Latest on MJJC

'I've learnt that life is precious': Janet Jackson on the death of her brother Michael

Status
Not open for further replies.
What consequences? janet lost her brother i think we can all agree that anyone who cared about michael is sad that the worst has happened.

Some fans seem to hate that Janet said she felt her brother had a problem,and that the family staged interventions...SO WHAT? I honestly don't see why some people are so mad.

For people saying Janet's comments are 'self serving' and that she threw michael under the bus please explain to me what janet has to gain by saying that her brother had a problem, Janet made it clear that it was her opinion that michael had a problem and i'm sure she has good reason to believe that. Michael did have a problem, insomnia is a problem and to use propfol is a problem. Propofol is a drug which michael died from. Janet never said 'my brother was a drug addict', you can have a problem with drugs and be fullt functional and not be a junkie.

Ultimately conrad murray administered the drugs so he is responsible for michael's death, he was the doctor in charge which is why he is being charged. The charges aren't harsh enough in my opinion because he knew what he was doing but there is nothing i can do about that.

Janet clearly said she blamed murray for michael death yet some of you over look that and make it seem like she said michael killed himself. Janet has said how much she loves michael and thinks about him everyday yet people focus on her saying she felt he had a problem and interventions.

Michael was someone in her life since she was born, she didn't connect with him through videos and or listening to his music on the radio she knew him personally, they were family. Janet may have not been as close to michael in his later years but she was still his sister...she still cared about his well being and they had a bond that the most devoted fan can not possibly match.

Janet is still an entertainer, she has to work an make money whether you like her movies or albums is a different matter. She will be asked about her brother aka the greatest entertainer of all time. Sometimes she'll talk about him and sometimes she won't that's her choice.

For those who say Michael's death has been good for Janet's career you may be right but it's not her choice. When you lose some as great as michael you appreciate the great artist you still have with us. There is a newfound interest in Janet and her family but if you think none of them would trade this all to have michael back then your issue goes deeper than janet's quotes, That kind of resentment is unhealthy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^ Great post. I guess it just helps people to blame someone, be it Murray or Janet. Although I can see why people hate Murray so much (even though I think it was a terrible, terrible error rather than intended murder), but people's vitriol towards Janet is ridiculous. Janet is obviously right in what she says about Mike and she has been promoting a movie recently which is why she has been doing interviews & the like not because of Michael's death.

She can't win, if she talks about him people hate her, if she doesn't they accuse her of moving on.

Do people want her to hide away in a hole forever? Or to kill herself? I imagine the answer will be scarily yes to the 2nd question.

It's been a year, none of us know what dark thoughts & times Janet is going through. She very prematurely lost a brother & had to deal with that in the public eye yet everyone is so quick to judge.

When someone dies, you grieve but have to live your life. It what Michael would want.

People showing hatred towards Janet have big issues.
 
^^You can see it as you choose. My feelings for Janet are not ridiculous nor is anyone elses who choose to react based on what a person has said. I am getting so angry right now, so I better step away from my computer because I am so ready to blow up. "Janet is obviously right in what she says about Michael." No she is not. Some of you can allow yourselves to be stupified in to denial about what she said and implied. If you have not heard what she said for yourself, step back and be quiet and go listen to her context before you come here with that blatant ignorance. "So WHAT" that she said Miachael had a drug problem? Are you freaking kidding me? I can only hope that you don't mean to be as insensitive as that sounded.

Michael had recently started using propofol. The drugs Janet is talking about is painkillers which was not found in his system. That is the "problem " she is talking about and what she felt he was in "denial" about. It is the same Crap the rest of the family has been pushing as well. I understand we need to be balanced in this area of the board and in this forum towards the family. But I personally am tired of people trying to downplay what she said as if it was something small. What Janet was speaking about should have been made clear and should have been final. If she was unwilling to elaborate she should have kept her mouth closed instead of feeding the flame of my drug addict brother. She had multiple opportunities to later correct what she was saying IF she meant the propofol, but carefully chose her words. It makes me sick to think about it. It is the ultimate betrayal, even if it was true. She never spoke about his personal life when he was alive, she should keep that same mantra even more in death. Not using his personal life to stay relevant (even though I applaude her for putting her foot down now).

