Randall Sullivan's book "Untouchable"

bluetopez

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
4,869
Points
0
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

OH MY GOD this is so frustrating that books like this get so much attention. He is just repeating a lot of junk over the yrs and puttin it into a so called new book. Why are so many fascinated by this in the media? I guess they love there own B.S work over the yrs and liked being talked about like Roger feldman clearly does. SMH

And I'm also gettin pretty tired of passive fans. Who are so quick to forgive or not care about those who hurt MJ in the past like LMP, Wesnier, Shaffel and so on. All because they wanna kiss MJs a$$ now that he is dead. I'm cool that some want to buy Randell's crap book to warn the rest of the B.S in it and I hope as soon as u do u get ur money back!? But, I ain't cool with those who wanna buy because they believe they will find some truth in it.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

The sad thing is we are all talking about Sullivan and nobody is talking about Lisa D Campbell's new book.

http://www.amazon.com/Michael-Jackson-Complete-Story-King/dp/0988413019/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352773313&sr=1-3&keywords=Lisa+d+Campbell

It's her third book about MJ. The King of Pop darkest hour was a good book about the Chandler allegations.

Thanks for the info. I hope fans will rather buy this than Sullivan's book. If I have to choose between well-written but full of lies and not-so-well-written but true, I will take the latter any time. I'm simply fed up with lies and innuendo, no matter how well packaged and how much promoted.
 

shelly_webster

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
611
Points
0
Location
Rhône Alpes
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Wow, I didn't even know about it. She didn't promote it at all.
Have you read it? I sounds like a full bio. Is it well-written? I read her "KOP's darkest hour", it was very factual, but, to be honest, not very engaging for a casual reader.

No, I didn't read but I am sure it's good.
 

christy

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
1,193
Points
38
la_cienega;3737186 said:
he promotes a theory that the singer may have been “presexual.”

“Of all the answers one might offer to the central question hanging over the memory of Michael Jackson,” Mr. Sullivan asserts, “the one best supported by the evidence was that he had died
as a 50-year-old virgin, never having had sexual intercourse with any man, woman or child, in a special state of loneliness that was a large part of what made him unique as an artist and so unhappy as a human being.

la_cienega;3737186 said:
This NY Times writer obviously believes Michael was guilty - and as Ivy says, this stupid Randall gets out of the molestation by just saying Michael was a 50 year old virgin.
Oh yeah? Tell that to LMP, you can't lie with your eyes and sublimal body language.
How she advanced towards him like a * ...........(nevermind)

 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

FAME DROVE MJ TO ADDICTION AND CONFUSED SEXUALITY.

Translation: "We are confused about MJ's sexuality so he must have been too."

Geez. This is almost surreal. I wish someone who is good with words would once write an extensive analysis of why the media behaves the way they do when it comes to MJ. That people feel the need to create a whole alternative reality about him, instead of just accepting facts. I can't believe that people in 2012 still think he died as a virgin when we have lots of facts telling otherwise. Why did Sullivan ignore what LMP said in favor of his theory that is not supported by anything? Why does the media ignore facts those don't fit into their preconcieved ideas? Maybe it's time to revise those preconcieved ideas in the face of evidence otherwise instead of desperately sticking to them, against facts.

And when will people learn that an allegation is not equal to a fact? Just because Jordan or his family claimed something, doesn't make it a fact. Perhaps Sullivan and the NY Times writer would be less "disturbed" by Jordan's allegations if they had not be so lazy and they would have actually examined the facts surrounding those false allegations...
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Roger has more to say about Sullivan's book:D

He seems to be hell bent of all the incorrect info in Sullivan's book, but funnily he didn't see anything wrong with his own articles that were incorrect. Pot, meet kettle:rofl:

