Latest on MJJC

Janet is the new face of BlackGlama

Status
Not open for further replies.
nena said:
who cares if michael at animals from time to time lol most of us do and it taste good.
Click to expand...

well, i know you are referring more to yourself, whom you know about, more than Michael, whom none of us know about..but there are people who are sensitive to these issues, who may be bothered by what you say..

mjrulesdaworld said:
exactly! and wearing fur is a luxury not a necessity like food. If I remember correctly, MJ became a vegetarian because he couldn't stand the thought of animal being killed. Then in the early 90s, he's advised by his doctor to eat meat because of his weak physique. But chicken are meant for food anyway while seals and minks and those animals are a part of nature not meant for human consumption. The only problem with KFC is in the process itself.
Click to expand...

well, whether or not MJ listened to his doctors, or the doctors were really his doctors(stories have surfaced of people being paid to pretend they were his doctors) and whether or not we really know the nature of MJ's unique physique remains up for debate...again, the mystique is maintained...and there are people who can go on diets that others cannot.

again...this whole thing about Janet's fur is being jumped on, without research. we have yet to hear from Janet Jackson. Did people ask what she has to say on this? I still don't know if she's wearing the real thing, or not.

People just like to fly into debates and arguments, without thoroughly researching stuff.
 

aww man i've should have never watch this, but i've had no idea how fur coats are made and click this and i feel over :(
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
fuck animals? come on now.
Click to expand...

Yes. I insulted them by saying that they should have sex with animals. Obviously I wasn't being literal when I said it. Being that you are neither my schoolteacher nor mother, I am not inclined to tone down because you tell me to. Also, just because I'm using a lot of naughty language doesn't mean I wasn't calm.

And what you said about the death of humans and animals, i dont agree with that at all. Why exactly are we better than animals?
Click to expand...

If you need me to explain why the death of a human being is more important than the death of an animal, then that's unfortunate. I've had this convo a hundred times in various discussions, so I'm not interested enough to go through the whole thing again. It's fine with me if you want to disagree with this, though I personally will always find it mind-boggling.

All these years of our existance we haven't exactly shown what a great species we are, now did we? Sure...there's plenty of good people, doing good things, but so much evil too.
Click to expand...

Other species are not "evil" because they're not capable, just like they're not capable of a million other things human beings can do. We're more evolved and therefore capable of more good and more evil equally. I'm not sure why people use this reasoning to argue why the death of an average person who isn't a murderer/rapist/etc. is the same as the death of an animal unless you personally held an emotional attachment to the animal (IE a pet).

"YOU of ALL PEOPLE since your BROTHER died..."

I don't see it anywhere in that article.......WHERE is this said?
Click to expand...

I was mocking the underlying message of the Michael reference rather than quoting an actual quote.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Michael would like this. At least if he wasn't totally hypocritical when he wrote Earth Song....

BTW, how can anyone put this on the same level as eating animals? Eating is necessary and human is a meat eater. But wearing luxury fur coats isn't necessary.
 
respect77 said:
I don't think Michael would like this. At least if he wasn't totally hypocritical when he wrote Earth Song....

BTW, how can anyone put this on the same level as eating animals? Eating is necessary and human is a meat eater. But wearing luxury fur coats isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

Isn't it irrelevant whether Michael would like it? People don't live their lives dependant on what their siblings agree with.
 
Until we hear from Janet about all this I ain't gonna comment on the morals of wearing fur. We all know Michael ate KFC but did we kick up the same fuss about that.

But yes she does look good in that picture.
 
Tony R said:
Isn't it irrelevant whether Michael would like it? People don't live their lives dependant on what their siblings agree with.
Click to expand...

And who said she should? I just wondered what MJ would think about it. I said nothing about whether it should or should not be "relevant" for Janet.
 
Grand Master S said:
Wow, are you kidding me? Using Michael's death as a comparative point? I hate people who throw around personal shit like this to suit their agenda. Furthermore, it's crap like this that makes me dislike a lot of the types of people who dedicate their lives to causes like PETA (not all of them, obviously). They're so possessed by their one cause that they come off like nothing else in the world matters.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% on the above quoted chunk of your post.
 
nena said:
For thousands of dollars it better be real ful lol this company is a high end retail line and alot of legends have been the face of the company. I'm not for animal cruelty but the coat does look nice on her.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, where is that bottom left sig from???
 
respect77 said:
I don't think Michael would like this. At least if he wasn't totally hypocritical when he wrote Earth Song....