I don't totally dismiss Janet now. I think she is grieving. but my view of her has been changed. And that is my call to make. This is a board encompassing people from all over the world. Who is anyone to stick their nose down at someone who now feels differently about Janet? Or for people to look down at people who love her even more now. We must allow for differences in opinion here. I can guarantee that I have no big issues because of my feeling for her.

Oh BTW, MJ forgave LaToya because of her being forced to do things by an abusive husband. i would like to know what sinister force is behind Janet to make her talk about MJ so. What does she have to gain about calling MJ an addict? Exactly so why say it? She never talks about her own problems with perscription drugs and keeps her own personal life under lock and key but she will put his business out there (something that is untrue and something that he NEVER did to her) as if it is nothing. She is not even using the opportunity to educate others about drugs it is just simply "self serving" as someone else said.

I need to calm down. I don't mean to be so angry. I apologize.
 
Last edited:
Well we're going way off topic and I doubt I could convince you otherwise. But my original point was Janet doesn't deserve the level of hate some members laud upon her.
 
Ok, we can agree to disagree and I agree with your last post. :)
 
ginvid said:
^^You can see it as you choose. My feelings for Janet are not ridiculous nor is anyone elses who choose to react based on what a person has said. I am getting so angry right now, so I better step away from my computer because I am so ready to blow up. "Janet is obviously right in what she says about Michael." No she is not. Some of you can allow yourselves to be stupified in to denial about what she said and implied. If you have not heard what she said for yourself, step back and be quiet and go listen to her context before you come here with that blatant ignorance. "So WHAT" that she said Miachael had a drug problem? Are you freaking kidding me? I can only hope that you don't mean to be as insensitive as that sounded.

Michael had recently started using propofol. The drugs Janet is talking about is painkillers which was not found in his system. That is the "problem " she is talking about and what she felt he was in "denial" about. It is the same Crap the rest of the family has been pushing as well. I understand we need to be balanced in this area of the board and in this forum towards the family. But I personally am tired of people trying to downplay what she said as if it was something small. What Janet was speaking about should have been made clear and should have been final. If she was unwilling to elaborate she should have kept her mouth closed instead of feeding the flame of my drug addict brother. She had multiple opportunities to later correct what she was saying IF she meant the propofol, but carefully chose her words. It makes me sick to think about it. It is the ultimate betrayal, even if it was true. She never spoke about his personal life when he was alive, she should keep that same mantra even more in death. Not using his personal life to stay relevant (even though I applaude her for putting her foot down now).

I don't totally dismiss Janet now. I think she is grieving. but my view of her has been changed. And that is my call to make. This is a board encompassing people from all over the world. Who is anyone to stick their nose down at someone who now feels differently about Janet? Or for people to look down at people who love her even more now. We must allow for differences in opinion here. I can guarantee that I have no big issues because of my feeling for her.

Oh BTW, MJ forgave LaToya because of her being forced to do things by an abusive husband. i would like to know what sinister force is behind Janet to make her talk about MJ so. What does she have to gain about calling MJ an addict? Exactly so why say it? She never talks about her own problems with perscription drugs and keeps her own personal life under lock and key but she will put his business out there (something that is untrue and something that he NEVER did to her) as if it is nothing. She is not even using the opportunity to educate others about drugs it is just simply "self serving" as someone else said.

I need to calm down. I don't mean to be so angry. I apologize.
Click to expand...


BRAVO!!!!! I am in total agreement with you!!!!
 
Oh BTW, MJ forgave LaToya because of her being forced to do things by an abusive husband. i would like to know what sinister force is behind Janet to make her talk about MJ so. What does she have to gain about calling MJ an addict? Exactly so why say it? She never talks about her own problems with perscription drugs and keeps her own personal life under lock and key but she will put his business out there (something that is untrue and something that he NEVER did to her) as if it is nothing. She is not even using the opportunity to educate others about drugs it is just simply "self serving" as someone else said.
Click to expand...
the motive will come out in due time other than that i agree thoroughly with you.
 
I am not big on judging how a person is suppose to express their grief. Everyone grieves differently. Some are more expressive with their grief than others. So I never questioned whether Janet is grieving 'properly' or not, and I never will---it's not my place. However, I do have a problem with her adding fuel to the fire with her comments about believing Michael had a drug problem and being in denial about it and refusing intervention. Just like it was said before the autopsy doesn't support Michael being a long-time addict like the media has been claiming. Also, from Janet's own words she has stated she and Michael has went without seeing or talking to each other in recent years (which ended at the family anniversary in May of 2009--which she said he was like his old self, laughing and cracking up with her).