Michael Jackson: Correcting the New, and Not Very Good, Book About the Pop Star

11/13/12 12:47amRoger Friedman0

Part 2: Randall Sullivan is just overwhelmed by his material, but gets lots of stuff wrong in his new book about Michael Jackson, called “Untouchable.” The book is panned by Michiko Kakutani in today’s New York Times.
For example, Jackson hosted a Christmas in Bahrain for friends from the U.S. (which I reported exclusively at the time). Sullivan says Michael was thrilled when “Frank Cascio and his family” arrived. Wrong. Frank Cascio never went to Bahrain. He even said so in his book this year. Michael didn’t see Frank Cascio from some time before he was arrested in November 2003 until Jackson arrived at the Cascios’ home in New Jersey (which I also reported exclusively) in August 2007.
Sullivan’s main problem is that he wasn’t there for any of it, but tried to cash in on Michael Jackson once he died. Imagine someone writing a biography of Batman and only interviewing the Penguin, the Riddler, Catwoman, and the Joker. The writer fails to speak to Robin, Alfred or Commissioner Gordon.
Sullivan’s sources are a rogues’ gallery of adversaries: Tohme, Raymone Bain, Brian Oxman, Ray Chandler (brother of Evan, uncle of Jordie), Raymone Bain, etc. Former lawyer Oxman was disbarred on July 6, 2012, which Sullivan only mentions as an aside late in his book. He needed him as a legit source.
Tohme wormed his way into Jackson’s life, and had to be excised in the final months by people who actually cared about Jackson. Apparently, Sullivan and Tohme became quite close. According to his alarming notes in the book:
“At the time, I was trying to help Tohme settle his differences with both the Jackson family and the Michael Jackson estate (and, of course, collect whatever useful information might surface in the process).”
Conflicts of interest abound: buried deep in the book is this revelation: Sullivan introduced Katherine Jackson to her new lawyer, Perry Sanders, who was also Sullivan’s friend. Then Sullivan turned around and used Sanders and his associate Sandy Ribera as sources. Sullivan even admits he gave Ribera a first draft of the book to comment on. What is going on here?

As for Tohme: I’ve never met him, but for a time I listened to his prevarications on the phone. These included that he was a doctor of some kind, and a special ambassador to Senegal. He conceded to me that he was actually not a licensed physician finally. He held on to the ambassador story.
I received this email on March 23, 2009 from the Senegal embassy in Washington DC:
Mansour,
Senegal has no Ambassador at large in that name. the Ambassadors at large
are senegalese citizen. It is possible to have alien as ambassador for a
specific reason, fight for women freedom, goodwill ambassador etc..
But I don’t know this Mr. Tohme.
Fatoumata B. NDAO
Counselor
Health, Environment & Education
Embassy of Senegal
Sullivan doesn’t like this piece of information. He says in his notes that I “found someone” with the Embassy who didn’t know Tohme. He says he’s seen Tohme’s Senegalese passport, with the words ‘special ambassador’ written in by the country’s dictator, er, president for life. Well, I have the email chain from the embassy. And unless Sullivan can i.d. the handwriting of the president, I think there’s a problem.
“Untouchable” is full of assumptions. And to get away with it, Sullivan admits to them in the back of his book. He writes: “I acknowledge that the long plastic surgery section in this chapter could be described as interpretive, perhaps even as opinionated. It was the result of nearly three years of research and dozens of conversations with people who knew MJ. The point of view is my own, but it’s an informed point of view.” Huh? He wrote a 700 page book but doesn’t have the facts. His informed point of view, plus 3 bucks, will get you a copy of the National Enquirer.
I do take particular exception with Sullivan’s intent to throw Michael’s long time friend and manager, the late Frank DiLeo, under the bus so to speak. DiLeo was a complex man, certainly. But he loved Michael and vice versa. Early on Frank was cheated out of millions that he could have made from Thriller and Bad.
After he and Michael split, Frank’s life was full of financial difficulties. As others grew rich from his projects, he struggled. Now Sullivan, taking Tohme’s side, thinks he can paint DiLeo as a villain to Tohme’s hero. I won’t allow it. Frank knew a charlatan when he saw one, and he disliked Tohme from the start. Now Tohme gets to exact his revenge against a dead man– and Sullivan is only too happy to help in exchange for his “exclusive” interview.
Also wrong, wrong, wrong: Frank DiLeo had open heart surgery at Cedars Sinai Hospital in Los Angeles on March 21, 2011. He did not “check into a hospital in Pittsburgh.” Frank languished in coma at Cedars Sinai for three months until he was moved to a facility in Pittsburgh.
And there’s more that Sullivan gets wrong, like how the story broke that Jackson and his kids stayed in New Jersey in the summer and fall of 2007–there’s the story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312120,00.html. What Sullivan has done is chop up a lot of pieces he’s found in research, mash them together and put them in a blender on high speed. The result is something that tastes and smells bad.

http://www.showbiz411.com/2012/11/1...new-and-not-very-good-book-about-the-pop-star
 
Last edited:

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,445
Points
83
he promotes a theory that the singer may have been “presexual.”

