell stories to tabloids have never been the most trustworthy sources...

They always use this to create the narrative that it was Michael's fault that the tabloids attacked him the way they did, like he started it and deserved it. Completely disregarding the fact that the tabloids were already printing crazy fake stories about him long before that, like when he was a teenager and they said he was about to have a sex change so he could marry some guy. It's not like the tabloids needed Michael's help to make up stuff.

Thank you for bringing this up. How do these media apologists explain this lie the media put out? I guess MJ planted that at age 18 too.

The media also spread lies about Michael having a drug overdose when he was a 10 years old! I guess that was little Michael's fault as well

Unbelievable.

 

[Michael4MyLife]

I would just play the Cascio tracks for him and wait for his response. No need to ask anything.

 

[MJ is my life]

I would just play the Cascio tracks for him and wait for his response. No need to ask anything.

Finally someone who actually answers the question!

 

[MsAshley]

Those people sold stories to tabloids and we only have their word for it that they did it with Michael's consent. I would need to hear it from someone who was still a friend to Michael and who did not sell stories to tabloids before taking it as a fact. Ex-friends and people who sell stories to tabloids have never been the most trustworthy sources...

They always use this to create the narrative that it was Michael's fault that the tabloids attacked him the way they did, like he started it and deserved it. Completely disregarding the fact that the tabloids were already printing crazy fake stories about him long before that, like when he was a teenager and they said he was about to have a sex change so he could marry some guy. It's not like the tabloids needed Michael's help to make up stuff.

Yes, everyone's a liar and the fans know better than the people in his life. Three independent sources saying the exact same thing are wrong because fans don't like the implications, sure.

 

[kelley]

Yes, everyone's a liar and the fans know better than the people in his life. Three independent sources saying the exact same thing are wrong because fans don't like the implications, sure.

I think you just don't want to accept that so many people around Michael were willing to lie on him for money and did, even many of his so called "friends"

The media (including the publishing industry) have incentivized lying of Michael for the past 40 years. It's an entire industry at this point.

It's not a conspiracy it's simple economics

If you advertise to people that they can make money doing or selling X, they will start to produce and sell X more

If Michael had multiple maids making 20,000 per year and the media offers them 20,000 just to claim they saw him do something to kids, chances are at least one of those maids is a less than honorable person and will take the check and provide the false story. Especially if they've been fired for stealing on the job and they are pissed about it.

Likewise even someone making 6 figures a year might be tempted to sell a salacious story about Michael when they can earn a 100,000 or 200,000 quickly for just selling a story.

And it goes beyond cash. If I'm a d list celebrity trying sell a book and the publishers aren't interested but they tell me they will buy it if I add in some salacious stories about Michael. Unless i'm a really honorable and moral person, I might just do that.

If I'm an attention seeking loser and people are willing to film me for some hitpiece documentary or have me on their podcasts if I make up stories about Michael Jackson, I might just do that.

And this is how we ended up with so many ridiculous stories about Michael from his "friends" and disgruntled ex employees, From his 2 day umbrella holder, From some stalker kid who met him once in the presence of others and decided sell lies about him 10 years later. It's how we got Jacobshagen. Its how we got all the fake sperm donor stories.

Anybody who ever knew Michael in any capacity is well aware they can make big bucks by telling the media what they want to hear.

So forgive me if I don't take Colomby or even Dileo's word seriously, they have a strong incentive to say Michael planted those stories and theres zero incentive to say that the media simply bullied and slandered him. The media wouldn't want to talk them if they said that. There is no gain in telling the truth about what was done to Michael.

 

[MJ is my life]

Guys this was supposed to be a nice thread about what you would do if you met him

 

[kelley]

Guys this was supposed to be a nice thread about what you would do if you met him

If you noticed by post was nice and positive, but then a "fan" came in and called michael a liar.

Whenever we try to have something fun and positive, certains "fans" always show up and trash talk Michael. Have you noticed that?

 

[MsAshley]

If you noticed by post was nice and positive, but then a "fan" came in and called michael a liar.

Whenever we try to have something fun and positive, certains "fans" always show up and trash talk Michael. Have you noticed that?

Everyone that ever criticises Michael renounces fanship!! You sound insane.