The fact is the media (with the help of Brian Oxman, Deepak Chopra, Lisa Marie Presley, Uri Geller, and others former 'friends' and exes, claimed drug abuse on the part of Michael right after he died without knowing (or caring) about the facts. This was another opportunity for the media to slag Michael's character--this time portraying him as a raging celebrity addict with an insatiable appetite for drugs and he would use his celebrity and money to manipulate and demand and beg to get them (which is what Conrad Murray's defense is by the way).

When Janet, who has been looked upon as the 'cool' one, the 'normal' one and quite frankly the one the media has used to slag off Michael, says comments like she has done, it gives haters permission to spew off ill-informed and outright mean comments about Michael such as 'he asked for it' and so on. THAT's why Michael's fans have a problem with what she said. Janet fans would be saying the same thing towards Michael --and even worse--if the tables were turned. I wish they would stop being in denial about THAT.

Lastly, Janet immediately returning to work once again is her way of dealing with Michael's death by keeping busy which helps her to avoid dwelling on it IMO. However, sooner or later his death will hit her like a ton of bricks though. That's not an ill-wish, that's a fact.
 
enlightenu said:
I am not big on judging how a person is suppose to express their grief. Everyone grieves differently. Some are more expressive with their grief than others. So I never questioned whether Janet is grieving 'properly' or not, and I never will---it's not my place. However, I do have a problem with her adding fuel to the fire with her comments about believing Michael had a drug problem and being in denial about it and refusing intervention. Just like it was said before the autopsy doesn't support Michael being a long-time addict like the media has been claiming. Also, from Janet's own words she has stated she and Michael has went without seeing or talking to each other in recent years (which ended at the family anniversary in May of 2009--which she said he was like his old self, laughing and cracking up with her).
Click to expand...

I agree with this we shouldn't be judging. I am a fan of Janets, but I don't really like when Janet talks of Michaels "problems" I just think she is still greiving for Michael, and she is confused. I think because she has seen him during times were he may have had a problem, back when MJ admitted it, and is just jumping to conclusions, from that and the hearsay of the media. I think we should lay off her abit
 
Last edited:
raz2911 said:
I agree with this we shouldn't be judging. I am a fan of Janets, but I don't really like when Janet talks of Michaels "problems" I just think she is still greiving for Michael, and she is confused. I think because she has seen him during times were he may have had a problem, back when MJ admitted it, and is just jumping to conclusions, from that and the hearsay of the media. I think we should lay off her abit
Click to expand...

I agree...I think she was (and to some extent still IS) ill-informerd about what was going on with MJ and his supposed "drug use" as of late. But like EVERYONE has already said...she should have (and now has) kept QUIET about that aspect of his life. When she gave that interview with Robin Roberts...it was clear as day that she hadn't read his autopsy, didn't really know what propofol was, and hadn't seen or spoken to MJ in a while (before and after the anniversary dinner), so with all that in mind, I just can't understand why she chose to speak up on something she was not fully informed on.

man, it is going to be VERY interesting when the trial starts...
 
Yeah, maybe she shouldn't have been saying that in her interview, but people do stupid things when they are greiving...
 
nena said:
What consequences? janet lost her brother i think we can all agree that anyone who cared about michael is sad that the worst has happened.

Some fans seem to hate that Janet said she felt her brother had a problem,and that the family staged interventions...SO WHAT? I honestly don't see why some people are so mad.

For people saying Janet's comments are 'self serving' and that she threw michael under the bus please explain to me what janet has to gain by saying that her brother had a problem, Janet made it clear that it was her opinion that michael had a problem and i'm sure she has good reason to believe that. Michael did have a problem, insomnia is a problem and to use propfol is a problem. Propofol is a drug which michael died from. Janet never said 'my brother was a drug addict', you can have a problem with drugs and be fullt functional and not be a junkie.

Ultimately conrad murray administered the drugs so he is responsible for michael's death, he was the doctor in charge which is why he is being charged. The charges aren't harsh enough in my opinion because he knew what he was doing but there is nothing i can do about that.