Righhttttttttt like thats even a freakin word LOL!
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

I haven't read the book as I'm waiting Ivy's or someone else's summary of it, but what has been said about it on tabloids and TV, it seems that Sullivan has collected every bit of tabloid stories during the years and put then in one book.


And I'm also gettin pretty tired of passive fans. Who are so quick to forgive or not care about those who hurt MJ in the past like LMP, Wesnier, Shaffel and so on. All because they wanna kiss MJs a$$ now that he is dead. I'm cool that some want to buy Randell's crap book to warn the rest of the B.S in it and I hope as soon as u do u get ur money back!? But, I ain't cool with those who wanna buy because they believe they will find some truth in it.
 

8701girl

Proud Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
21,445
Points
83
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

You cant just change your mind bout hating someone then liking them whether that person is dead or not its just not right imo
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

I didn't mean any particular person, just general hater = ill-informed person.
Perhaps I should have chosen different word than hater.

What I was after that ill-informed person who believed tabloid stories of Michael, and maybe after his death this person might have looked deeper than tabloids and found out the truth.

You are partly right thou.
For example, I know DD is hater and she hates MJ with all she has, and will not change her mind no matter what info you post to her. Just like I will never change my mind of DD and will hate her right back:)
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Ok, so randall believes mj wasn't a p*do, a hetrosexual, a homosexual, a bi-sexual, or asexual. He was 'presexual'?? I just googled, there's no such thing. I wonder if having a copy of 'pimps up, ho'es down' is considered pre-sexual, i really don't know.

After initial angry moment, I find this funny.
They are going to run out the words trying to describe Michael:D
MJ was/wasn't p*do
MJ was/wasn't heterosexual
MJ was/wasn't homosexual
MJ was/wasn't bi-sexual
MJ was/wasn't asexual
MJ was/wasn't presexual
Mj was/wasn't castrated
MJ was/wasn't virgin
MJ was/wasn't transgender

For a one man, Michael was many. What next?
 
Last edited:

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Any thoughts of this bit from Rogers article:
"Conflicts of interest abound: buried deep in the book is this revelation: Sullivan introduced Katherine Jackson to her new lawyer, Perry Sanders, who was also Sullivan’s friend. Then Sullivan turned around and used Sanders and his associate Sandy Ribera as sources. Sullivan even admits he gave Ribera a first draft of the book to comment on. What is going on here?"


It there anyone out there that has finished the book yet?
I would like to know what he wrote about time MJ stayed in Ireland and to whom he interviewed for that bit?
 

PoP

Proud Member
Joined
May 25, 2008
Messages
6,556
Points
63
Country
Canada
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

I don't think I can trust that book at all. I'd just threw up on it.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

After initial angry moment, I find this funny.
They are going to run out the words trying to describe Michael:D
MJ was/wasn't p*do
MJ was/wasn't heterosexual
MJ was/wasn't homosexual
MJ was/wasn't bi-sexual
MJ was/wasn't asexual
MJ was/wasn't presexual

For a one man, Michael was many. What next?

Don't forget he's also castrated.
 

Rhilo

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2010
Messages
2,816
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

After initial angry moment, I find this funny.
They are going to run out the words trying to describe Michael:D
MJ was/wasn't p*do
MJ was/wasn't heterosexual
MJ was/wasn't homosexual
MJ was/wasn't bi-sexual
MJ was/wasn't asexual
MJ was/wasn't presexual

For a one man, Michael was many. What next?


Michael was a musical genius, and trashy news sites would rather have people forget that.

I can't believe the amount of publicity this poorly researched, badly written book of fabrications is receiving. We have people denying stories from the book which involve them, including Michael's family members, but nobody to speak up for Michael. The media doesn't care whether the stuff is made-up or has been said in the media before. They know that anything weird, 'wacky' concerning MJ attracts hits.

I wish there was some law to protect the deceased from this sort of thing. It's.just.not.fair.
 

Bonnie Blue

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,991
Points
0
Location
UK
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

I read that abc interview with randall. MJ wasn't 'trying to be a hetro/homo/p*dophile'?? He was trying to be presexual??? This new writer is so ridiculous i almost wish we had jrt back.