I think you just don't want to accept that so many people around Michael were willing to lie on him for money and did, even many of his so called "friends"

The media (including the publishing industry) have incentivized lying of Michael for the past 40 years. It's an entire industry at this point.

It's not a conspiracy it's simple economics

If you advertise to people that they can make money doing or selling X, they will start to produce and sell X more

If Michael had multiple maids making 20,000 per year and the media offers them 20,000 just to claim they saw him do something to kids, chances are at least one of those maids is a less than honorable person and will take the check and provide the false story. Especially if they've been fired for stealing on the job and they are pissed about it.

Likewise even someone making 6 figures a year might be tempted to sell a salacious story about Michael when they can earn a 100,000 or 200,000 quickly for just selling a story.

And it goes beyond cash. If I'm a d list celebrity trying sell a book and the publishers aren't interested but they tell me they will buy it if I add in some salacious stories about Michael. Unless i'm a really honorable and moral person, I might just do that.

If I'm an attention seeking loser and people are willing to film me for some hitpiece documentary or have me on their podcasts if I make up stories about Michael Jackson, I might just do that.

And this is how we ended up with so many ridiculous stories about Michael from his "friends" and disgruntled ex employees, From his 2 day umbrella holder, From some stalker kid who met him once in the presence of others and decided sell lies about him 10 years later. It's how we got Jacobshagen. Its how we got all the fake sperm donor stories.

Anybody who ever knew Michael in any capacity is well aware they can make big bucks by telling the media what they want to hear.

So forgive me if I don't take Colomby or even Dileo's word seriously, they have a strong incentive to say Michael planted those stories and theres zero incentive to say that the media simply bullied and slandered him. The media wouldn't want to talk them if they said that. There is no gain in telling the truth about what was done to Michael.

I think you're just not willing to accept Michael Jackson was a human being with problems. You will deny everyone in his life while citing some grand conspiracy to malign him. Newsflash buttercup, you were not in his life and never will be. It has become evidently clear that you will cherry pick what you want to believe about Michael rather than the entire picture.

If someone as rich as Michael was only paying his maids 20,000 a year in the 90s, well, then he's a prick. I hope they made more than that. However, you're not considering the entire picture there either. There are MORE maids that worked for Michael that contradict what the couple of maids that sold stories about child molestation said. With that said, many of these stories from the mid 80s through 90s were crafted by Michael himself. The only thing contradicting this is Michael lying to the media about it. Similarly, there is ZERO evidence that Bobby Colomby ever sold stories to the tabloids; he has always been reliable. The worst you can find on him is stating that Michael's life was like a traffic accident by the second set of allegations. And it was. You are creating a strange strawman by talking about people that have nothing to do with what has been presented in this conversation. Frank did not sell stories to the tabloids without Michael's involvement, that is also documented by these sources. You have absolutely nothing besides Michael saying "noooo i didnt do annnnything," which is nonsense.

Bobby and Frank's claims match a multitude of other people's, which includes Matt. The totality of evidence cannot be upended by one man's evidenceless claim. Again, Randy's book also details this when HE WAS ON GOOD TERMS with Michael and he signed off on it. You are basically saying the sky is red when it is blue. No comment on what Michael did behind the scenes with Invincible? How there's credible evidence Tommy and the other VPs were content/happy and nice to him up until he took an extra 2 years and then didn't listen whatsoever whilst also making demands like he was in control? Aaaalll these people are going to lie, especially when there's no benefit at this point? It's not like the conartist Cascios looking to make money you know, or that clown of a maid whose son denied what she claimed. But please show evidence, which you hypocritically ask for, that Bobby or Frank are making big money off saying this lmao

tl;dr michael isnt going to **** you, because hes dead

 

[kelley]

Everyone that ever criticises Michael renounces fanship!! You sound insane.


I think you're just not willing to accept Michael Jackson was a human being with problems. You will deny everyone in his life while citing some grand conspiracy to malign him. Newsflash buttercup, you were not in his life and never will be. It has become evidently clear that you will cherry pick what you want to believe about Michael rather than the entire picture.

If someone as rich as Michael was only paying his maids 20,000 a year in the 90s, well, then he's a prick.

$20,000 in the 90s would be $ 50,000 a year in 2026. That's a fair salary for maid. Keep talking buttercup. You keep on exposing yourself as uninformed and foolish.