Janet clearly said she blamed murray for michael death yet some of you over look that and make it seem like she said michael killed himself. Janet has said how much she loves michael and thinks about him everyday yet people focus on her saying she felt he had a problem and interventions.

Michael was someone in her life since she was born, she didn't connect with him through videos and or listening to his music on the radio she knew him personally, they were family. Janet may have not been as close to michael in his later years but she was still his sister...she still cared about his well being and they had a bond that the most devoted fan can not possibly match.

Janet is still an entertainer, she has to work an make money whether you like her movies or albums is a different matter. She will be asked about her brother aka the greatest entertainer of all time. Sometimes she'll talk about him and sometimes she won't that's her choice.

For those who say Michael's death has been good for Janet's career you may be right but it's not her choice. When you lose some as great as michael you appreciate the great artist you still have with us. There is a newfound interest in Janet and her family but if you think none of them would trade this all to have michael back then your issue goes deeper than janet's quotes, That kind of resentment is unhealthy.
Click to expand...

i 'love' how you spun all this into absolving Janet of what she said about Michael,, when you knew very well that she and the combination of the media that asked her, implied that MJ was an addict. you don't try intervention for insomnia.

it's amazing how some who say they are fans of Michael work so hard to absolve those who put him in a bad light. simple as that. it's not unhealthy for us to care about Michael. we have to work hard enough for his legacy, which is unwarranted, because he was a sterling individual. to have to work so hard for it, right within the community of some of these members, makes it almost feel hopeless.

Janet's consequences are that she's being checked for her words. i am sure, that the way that people seem to leave MJ as a target in both life and death, that if the situation was reversed, Janet would be defended in almost tyrannical fashion.

if Janet was ok with what she said, then she wouldn't have demanded that no more Michael questions, about his passing, would be asked. and, i, for one, am glad, she made that move.

do you know what Michael has gone through? check that, don't answer it. i don't want to hear your answer.

he fell off a bridge. he took medicine. he abused nothing. he got his scalp burnt. he took medicine. he had a flash moment in time, that HE recognized(something rarely done by people)and solved it FAST. the world was trying to put his kids on the street with SCAM lawsuits. he couldn't sleep. excuse him for that. the autopsy report said no abuse of anything. no history of abuse. so obviously, he didn't even abuse anything in 1993, or the autopsy would have told on him. he was just obviously beautifully overzealous about being accountable to himself. so obviously, for someone who was being murdered daily, by millions of individuals over the years, he nipped a lot of problems in the bud, and his body has not betrayed him by showing scientific evidence of abuse. because there was no medical evidence of abuse of drugs. perhaps i should put that in my siggy, one thousand times. my anger is justified, and very healthy. it allows me to forgive. when other Janet threads are put up, i make no mention of this situation. in fact, i post nice anecdotes about her. but i will always check somebody who puts MJ in a falsely bad light.

if you are suggesting that MJ was a functional addict, you can be sure, i'll respond to your posts, with my disagreements as well. because if you are suggesting that, you are wrong. maybe you want to look at that as an ok thing, but i don't. and Michael made it clear that he didn't either.

again, i'll repeat. nobody knew Michael. being his blood doesn't entitle a person to know them. the only person who knows a human being is the human being themselves. you only know yourself. my mother doesn't really know me. i don't know my mother. we love each other. but we don't know what goes on inside each other. no human being knows what goes on inside another human being, no matter how close the two human beings are. a human being only knows themselves. that's it.

and, i'm sure that if what i bolded in your post, was reversed, and the intervention was being done for Janet, and there was no proof that Janet abused any drugs, YOU would be mad.
 
Last edited:
144 said:
i 'love' how you spun all this into absolving Janet of what she said about Michael,, when you knew very well that she and the combination of the media that asked her, implied that MJ was an addict. you don't try intervention for insomnia.

it's amazing how some who say they are fans of Michael work so hard to absolve those who put him in a bad light. simple as that. it's not unhealthy for us to care about Michael. we have to work hard enough for his legacy, which is unwarranted, because he was a sterling individual. to have to work so hard for it, right within the community of some of these members, makes it almost feel hopeless.