I am just mad with him for saying that no one can be sure mj didn't molest boys and that if people are 'honest' they'll admit that - it's such a sly argument to make as we all want to be ssen as 'honest'. It means he has to believe jordan chandler with all the problems that entails (i think most people have just agreed to discount gavin), and disbelieve literally dozens of other boys. Boys who were multi-millionaires themselves like mac and julian lennon when they hung out with mj, or boys who unlike jordan actually turned up to that 3ring circus of a trial to deny that they had been abused and yet are still not believed and seen as possible victims or boys who have just always been there for mj and have consistently to this day denied anything happened. You just can't claim someone is a child molester and not have victims - the entire world knows who these alleged victims are so why doesn't randall interview them instead of wasting his time with mj's sad collection of incompetent business colleagues.
 

Bonnie Blue

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2011
Messages
1,991
Points
0
Location
UK
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Has the Jackson family released a statement about this book since it came out? If there was ever a time that they needed to say something, now is the time. This book is being talked about everywhere.

Mrs jackson's lawyer perrry sanders is a friend of randall's and apparently introduced them and along with another lawyer, riberia, is a source for this book, so mrs j can easily make her views clear by sacking her lawyers. Let's see if she'll show where her loyalties lie.

Where did that nastly comment about diana on mj come from? I'm assuming randall knows she's dead so can't confirm or deny (unlike mark wharlberg) - i'm thinking he must have picked it up from that bob jone's butt hurt book - truely pathetic.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

I read that abc interview with randall. MJ wasn't 'trying to be a hetro/homo/p*dophile'?? He was trying to be presexual??? This new writer is so ridiculous i almost wish we had jrt back.

LOL JRT posted a message saying he had nothing to do with this, wouldn't speak about MJ anymore because he genuinely cared about MJ (lol), blah blah blah. Why would fans be seeking him out? He was our very first forerunner in the "bleached his skin in the 70s, had a prosthetic nose, was a virgin" school of thought about Michael that people still cite as fact. His sources were the same, except some worse: Bob Jones (whose book he cheered on when published), Stacy Brown, Evan Chandler.

After initial angry moment, I find this funny.
They are going to run out the words trying to describe Michael:D
MJ was/wasn't p*do
MJ was/wasn't heterosexual
MJ was/wasn't homosexual
MJ was/wasn't bi-sexual
MJ was/wasn't asexual
MJ was/wasn't presexual
Mj was/wasn't castrated

For a one man, Michael was many. What next?

^ and a virgin
and transgender

He claimed Princess Diana was creeped out by him because of Michael's desire to be with her apparently. Just to hold her hand of course, women are gross and have cooties and he is way too presexual to know what goes after that.

35 1 star reviews on Amazon... impressive.


If people are honest they'll admit that - how stupid. People LOVE this myth that the allegations are this big grey area that nobody really knows anything about. That the kids and families are buried out somewhere nobody can find them.

It's interesting that Gavin Arvizo isn't used as proof anymore though, huh.
 
Last edited:

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

I read that abc interview with randall. MJ wasn't 'trying to be a hetro/homo/p*dophile'?? He was trying to be presexual??? This new writer is so ridiculous i almost wish we had jrt back.

I am just mad with him for saying that no one can be sure mj didn't molest boys and that if people are 'honest' they'll admit that - it's such a sly argument to make as we all want to be ssen as 'honest'.

Translation: "I'm too lazy to actually take an honest look into the allegations. Luckily for me, most of the media and people are just as lazy, so I can pose as "objective" about the allegations on TV."

Newsflash: Being objective does not mean sitting on the fence! Being objective means to take an honest look into evidence and make conclusions based on that. In this case when you do that it clearly leads to a "not guilty" conclusion. Objectively.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

LOL JRT posted a message saying he had nothing to do with this, wouldn't speak about MJ anymore because he genuinely cared about MJ (lol), blah blah blah. Why would fans be seeking him out? He was our very first forerunner in the "bleached his skin in the 70s, had a prosthetic nose, was a virgin" school of thought about Michael that people still cite as fact. His sources were the same, except some worse: Bob Jones (whose book he cheered on when published), Stacy Brown, Evan Chandler.

To be fair JRT had said that long long ago when he interviewed Lisa Marie Presley he believed that Michael and Lisa had sex. He might have believed Michael to be a virgin into his 30s but he also believed him to be really in love and in active sexual relationship with LMP as well.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

To be fair JRT had said that long long ago when he interviewed Lisa Marie Presley he believed that Michael and Lisa had sex. He might have believed Michael to be a virgin into his 30s but he also believed him to be really in love and in active sexual relationship with LMP as well.
The Lisa Marie stuff is pretty much the reason why fans defend his book.
 

ivy

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
16,074
Points
0
Location
USA
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

The Lisa Marie stuff is pretty much the reason why fans defend his book.

