That was a whole lot of nothing. All I said was that I do not care to listen to his music, I am curious as to why he mutilated his face, and I do not think a man who does an interview and says he does not see anything wrong in taking young boys into his bed for the night is right in the mental department.
None of that was covered in the article. What was the point of that article, anyway? I never believed anything in the tabloids as you insinuate. In fact I have never read a tabloid anywhere. I heard his songs, I saw his mutilated face and I heard him talk about young boys in an interview. No tabloids there.
In fact, I think I was stupid for bothering to read the article through. The first paragraph talks about the King of Pop ''passing on'' and in my book anyone who uses that euphemism instead of the simple, proper word ''died'' is reluctant to deal with reality. I should have stopped there, knowing that reality was not going to be a feature of this article.
What was the point of that article, anyway?
are you having a laugh? It debates and discusses almost every thing that has been discussed in this thread?
all the proof that you said i wasnt able to give to you on certain issues is in this interview
If it was some random interview by public members who have been swayed by the media then i would disricard it but it must have some element of respected weight considering the people in this interview, people who know what they are talking about.
that fact that your editing your posts proves to me that your in a bit of rut and have digged a very deep hole filled with rubbish/sarcastic talk in this thread.
If you cant see some element of truth in a interview like this from two people who have been involved in the music buisness all their life in big companies and have known mj and the people around him for a long period then i do not know whos accounts you could at least be influenced by.
You gonna listen to biggots on the fox news network or these two?