Janet's consequences are that she's being checked for her words. i am sure, that the way that people seem to leave MJ as a target in both life and death, that if the situation was reversed, Janet would be defended in almost tyrannical fashion.

if Janet was ok with what she said, then she wouldn't have demanded that no more Michael questions, about his passing, would be asked. and, i, for one, am glad, she made that move.

do you know what Michael has gone through? check that, don't answer it. i don't want to hear your answer.

he fell off a bridge. he took medicine. he abused nothing. he got his scalp burnt. he took medicine. he had a flash moment in time, that HE recognized(something rarely done by people)and solved it FAST. the world was trying to put his kids on the street with SCAM lawsuits. he couldn't sleep. EXCUSE HIM FOR THAT. the autopsy report said NO abuse of ANYTHING. NO HISTORY of abuse. so obviously, for someone who was being murdered daily, by millions of individuals over the years, he nipped a LOT of problems in the bud, and his body has not betrayed him by showing scientific evidence of abuse. because there was NO medical evidence of abuse of drugs. perhaps i should put that in my siggy, one thousand times. my anger is justified, and very healthy.
Click to expand...

EXCELLENT POST!!!! Althought Ms Jackson has now said 'no more questions about Michael's passing' I feel the damage is already done. I will not be surprised if Murray's defense team calls her as a witness.
 
ginvid said:
^^You can see it as you choose. My feelings for Janet are not ridiculous nor is anyone elses who choose to react based on what a person has said. I am getting so angry right now, so I better step away from my computer because I am so ready to blow up. "Janet is obviously right in what she says about Michael." No she is not. Some of you can allow yourselves to be stupified in to denial about what she said and implied. If you have not heard what she said for yourself, step back and be quiet and go listen to her context before you come here with that blatant ignorance. "So WHAT" that she said Miachael had a drug problem? Are you freaking kidding me? I can only hope that you don't mean to be as insensitive as that sounded.

Michael had recently started using propofol. The drugs Janet is talking about is painkillers which was not found in his system. That is the "problem " she is talking about and what she felt he was in "denial" about. It is the same Crap the rest of the family has been pushing as well. I understand we need to be balanced in this area of the board and in this forum towards the family. But I personally am tired of people trying to downplay what she said as if it was something small. What Janet was speaking about should have been made clear and should have been final. If she was unwilling to elaborate she should have kept her mouth closed instead of feeding the flame of my drug addict brother. She had multiple opportunities to later correct what she was saying IF she meant the propofol, but carefully chose her words. It makes me sick to think about it. It is the ultimate betrayal, even if it was true. She never spoke about his personal life when he was alive, she should keep that same mantra even more in death. Not using his personal life to stay relevant (even though I applaude her for putting her foot down now).

I don't totally dismiss Janet now. I think she is grieving. but my view of her has been changed. And that is my call to make. This is a board encompassing people from all over the world. Who is anyone to stick their nose down at someone who now feels differently about Janet? Or for people to look down at people who love her even more now. We must allow for differences in opinion here. I can guarantee that I have no big issues because of my feeling for her.

Oh BTW, MJ forgave LaToya because of her being forced to do things by an abusive husband. i would like to know what sinister force is behind Janet to make her talk about MJ so. What does she have to gain about calling MJ an addict? Exactly so why say it? She never talks about her own problems with perscription drugs and keeps her own personal life under lock and key but she will put his business out there (something that is untrue and something that he NEVER did to her) as if it is nothing. She is not even using the opportunity to educate others about drugs it is just simply "self serving" as someone else said.

I need to calm down. I don't mean to be so angry. I apologize.
Click to expand...

:clapping::clapping:...I agree with each and every word that you wrote!!! I personally dont hate Janet...I just wish she would tell the truth and stop giving into the forces that be and read the damn tox report....that in itself would squash any drug addict comment anyone of them had to say about Michael.
 
StacyJ said:
EXCELLENT POST!!!! Althought Ms Jackson has now said 'no more questions about Michael's passing' I feel the damage is already done. I will not be surprised if Murray's defense team calls her as a witness.
Click to expand...

exactly...I wouldn't be surprised either....as it stands now certain members of the family have already basically gave Murray his defense....and gave Michael no justice...I hope they are proud of themselves.
 
yaazgurl said:
Yes and I have not looked at Janet the same way since.
Click to expand...
Neither have I. Although I have never been a huge Janet Jackson fan, I did decide to support her after that whole super bowl thing.