BTW, how can anyone put this on the same level as eating animals? Eating is necessary and human is a meat eater. But wearing luxury fur coats isn't necessary.
Click to expand...

there are actually people out there who cannot eat meat. their body cannot take it. just like there are people out there who cannot handle dairy products..their body cannot take it. you would be surprised at the variance of humanity. of course, if you cannot go without a certain food, it might be easy for you to assume that no one else can. now it's not that the person is better or worse than the other person..it's just that a person might have gone through something that makes their body intolerant. i know somebody who is actually allergic to turkey and chicken. so..though nobody knows Mike's diet, by what he said, though people keep coming on here saying we all know his diet, the fact is, we just don't know. he remains a mystery, although people have a bad habit of 'knowing' based on not having first hand evidence. there are people that seem to be grappling with what the definition of first hand evidence is. and with this fur thing..everybody is assuming that Janet is wearing real fur, just because petaa came in and jumped on her. they still don't realize that they don't have first hand evidence. that could be a photo of anything..even photoshop. anyway...like somebody on here said..getting back to the fur thing..we still have yet to hear from Janet Jackson...what she thinks of all this...right NOW.m concerning the FUR thing. i know that the scariest thing for people on here is not having control over a situation..but that's the nuts and bolts of it. we don't have control we don't know. no pun intended on the title of a Janet jackson work.

hearsay, whether written or told, by a third party, is NOT firsthand evidence.
 
Last edited:
thrillerchild said:
Until we hear from Janet about all this I ain't gonna comment on the morals of wearing fur. We all know Michael ate KFC but did we kick up the same fuss about that.
Click to expand...


Isn't the hypocrisy of these ppl hilarious? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: :ermm:
 
The publicity around Janet lately is perhaps more than 95% about Michael's death. The rest is about the Tyler Perry movie. Endorsements are solicited from folks who do not have publicity.

That's why it is relevant. I find it tasteless.
 
nena said:
janetjacksonblackglama5.jpg


THINK MINK: Janet Jackson has wrapped up another gig. The singer will join the ranks of Diana Ross, Sophia Loren, Lauren Bacall, Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minnelli and, more recently, Elle Macpherson and Elizabeth Hurley, as the newest face in the Blackglama advertising campaign, 'What Becomes a Legend Most'?

Jackson was photographed by Rocco Laspata of Laspata DeCaro, at the Milk Studios in New York. The campaign, which begins in September, will span print, online and outdoor outlets. The ads will appear in Vanity Fair, W, Vogue, T Magazine and Harper's Bazaar, as well as WWD and Style.com, in addition to the international editions of Vanity Fair, Vogue, Elle and Harper's Bazaar. Blackglama will also mount a Times Square billboard at Broadway and 45th Street in September. The company has increased its marketing spend 40 percent from a year ago, but wouldn't disclose dollar figures. Blackglama has also expanded its product line, introducing leather bags, eyewear, fragrance and fur accessories, in an effort to make it a less seasonal, more year-round brand.

A behind-the-scenes video documenting the making of the campaign will appear on the Blackglama and Jackson Web sites. Jackson flew to New York for the shoot after performing on the finale of 'American Idol,' where her performance shot up to number one on iTunes (which she pointed out via Twitter after the fashion shoot).

So did she get to keep the mink?

'Yes, Janet did get to keep the coat,' confirmed a Blackglama spokesman, a perk for the legends of the past, who all got to keep the coats they were photographed in.
Click to expand...

She can't help but be beautiful
 

I just watched about five minutes of this and stopped. Incredibly disturbing, especially for an end result that isn't even anything other than a status symbol. The slaughter of animals for fur is clearly a pointless activity, unless we're talking about people who live in certain villages who genuinely need animals for clothing.
 
if im cold and there is a fury animal- its either me or it- and it aint gonna be me!
 
Tony R said:
Isn't it irrelevant whether Michael would like it? People don't live their lives dependant on what their siblings agree with.
Click to expand...
I agree Janet would not have though about wether one of her brothers would like it or not. She is a good business woman and probably did this job for money. Personally I dont agree with wearing fur.
 
sharon007 said:
I agree Janet would not have though about wether one of her brothers would like it or not. She is a good business woman and probably did this job for money. Personally I dont agree with wearing fur.
Click to expand...

There is no other reason. While her fans are arguing about the cons and pros of doing this, her bank account is happy.
 
Why are you so against Michael eating meat?
144 said:
well, i know you are referring more to yourself, whom you know about, more than Michael, whom none of us know about..but there are people who are sensitive to these issues, who may be bothered by what you say..



well, whether or not MJ listened to his doctors, or the doctors were really his doctors(stories have surfaced of people being paid to pretend they were his doctors) and whether or not we really know the nature of MJ's unique physique remains up for debate...again, the mystique is maintained...and there are people who can go on diets that others cannot.

again...this whole thing about Janet's fur is being jumped on, without research. we have yet to hear from Janet Jackson. Did people ask what she has to say on this? I still don't know if she's wearing the real thing, or not.

