EXACTLY!:clapping:and I wish some people would open their eyes and ears and remember this!
As you said, the privacy she kept for MJ she easily threw it out the window and I keep saying MJ would not have done that to her. What she was not comfortable speaking about while he was here is what baffled me when I saw those two interviews. The Oprah interview was the clincher, she just let Oprah lead her the entire time when it came to her responses (why the need to stress that the Michael you knew best was young Michael? and that you can't look at any pictures of him after that time?) Oprah just ate that up and the insinuations were just put out there! The movie she came to promote was just a footnote in the articles the next day, Michael Jackson the drug addict was the headline of the day! She had to know that was how it was gonna go down.
I just got this coldness from her during that interview, both it and the Robyn interview just rubbed me the wrong way. This is my opinion as well as my feelings.
exactly. and who are those people who are going on a semantic run on how Janet said what she said? it's not two different things. she accused him of being a drug addict. there's no greater pet peeve of mine than semantics. people get away with a lot of stuff, using semantics. we're not stupid. and, frankly, it's even worse, when a person uses semantics. at least, have the courage to be direct.
MJ wasn't a drug addict. and i wouldn't want the love of someone who would falsely accuse me, and call themselves someone who loves me or says they are a fan of me, if i was in music. i'd rather be by myself, thank you.[my god. there's never enough piling on against Michael, is there? doing it in life, wasn't enough, apparently. let's keep it up in his death, apparently. help out the media, apparently. apparently, the phrase 'you don't know what you got till it's gone' doesn't resonate as much as once thought]
anyway, it seems, she got the message. she's not allowing certain things to be talked about. it would even be better if interviewers would never be allowed to talk about MJ, when talking to Janet, although she keeps bringing him up, because it will continue to start wars on this site. that's obvious.
the great conundrum is this. should any articles about Janet, where she talks about Michael, be disallowed on this site? because there clearly will always be a clash between the many new rules that will be made, on this site, and the freedom of speech rule that is also of this site.
there doesn't seem to be a solution here, on this site. you can't legislate peoples' emotions. you can't unring any bells, here. she cannot unsay what she said, and you cannot make various fans unfeel what they feel.
so what is the solution?
i'm guessing, there is no answer.
having said that, my feelings are my own. you don't falsely accuse someone, unless you are envious. if you are not envious, you investigate, and you come up with hard proof that cannot be refuted. and some don't like hearing it, but MJ is envied. even with a career like Janet's...with the press saying all they say, even in their hate of MJ, the press lines still bleed proof that even they say MJ had a bigger career. and there's enough proof that envy of him is the result. it's not like it's not known. otherwise, why would the press keep bringing him up in Janet interviews in both his life and his death? and why do people pretend that human nature doesn't take over, and pretend that envy doesn't ensue? reality is reality. but pretense rules the world, because of pride.
if Janet's and Michael's careers were reversed, then everything would be vice versa, including the posts being posted.
It's unfair passing judgement on Janet. If we're devastated by Michael's death, how much more devastating is the grief for her and the family.(But, life still goes on.