That being said, I was VERY, VERY surprised that Janet took the route that she did. First of all, she is very private about her own life, and I recall her not wanting to answer any questions as to WHY her and JD broke up.

So her being so forth coming with her "drug addict in denial" story, threw me way off, because usually, it's the other way around and family members are usually tight-lipped until all of the facts have been uncovered, i.e. the autopsy and the conclusion of the doctor shopping investigation. (And when I say "family members," I mean any family members, whether you are famous or non-famous. Doesn't matter, MOST folks try to protect their kin, in life and in death.)

When asked about JD she responded something like "we are still friends and I love him to death," or words to that effect. So when asked about Michael, why couldn't she respond on that same type of level?

I like to use Corey Haim as an example. His mother KNEW all about his drug history, but she REFUSED to comment after his death, other then to say, she "wanted to hear what the coroner had to say." I'm sure she knew that there was a "possibility" that her son overdosed, but she held on and waiting for the FACTS to reveal themselves.

And that, in my opinion, is how family usually responds. Janet did the total opposite and she surprised me, since any other time she knows how to keep her mouth shut.
 
xthunderx2 said:
exactly...I wouldn't be surprised either....as it stands now certain members of the family have already basically gave Murray his defense....and gave Michael no justice...I hope they are proud of themselves.
Click to expand...
YEP, YEP and YEP!

That's another thing that SHOCKED the heck out of me. That any member of the Jackson family would publicly make those types of claims, knowing that Murray's people are out there trying to come up with ways to create reasonable doubt regarding their client.

Does anybody remember earlier on, when Murray's mouth-piece said something regarding "Michael's little problem." I can't remember his exact words, but I won't be surprised if in his Opening Statement he says: "his sister Janet talked about it in interviews after his passing."

We all basically know that Murray's people have no defense, so any claims being made by Michael's own family could very well be added to the mix, in order to bluster any defense theory they are able to cobble together.

No offense, but this is not the right time to be talking about a "drug addict in denial."
 
Big Apple2 said:
Neither have I. Although I have never been a huge Janet Jackson fan, I did decide to support her after that whole super bowl thing.

That being said, I was VERY, VERY surprised that Janet took the route that she did. First of all, she is very private about her own life, and I recall her not wanting to answer any questions as to WHY her and JD broke up.

So her being so forth coming with her "drug addict in denial" story, threw me way off, because usually, it's the other way around and family members are usually tight-lipped until all of the facts have been uncovered, i.e. the autopsy and the conclusion of the doctor shopping investigation. (And when I say "family members," I mean any family members, whether you are famous or non-famous. Doesn't matter, MOST folks try to protect their kin, in life and in death.)

When asked about JD she responded something like "we are still friends and I love him to death," or words to that effect. So when asked about Michael, why couldn't she respond on that same type of level?

I like to use Corey Haim as an example. His mother KNEW all about his drug history, but she REFUSED to comment after his death, other then to say, she "wanted to hear what the coroner had to say." I'm sure she knew that there was a "possibility" that her son overdosed, but she held on and waiting for the FACTS to reveal themselves.

And that, in my opinion, is how family usually responds. Janet did the total opposite and she surprised me, since any other time she knows how to keep her mouth shut.
Click to expand...


Excellent post Big Apple! I agree that most families defend their family members in life and death. In all the celebrity cases, like Corey Haim, DJ AM and even Brittany Murphy their family members never discussed their alleged issues. They wanted to see what the investigation and autopsy uncovered. DJ AM died with a crack pipe in his mouth and I never heard one bad word about his stuggles from his family.
 
144 said:
what's the difference in the bolded? what's the difference between knowing and understanding? nothing.
Click to expand...


