knotkranky wrote:DrXparaMental wrote:knotkranky wrote:
I don't get it dude. What is it about the guy being weird that makes you so uncomfortable? .
Uncomfortable about him being "weird"? Nothing. Not a single thing. Repulsed? Take a look. He fucked up his face beyond belief when there was zero wrong with it to begin with. Do you think that was a good thing? Do you think that because he states that he is perfectly happy with it all, that others shouldn't have every right to say "hey Michael, why'd you do that to yourself you idiot?" I would think the latter expression is mighty normal provided you believed that honesty is always appropriate and ethical.
I don't think your the kind of dude that likes to make fun of the mentally ill. Sooo, lets say your right and he was mentally ill. Now what?
Nothing. Why does there "need" to be anything beyond the fact.
Real Facts: MJ was a very shrewd business man - not the trait of the mentally ill.
First off, I'd like to see that accompanied by some form of substantiated proof for myself. I believe this is nothing more than opinion. Personally, I would be willing to bet that it was Michael's personal decisions and excess, certainly not a sense shrewd business, that left him in the aristocratic gutter after his Child Molestation charges. He was broke and looking at liquidation if my memory serves me correctly. I believe that Michael was given a great deal of good advise from shrewd businessmen, but what was solely of his doing, I don't know and I really don't know how someone on this forum could either.
MJ was the single most successful entertainer in history - not a trait of the mentally ill, yada, yada.
Boy, that's about as subjective as subjective gets. "Successful entertainer" certainly not in mine and many other's estimation. You mean "made the most money"? "was the most popular" "AS DECLARED BY THE MEDIA" what?
I've chatted with MJ at length. He was a smart, charitable good soul with an amazing mental capacity. He was a history buff and read like crazy. A genius to musical detail and nuance. You would be no match for MJ in many important capacities, but then again I don't presume to know your state of mental illness either
More subjective BS. Other than his voice, what instruments is the genius fluent on? Could you please substantiate his genius beyond your opinion? Did Michael write music like a composer?
You're a cool dude and all but you're simply an MJ hater. It doesn't matter what I say in defense of MJ, you'll only look for disagreement and disregard the rest.
If I say; "MJ's the greatest entertainer ever" and you say "he isn't", it would be on you to say who is. Simple. At that point, we've got reference points and a decent debate going. But if you want to play semantics games and push the burden of proof to me to meet whatever criteria you can't even live up to yourself, it's just argumentative bitch-slapping. <yawn>
You're a tabloid junky, your arguments and counter points are inquirer headlines at best or based on sweeping generalities that are not meant to be refuted so you can pull out the "that's your opinion" card while holding all the "fact" cards with even less proof. Must be nice.
Anyway, even direct first hand MJ accounts by a forum member is considered subjective bs to you. You've made it very clear that you have no interest in any positive discovery on your part. Hate on dude.
KK, you are completely mistaken. My point was that what you call "facts" are not facts at all, but rather are opinions. Whether those opinions are mass or not, they are still just opinions. If these "facts" exist as you claim, then it's on YOU to prove their basis, not for me to refute that which you have not proved to begin with.
You stated that Michael Jackson was a superior musical genius. I asked you a couple of very specific questions in response to that statement, giving you a simple and concise contextual means of conveying the legitimacy of his declared genius, and you start dancing better than the man himself.
To just state, yeah, I talked with MJ personally and the dude is a genius. What is that stating? It's stating YOUR OPINION.
What is incorrect about what I am inferring here?
Express the specific criteria for which you are claiming that MJ was the most successful entertainer of all time.
I can certainly name you 100 entertainers that will be remembered for their excellence in performance, presentation and their contribution to art, that they themselves and no one else are responsible for, LONG after Michael Jackson is forgot like a 2 century old pop fart in a windstorm.
To state that MJ was all "this and that" is no less opinion than for me to state the man was a dork and a fruit cake. I am certain you understand what I am making clear here.
Shit, the tabloids were the strongest thing MJ had going for him in the end. He lived for that stuff and you know it.
The most ridiculous part of all with respect to the recent Jackson follies is how the media slime can so easily influence mass opinion.
In the voice of a MUCH greater talent and entertainer IMO
"That's right folks, don't touch that dial"