Actually I think the first version of his book (1991) is pretty good but he later suffered from his decreasing to no communication with Michael and came the speculations and personal opinions. Fans also defend JRT because he was one of the few people /journalist in 2005 who did not believe the allegations and openly said so.

So we do have terrible books out there including Sullivan, Halperin, Jones, Dimond etc. In my mind although JRT is no where near to be perfect his book is acceptable. I would recommend his book over Sullivan's any day.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Don't forget he's also castrated.

LOL. This reminds me of a blog article I read shortly after Michael's death. The author theorized that Michael was a castrato. Based on what? Well, his high voice. And she wrote a loooong article about castratos and how Michael is one of them. When then readers pointed out to her that there is a problem with her theory: not only there is not any evidence for her theory, but actually Michael's autopsy clearly shows he was not a castrato. Besides she used untrue claims as evidence for her theory, such as claiming that Michael did not have facial hair etc. People pointed out to her posting pictures that this was not true either. And so on.

The interesting thing about this story was, how despite of evidence (autopsy and others) the author still clung to her theory! It was crazy. And she tried to pose as very scientific and everything, but she just totally ignored any evidence contrary to her preconcieved ideas. Isn't it how it's always the case with Michael in the media? Evidence just does not matter for these people. They just cling to their own opinions (unsupported by evidence or even contrary to evidence) no matter what.

I kind of find this phenomenon interesting. It tells a lot about these people...
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Actually I think the first version of his book (1991) is pretty good but he later suffered from his decreasing to no communication with Michael and came the speculations and personal opinions. Fans also defend JRT because he was one of the few people /journalist in 2005 who did not believe the allegations and openly said so.

So we do have terrible books out there including Sullivan, Halperin, Jones, Dimond etc. In my mind although JRT is no where near to be perfect his book is acceptable. I would recommend his book over Sullivan's any day.

Unfortunately JRT too makes innuendo in his book about the allegations. I personally would not recommend his book either. IMO he is someone trying to play for both sides: media who want insinuations that Michael was guilty, but he also wants fans to buy his book, so he is making those insinuations in a more covert way than others - but the insinuations are there. It can be VERY harmful if people believe those stories because fans recommend this book to them and so people are led to believe JRT's book is a true portrayal of Michael.
 

LastTear

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
3,245
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Actually I think the first version of his book (1991) is pretty good but he later suffered from his decreasing to no communication with Michael and came the speculations and personal opinions. Fans also defend JRT because he was one of the few people /journalist in 2005 who did not believe the allegations and openly said so.

So we do have terrible books out there including Sullivan, Halperin, Jones, Dimond etc. In my mind although JRT is no where near to be perfect his book is acceptable. I would recommend his book over Sullivan's any day.

Actually I thought he wrote in the '05 update that Michael's fans were frustrated with him because he wouldn't openly say he believed Michael was innocent?
 

morinen

Proud Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2010
Messages
1,074
Points
48
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Sullivan's book in PDF: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?bpkmj6tc3nzx452

Note: I do not intend to spread this garbage into circulation; this is solely for the purpose of providing informed rebuttals. So please share with care.
 

la_cienega

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
1,175
Points
0
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

Okay, thanks, he quotes Taraborrelli for the bullcrap about Michael and Toya bleaching their skin in the 70s (Taraborrelli didn't use a named source). Scanning through and much of this early stuff is just repetitions of Magic/Madness. I knew the people on Amazon claiming Randall said otherwise were full of crap, yeah he says Michael had vitiligo/lupus, but right after it claims he bleached his skin with Toya. Confirms my suspicions those 5 star reviews are just friends and family members of Sullivan or something.

He also claims Michael thinned his lips and had problems with his racial identity, ugh. Just bullcrap. LOL he even quotes Stacy Brown about the paternity of Michael's children and about Michael hating his race, he even quotes the shit about "splaboos" from Bob Jones's bullshit book, claiming Michael would most often use that word with white boys who shared his bedroom - wow. I'm so bored of shit like this being printed over and over again.

This book is awful, no real fan could enjoy reading it without wincing and cringing.
 
Last edited:

maral

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
840
Points
18
Location
Stockholm, Sweden, Sweden
Re: Randall Sullivan's new book "Untouchable" Tabloid Mess [Threads merged]

i can't believe how low a person can be to write this crap. i mean seriously, WHY would you do that?! i feel sick
 
Top