I hope they made more than that. However, you're not considering the entire picture there either. There are MORE maids that worked for Michael that contradict what the couple of maids that sold stories about child molestation said.

Exactly, because most people wouldn't sell child sex stories for money. But theres always that one lowlife in a group. The fact that more people didn't take the media's dirty checks is a testament to just how innocent was. The only allegations were bought and payed for fake news that the media purchased from lowlifes.

With that said, many of these stories from the mid 80s through 90s were crafted by Michael himself. The only thing contradicting this is Michael lying to the media about it. Similarly, there is ZERO evidence that Bobby Colomby ever sold stories to the tabloids; he has always been reliable.

Theres zero evidence of this. You're telling me the tabloids didn't keep any record or paper trail of Michael or his camp feeding them stories? No recorded phone conversations? No faxes? No letters? Did Michael just telepathically feed them these stories?

You have Michael's word and these other people's word, and you just choose to always believe the other person over Michael because..........You have no reason really. Then you brand Michael as the liar because what he said contradicts the other people, but theres no evidence the other people are telling the truth.

The worst you can find on him is stating that Michael's life was like a traffic accident by the second set of allegations. And it was. You are creating a strange strawman by talking about people that have nothing to do with what has been presented in this conversation. Frank did not sell stories to the tabloids without Michael's involvement, that is also documented by these sources.

Where's the evidence of frank selling these stories? Again, checks, faxes, recorded phone conversations, contracts, anything? There is nothing.

And if frank said he did it, I guarentee it was in some documentary or some book or some article. It was in something that making a profit. Frank isn't innocent in his doings with Michael. Theres a reason he was fired. Just because he said something doesn't make it the Gospel.

You have absolutely nothing besides Michael saying "noooo i didnt do annnnything," which is nonsense.

Denying slanderous stories that were put out for profit and to justify bullying Michael to death, is not the same thing as saying he didn't do anything. You can acknowledge his actual mistakes and flaws without co-signing the slander.

Bobby and Frank's claims match a multitude of other people's, which includes Matt.

And Matt (if he said something) is probably basing his belief of the other unsubstantiated and unproven claims.

The totality of evidence cannot be upended by one man's evidenceless claim.

What evidence? You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence beyond hearsay. And you haven't even shown evidence for the hearsay either.

Again, Randy's book also details this when HE WAS ON GOOD TERMS with Michael and he signed off on it.

No it doesn't. Taraborelli is another liar who capitalized off of one or two meetings with Michael and built a whole career of it. He has one picture of himself and Michael and no others. No evidence they communicated beyond that late meeting in the 70s. His book is filled with fictional conversations that he has never and will never prove actually happened because they didn't so he can't.

And the Glenda tapes prove Michael did not know him like that. he spoke of him as if he was a random stranger writing a book about him which is what he was. And the first edition of his book was fairly decent and thats the one Michael was speaking about in the tapes. It's the later editions of his book where he started lying and adding a bunch of bullshit.

You are basically saying the sky is red when it is blue. No comment on what Michael did behind the scenes with Invincible?

What did he do? because the people who actually worked with him don't have all this outrage you do. You're a weirdo.

How there's credible evidence Tommy and the other VPs were content/happy and nice to him up until he took an extra 2 years and then didn't listen whatsoever whilst also making demands like he was in control?

How dare he, the man who made Sony Billions of dollars make demands. I Guess he should have stayed in his place with head his head down like a good black man. And Tommy being "nice" is hilarious. The man was the devil just like Michael said. Just like Mariah said.

What about was he did to Mariah? was he "nice" to her too? DId Mariah lie as well about him being abusive, monitoring her with cameras. keeping her a prisoner, threatening her, trying to sabotage her album and movie at the time?

She lied on poor tommy too?

Aaaalll these people are going to lie, especially when there's no benefit at this point?

No benefit? LMAO. You're a delusional fool. And who are all these people. You have named 2. You're a bad debater.