People just like to fly into debates and arguments, without thoroughly researching stuff.
Click to expand...
 
It's funny to see people in this thread talking about being against furs, but those same people are buying clothes that are manufactured by children in sweatshops, and buy their vegetables that are picked by underpaid minorities.

I guess SOME people don't speak out about injustices when it benefits them. :coffee:

Hypocrisy is the biggest bitch since karma huh? :happy:
 
OnOurWay said:
It's funny to see people in this thread talking about being against furs, but those same people are buying clothes that are manufactured by children in sweatshops, and buy their vegetables that are picked by underpaid minorities.

I guess SOME people don't speak out about injustices when it benefits them. :coffee:

Hypocrisy is the biggest bitch since karma huh? :happy:
Click to expand...

You do have a point with that.
 
OnOurWay said:
It's funny to see people in this thread talking about being against furs, but those same people are buying clothes that are manufactured by children in sweatshops, and buy their vegetables that are picked by underpaid minorities.

I guess SOME people don't speak out about injustices when it benefits them. :coffee:

Hypocrisy is the biggest bitch since karma huh? :happy:
Click to expand...

Is it possible you could be talking about Janet as well?
 
yaazgurl said:
Why are you so against Michael eating meat?
Click to expand...

i'm not against him eating meat, and i'm not against him not eating meat. i can't say that for some others.

i spent this entire thread trying to convince who ever answered to me, that this wasn't about whether or not MJ ate meat. it's about some people not taking anything seriously, what MJ, himself says. but, instead, they are taking seriously, what others say on his behalf. somehow..i guess...that goes to reading posts, too.

yet i knew i'd get this response.

so..let me ask you..how come you're so against the possibility that he did not eat meat, in his later years?

and why is a post not read, correctly?

and since this is about Janet and fur...you can always go to pm.

it's clear that if MJ told his own life story, some wouldn't believe it. but if somebody else told his life story, then those people would believe it. and that's the sad thing.
 
Last edited:
Well I know personally that he did eat meat even in times when he said he was vegetarian. But to each there own and I agree that someone eating meat has nothing to do with wearing furs.
144 said:
i'm not against him eating meat, and i'm not against him not eating meat. i can't say that for some others.

i spent this entire thread trying to convince who ever answered to me, that this wasn't about whether or not MJ ate meat. it's about some people not taking anything seriously, what MJ, himself says. but, instead, they are taking seriously, what others say on his behalf. somehow..i guess...that goes to reading posts, too.

yet i knew i'd get this response.

so..let me ask you..how come you're so against the possibility that he did not eat meat, in his later years?

and why is a post not read, correctly?

and since this is about Janet and fur...you can always go to pm.

it's clear that if MJ told his own life story, some wouldn't believe it. but if somebody else told his life story, then those people would believe it. and that's the sad thing.
Click to expand...
 
yaazgurl said:
Well I know personally that he did eat meat even in times when he said he was vegetarian. But to each there own and I agree that someone eating meat has nothing to do with wearing furs.
Click to expand...

you can't know anything 'personally' about Michael Jackson. you're a fan. you certainly can't call him a liar. like i said, there are people who don't take what he says seriously. but i'll say this. you wouldn't like that, if someone did that to you. told you what you do, when you say otherwise about yourself, even if they say they know you 'personally'. especially if they say that, if they never lived inside your walls 'personally'. so the least you can do is believe MJ at his word.

MJ has said that there are a LOT of people who claim to be his spokespersons, who say things about him that they know nothing about. so, i'll go by what he said in his last interview from Ireland, to Billy Bush, which is on video. and by that interview, i will conclude that i know nothing about him, and you know nothing about him.

to each their own, indeed, but it does get disturbing when a fan claims to know something 'personally' about Michael Jackson or Janet Jackson.
 
Last edited:
I'm secure enough to know what I know about michael. Its not worth proving anything to you.
 
yaazgurl said:
144000 you are thick. Just because someone is a fan doesn't mean they can't have had access to michael.
Click to expand...

well, you outed yourself through a member attack.. all i'm sayin is, i'm glad MJ had security. it's one thing to say MJ spent time talking to his fans, but having 'access'? even the musicians he worked with, from Sheryl Crow to Jennifer Batten didn't have 'access' to him. they said so. so..your argument is very 'convenient', but not believable. and i always take Michael's word about himself over your word about him. no contest.


i'm out.

*i'm hearing the billie jean song in my head right now.*
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top