Umm, there is a difference between understanding and knowing. :mello:
 
He did not say he had 'drug issues'. He said he had a 'dependency'. and the autopsy report said he wasn't an abuser. so, what comes as abuse to him, of drugs, would not be abuse, to medical experts. just vigilance on MJ's part. the way you combine words in your posts most definitely suggest he was a drug addict, which he clearly was not. medically speaking he was not. he was just vigilant, where many people would not be. i don't think that something that lasted less than a year would be classified as abuse. but between you and Janet, one would think what MJ had was a lifelong drug abuse problem..especially in his later years. you both are wrong. and i makes sense to me that no human being KNOWS another human being. that's like me saying i KNOW what makes you tick, inside. that is not possible for ANY human being, when concerning another human being. blood relative or not. and you are wrong about how fans are handling this. you are leaving out the mass majority that are checking her WORDS. not making personal Janet attacks. but your words about MJ are classified as an attack against MJ.

i don't like animosity toward Michael. and if you don't see your words as animosity toward him, that makes it worse. subtlety has been the biggest weapon used against Michael. and it still remains so. so there are people who act like they don't even see it.

there's also this fervent defense of every member of the Jackson family, in this section..EXCEPT Michael. if it weren't true, the mods wouldn't have to make rules, in this section, constantly reminding the members that this is a MICHAEL JACKSON website.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony R said:
^ Great post. I guess it just helps people to blame someone, be it Murray or Janet. Although I can see why people hate Murray so much (even though I think it was a terrible, terrible error rather than intended murder), but people's vitriol towards Janet is ridiculous. Janet is obviously right in what she says about Mike and she has been promoting a movie recently which is why she has been doing interviews & the like not because of Michael's death.

She can't win, if she talks about him people hate her, if she doesn't they accuse her of moving on.

Do people want her to hide away in a hole forever? Or to kill herself? I imagine the answer will be scarily yes to the 2nd question.

It's been a year, none of us know what dark thoughts & times Janet is going through. She very prematurely lost a brother & had to deal with that in the public eye yet everyone is so quick to judge.

When someone dies, you grieve but have to live your life. It what Michael would want.

People showing hatred towards Janet have big issues.
Click to expand...

They'll then accuse her of doing it for fame. Like they did when Randy had that heart attack.
 
I am re-opening this thread but this is the last time we have to say it, no more drug addict talk. Its quite clearly in the section rules and the main rules. No talk is to be allowed of it.
 
OnOurWay said:
Umm, there is a difference between understanding and knowing. :mello:
Click to expand...

ummm no there is not, sir.

unless you have sex with someone, you can't know them inside and out...and even then, you can't know everything there is to know about them, inside and out, and understand what they are ALL about. and NOBODY spends 24/7 inside the walls, and the mind of another human being. so, to fully understand someone, is to KNOW someone. and whether or not someone is a blood relative, does not change that.

and Michael said in his lyric to Childhood..'NO ONE undestands me.' there is no exception, in that lyric, made for Janet. so that means he said that Janet doesn't know or understand him, either. and he said that he sings what he means and means what he sings, in his songs. and the fact that he said that he and janet think alike, musically, has nothing to do with his personal life and habits, and what happens with him, inside the privacy of his own walls. i'm pretty sure that if someone suggested that another family member knows the inner workings of Janet, and what goes on in the privacy of her own walls, you would definitely be offended. i see you have a siggy helping make fun of jermaine jackson's children, and you have no trouble working on indicting Michael, but, you get hypocritical and go after members, who you view, as attacking Janet. picking and choosing family members, are you?
 
Last edited:
StacyJ said:
EXCELLENT POST!!!! Althought Ms Jackson has now said 'no more questions about Michael's passing' I feel the damage is already done. I will not be surprised if Murray's defense team calls her as a witness.
Click to expand...

It would be quiet pointless to call Janet to the stand, I mean she had little contact to Michael prior to his death, thats just like putting the press on the stand.
They are more likely to quote some of what she has said.
 
raz2911 said:
It would be quiet pointless to call Janet to the stand, I mean she had little contact to Michael prior to his death, thats just like putting the press on the stand.
They are more likely to quote some of what she has said.
Click to expand...

so much for anyone knowing Michael, really well.(that's for the members who say Janet KNEW Michael....(as in truly knowing what he was about, in his latter years, and how he operated, in the absolute privacy of his own home), just because she is his sister.
 
raz2911 said:
^^ she did, just not in the later part of his life...
Click to expand...

well, first of all, the latter part of his life is the subject of these heated discussions. second of all..no. no one can truly know the innards of another human being. a human being can only know the true innards of themselves, and that is it. when they were kids, they said they were close...as in doing regular brotherly and sisterly things together(which isn't the same as knowing innermost private habits). but when they grew, they said they went their separate ways... neither family member can or did claim to know the innermost private ways and thoughts of another, especially, in adult life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top