It's not like the conartist Cascios looking to make money you know, or that clown of a maid whose son denied what she claimed. But please show evidence, which you hypocritically ask for, that Bobby or Frank are making big money off saying this lmao

Once again Frank's hands are not clean. Have you forgotten he supported the lying Cascios about those fake songs? He said that was Michael's voice on those obvious fake songs and vouched for them and is likely part of the reason why Branca and Sony defended those songs for song and paid millions to buy them from those crooks in the first place. But of course you take his word (that you have yet to show evidence he even said) over MJs, because.......reasons. Anybody else is telling the truth except MJ right?

tl;dr michael isnt going to **** you, because hes dead

And this comment is simply disgusting and misogisnistic. Of course I can't have a valid opinion because I'm a woman right? I just want to **** Michael. My objections to your comments have nothing to do with wanting to present facts and evidence and the truth.

F*CK YOU



ETA: I noticed you changed your profile pic from Michael's mug shot after I exposed you for being a ****** hater. Nice try toots. The only reason you would use that picture is to mock Michael because you're a hater.

You must be Bryan Loren's baby mama. Its not Michael's fault he didn't leave you anything.

 

[Lilloue03]

I didn't kow this thread would turn into a fight. Please answer respectfully or I would have to lock the thread definately

 

[threatened2020]

Out of all of this I am interested in the 'Invincible' saga, did they really give him grief for taking too long with it?

 

[threatened2020]

I didn't kow this thread would turn into a fight. Please answer respectfully or I would have to lock the thread definately

It seems like a healthy debate, maybe the 'buttercup' comments might make it worse lol

 

[Lilloue03]

It seems like a healthy debate, maybe the 'buttercup' comments might make it worse lol

Thanks for reassuring me and for your comments

 

[MsAshley]

$20,000 in the 90s would be $ 50,000 a year in 2026. That's a fair salary for maid. Keep talking buttercup. You keep on exposing yourself as uninformed and foolish.

No, it would not, and especially not for someone as rich as Michael. Double the annual salary of minimum wage for cleaning up after people is nowhere near enough. Your stan behavior is literally arguing unfair wages. Michael screwed a lot of people when it came to wages and royalties. Interesting you had to pivot away from the other examples I gave.

Exactly, because most people wouldn't sell child sex stories for money. But theres always that one lowlife in a group. The fact that more people didn't take the media's dirty checks is a testament to just how innocent was. The only allegations were bought and payed for fake news that the media purchased from lowlifes.

Plenty of people would sell those type of stories for money, as that is evidenced far beyond Michael Jackson. Do you need evidence of the stories people sell and actually lie about outside of Michael? But yes, no one here has argued that Michael was guilty of molestation or anything related. He is "guilty" of leaking stories about oxygen chambers and bones, etc. to the media though.

Theres zero evidence of this. You're telling me the tabloids didn't keep any record or paper trail of Michael or his camp feeding them stories? No recorded phone conversations? No faxes? No letters? Did Michael just telepathically feed them these stories?

I gave you three (four actually) separate sources you have handwaved away. Doesn't work that way. Also, crazy non-sequitur, who said random companies don't have records of whoever gave them the information? Neither you nor I know the details of how Frank and Michael gave them the information, just that they did. You seriously need to learn how to debate so you stop making jumps in logic (and also moving the goalposts), and maybe you'll stop making really basic fallacies kiddo. Very interesting you pivoted away from bobby so quickly. I would too lmao

You have Michael's word and these other people's word, and you just choose to always believe the other person over Michael because..........You have no reason really. Then you brand Michael as the liar because what he said contradicts the other people, but theres no evidence the other people are telling the truth.

Yes, you have Michael's "I wrote a check for 500 million dollars" and "3 million children starve every minute's" word. I believe three independent sources that all corroborate the same thing, you choose to blanketly believe every PR move Michael made. Because...?

When you have multiple independent sources saying the same thing, yes that is going to be difficult to upend. This is actually why the Arvizos' claims tended to fall apart under cross-examination if you bothered to read the court transcripts. You cannot have your cake and eat it too--by your logic, Janet Arvizo was actually held hostage. It would also mean you could not trust Macaulay Culkin's words in court either, even though they are corroborated by a few other people. Take the L.

Where's the evidence of frank selling these stories? Again, checks, faxes, recorded phone conversations, contracts, anything? There is nothing.

Another jump in logic. How do you know these things don't exist? They're not the subject of anything--and it is very likely he still has all of these things. Maybe, if you cared, you could ask him for it. Say pretty please. Also, I'm pretty sure Randy was indeed exposed to these things when writing his initial drafts. I do not think you have actually done much research on this topic at all, just the same canned, boring responses that stans make. Being a fan /=/ being a stan. Being a stan is sycophantic--borderline cult behavior.

And if frank said he did it, I guarentee it was in some documentary or some book or some article. It was in something that making a profit. Frank isn't innocent in his doings with Michael. Theres a reason he was fired. Just because he said something doesn't make it the Gospel.

Frank, as well as others, have indeed talked about in documentaries, books and articles. You are of course free to contact the publishers and so forth to ask what evidence Frank has given, or Frank himself. The idea that Frank is just a serial liar that everyone takes for granted is pretty ridiculous as well--evidence that claim. Frank being fired has nothing to do with anything--this is another jump in logic. Michael and Frank were both on great terms during the 2005 trial. You may recall, if you were alive and following the trial like I was, that Frank publicly supported Michael and denounced the accusers. That is also completely irrelevant, so one irrelevant piece for another. Try again.

Denying slanderous stories that were put out for profit and to justify bullying Michael to death, is not the same thing as saying he didn't do anything. You can acknowledge his actual mistakes and flaws without co-signing the slander.

You have acknowledged zero mistakes to start, as you blindly defend him on literally everything in spite of evidence and logic. Michael put out libelous stories and did nothing about it, because he wouldn't win a court case where he was to blame. You know when Michael did sue, and also won? When Victor Gutierrez put out that Diary of Jordan Chandler book, which was clearly libelous. You also do not understand the difference between libel and slander, go figure. Michael did not sue the media that he directly leaked stories to. Ask yourself why that is.

And Matt (if he said something) is probably basing his belief of the other unsubstantiated and unproven claims.

You are such a hypocrite lol. Evidence this claim. Also, Matt talking about this stuff was in praise of Michael, remarking what a shrewd and intelligent guy he was. Why would Matt lie about praises...? Looks like you didn't actually look into it huh.

No it doesn't. Taraborelli is another liar who capitalized off of one or two meetings with Michael and built a whole career of it. He has one picture of himself and Michael and no others. No evidence they communicated beyond that late meeting in the 70s. His book is filled with fictional conversations that he has never and will never prove actually happened because they didn't so he can't.

"Everyone is a liar except Michael Jackson!!" is not doing you any favors. It is very clearly documented that Taraborelli met Michael Jackson more than "once or twice". Are you sure that's a claim you want to bank on...? Bryan Loren also only has one or two photos with Michael, yet they worked with each other for years, often for months at a time. This means nothing. Michael was fine with Taraborelli's initial work prior to the allegations in 1993. It's true that after that time period Taraborelli and Michael developed a cantankerous relationship where the latter was upset with the former.

What evidence? You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence beyond hearsay. And you haven't even shown evidence for the hearsay either.

You should go look up the definition of hearsay and actually learn how to use it.

And the Glenda tapes prove Michael did not know him like that. he spoke of his as if he was a stranger writing a book about him which is what he was. And the first edition of his book was fairly decent and thats the one Michael was speaking about in the tapes. It's the later editions of his book where he started lying and adding a bunch of bullshit.

The Glenda tapes do not evidence they met "once or twice" but okay. They do evidence that Michael was a virgin in his 30s that struggled to talk to women though. That was my main takeaway from them. They paint a very humanizing picture of someone that needed therapy badly.

What did he do? because the people who actually worked with him don't have all this outrage you do. You're a weirdo.

I don't have any outrage--what a weird projection. You're very angry though, because the idea of a popstar in your head is under attack I guess. That is not healthy, and parasocial relationships like this, especially with dead people, should be avoided. You mean like how he screamed at them all and made demands and threats? He demonized Tommy in the media when Tommy was very reasonable even up until Break of Dawn was heard. It wasn't until a later meeting in 2001 when they listened to the full album where Michael refused to make compromises did Tommy start to become pissed off. Maybe you should actually look into the history of the album.

How dare he, the man who made Sony Billions of dollars make demands. I Guess he should have stayed in his place with head his head down like a good black man. And Tommy being "nice" is hilarious. The man was the devil just like Michaels said. Just like Mariah said.

The man that also cost them a fortune in wasted studio time. You clearly do not understand how business works. Also, evidence your claim Michael made Sony billions between 1990-2001, because that's an outrageous claim. The contract he sign projected a billion+ over the entire period, that's it, and it does not give Michael the right to delay projects by several years and rack up millions and millions of dollars. There are no such things as devils, just Michael's unhinged rants where he went on an anti-PR tour to his detriment. You probably weren't sentient at the time, but many fans were not thrilled with this neurotic and delusional behavior. The blame is very clearly not with just Sony here.

What about was he did to Mariah? was he "nice" to her too?

How many hours of weasel footage have you been watching to weasel your way so far from the point? Do you know what a jump in logic it is? Tommy could have killed a man on 5th avenue and it would have absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Tommy was, objectively, reasonable until Michael delayed the project and kept racking up millions of dollars with very little to show, and what he did show was lackluster. Invincible did not sell well, and that falls on Michael more than it does Tommy or Sony. The latter still spent millions of dollars in promotions in 2001 and early 2002. Do you really think extending that another year would even bolster the album to HIStory's sales? No, of course not. Michael was on a downward trend in sales from Thriller onward, but Bad-HIStory are all relatively similar in copies sold (namely due to HIStory being a double album and counting for x2).

No benefit? LMAO. You're a delusional fool. And who are all these people. You have named 2. You're a bad debater.

I've named four. You seem to have a tracking issue? I don't think you're qualified to be in this conversation if I'm being honest.

Once again Frank's hands are not clean. Have you forgetten he supported the lying Cascios about those fake songs? He said that was Michael's voice on those obvious fake songs and vouched for them and is likely part of the reason why Branca and Sony defended those songs and paid millions to those crooks and released them. But of course you take his word (that you have yet to show evidence he even said) over MJs, becuase.......reasons. Anybody else is telling the truth except MJ right?

Hm, so Frank supporting fake songs AFTER Michael's death means what exactly? Frank's claims extend far before that when he and Michael were on good terms, as well as much later. Also, can you prove that Frank knew they were fake? Even some fans thought they were real. In fact, some fans here are so dense they think Much Too Soon and Best of Joy are fake. Go on now, evidence your claim.

And this comment is simply disgusting and misogisnistic. Of course I can't have a valid opinion because I'm a woman right? I just want to **** Michael. My objections to your comments have nothing to do with wanting to present facts and evidence and the truth.

It's not misogynistic, nice try with the cringe victimization though. It's clear you're a disgruntled fangirl that wants to bang MJ though. Can't relate. Also, I never assumed your gender. I could just as easily call you homophobic by your silly logic you just used, for jumping to that conclusion while ignoring the possibility I could have assumed you're male. You have presented no facts or evidence, you have gone on several unhinged, crybaby rants where you attempt to deify a dead popstar you never actually met. That is not normal, and I will clarify, even if Michael Jackson were alive, he would not **** you.

Maybe you should learn to spell misogynistic while you're at it.

F*CK YOU

LOL

ETA: I noticed you changed your profile pic from Michael's mug shot after I exposed you for being a ****** hater. Nice try toots. The only reason you would use that picture is to mock Michael because you're a hater.

That's a nice fantasy I guess--should I change it back? I thought a profile picture of Michael having kissed Tommy with purple lipstick was funnier. You don't like it? But oh noooo, some crazy stan has called me a hater. Ohh nnoooooo, whatever shalll I dooooo? Boohoo.

You must be Bryan Loren's baby mama. Its not Michael's fault he didn't leave you anything.

Very homophobic of you to say, makes sense given your behavior though. I am Bryan Loren's friend and #1 fan is all. You know what's funny about that though? Michael and Bryan were good friends for quite a period, spending Thanksgiving together, going to Neverland, etc. That is a privilege that you, as an insane fan with an unhealthy relationship to someone you never met, will never experience.

Also, I've been highly critical of Bryan on this forum while also giving him his dues. The same cannot be said about you, however, as this very thread evidences your blind faith in someone you didn't even personally know lmao

No point in even continuing to respond to you.

What happened to this by the way? Gotta defend Michael's honor on the internet, I guess. Can't let people think he was imperfect!!

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Locking this thread seeing as people here can't just contribute to the conversation without causing childish arguments.