This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - PJ4MJ
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
« on: February 19, 2011, 11:44:04 AM »
I'm leaving.
It has nothing to do with Michael. Since I came to believe in the hoax in June 2010, I've only had one very bad day several months back where I questioned him being alive.
I simply cannot stay after watching Souza ban Serenitys_Dream. Other people have been banned (deactivated...whatever), I know, but SD was the final straw. The way Souza just arbitrarily dispatched a long standing and widely respected member with almost 3000 posts of enlightening hoax information and connections really just sickens me. (And yes, I read the thread on .net and still don't see any evidence of gossiping or back stabbing.) I said it in the Wonderwall thread: Souza let her emotions and admin rights get the best of her. In fact, upon further reflection, I say she abused her admin rights and acted like a dictator. And what a foolish, wasteful thing she's done. This forum and the hoax will suffer greatly for it.
This morning I also read Mo's twitter about this site's recent hacking. I have no way of knowing if everything she says is true or not, but just the possibility is enough to set alarm bells off in my head. I totally missed the site being down and happened to log in about an hour after it came back up. Of course I wondered what happened. I would think every member here would, but all Souza stated was:
"There are people claiming to know all about this hack and many different stories are floating around, but I don't feel like addressing any of them if you don't mind."
Actually, come to think of it, I DO mind. Souza's the only admin on this site and as such, she should inform the members as to exactly what happened. Since we all fancy ourselves investigators here, ask yourself this: Why not tell exactly what happened? Because it's not relevent to the hoax? Seriously! Her silence opens the door for people to believe all the other "stories" about the hacking, and also allows Souza to feel personally attacked if somebody asserts she has some culpability in it taking place. Mo mentions a software vulnerability that was fixed with the updated version. If that's the case, there's certainly no threat of a repeat hacking by telling the members THAT much. And guess what, Souza? Saying what I just said does not constitute a personal attack against you. It's a hypothesis - one that you can easily dismiss with information you possess.
I'm not the first person to leave because of Souza, and I doubt I'll be the last. All it will take is another member to piss her off and, as with SD, she'll declare "You are out" and immediately deactivate the account. No doubt many will feel differently until it happens to them, someone they respect, or they realize just how quickly one can go from being a valued member to being silenced.
Some people will think these are stupid reasons to leave the forum and that I'm losing sight of Michael, the real reason we're all here. I respectfully disagree, and Michael continues to be in my thoughts and prayers. I will continue my investigation. I just cannot feel good about this particular site anymore or the person running it, and I cannot stand by and quietly accept what happened to SD, who contributed so much to Michael's hoax.
To those who have befriended me: I may not have posted much or often but you made me feel like a valued voice. To those who don't know me, don't care, or respectfully disagree with my choice: I wish you the best in your quest for truth - and sincerely hope you one day find it.
2
« on: February 19, 2011, 12:15:43 AM »
Serenity's belief is fully intact. Read this thread and come to your own conclusions: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
3
« on: February 17, 2011, 01:18:51 AM »
If, as SD suggests, this magazine is a go-nowhere enterprise then I guess in the end it will be much ado about nothing. I'm kinda middle-of-the-fence on this one. I don't damn Souza for doing it. Likewise, I don't damn those who oppose it. As with almost every discussion on this forum, there are multiple points of view. That's it SD, I am sick and tired of your negativity, lies and arrogance on this forum. I am not spending hours a day on this to get stabbed in the back by members like you. You are out. Seems like they totally agree with you on .net, so I guess you should resume posting there. I disagree with SD being told "you are out." Feel free to think otherwise, but that's my opinion. Yes, Souza, you take on a lot to run this site. I'm not overlooking that. But to suggest that you are the same as anyone else here is not exactly true when you can de-activate someone just because you've had enough of them. There are a few people I'd rather not see on this site but I can't just say, "Okay, I'm done with you!" and make it so. SD has been one of the biggest contributors of analytical information in this hoax. You have put a lot of sweat and tears into this forum but I'd argue that SD has probably spent hours a day here, as well. So how is it that you're being "stabbed in the back" for all your hard work, but SD isn't? I don't see how anything she posted to you in this thread is any more severe or personally attacking than what you said in your parting post. And I also think what anybody chooses to post on another forum is their business. Anybody else can choose to go there and take up the argument, or not. That's the beauty (and peril) of the internet. Do I have an appreciation for SD? Yes, I do so you might say I'm biased. But I have an appreciation for you, too, Souza. On this one, I just think you let your emotions combined with your admin rights get the better of you.
4
« on: February 12, 2011, 10:00:03 AM »
Interesting to me that that TMZ used the pic with the masonic chain around his neck. I would think the standard CM photo with the cheesy smile and arms folded would be the obvious choice. Anyway, CM being a fake mason was discussed way back in December 2009: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
5
« on: February 12, 2011, 09:31:20 AM »
And I wonder why he has that make up on...? There is a CLEAR line of DARK makeup on his face..lighter on the neck and back of neck. (reminds me of the "makeup" on the "shirt" in the closet).
Also, I've never been to a doctor and the doctor came out and got me. It's either a nurse or a medical assistant. Hummm My doctor comes out to get me. His medical assistant will bring me back first to have vitals taken, but then he comes out to the waiting room when he's ready to see me. Anyway, just an example to show there's no hard rule on that.
6
« on: February 10, 2011, 08:12:01 AM »
I'm reading these articles and I'm just not seeing where Chernoff is saying anything much less revealing this as his defense strategy. I think the whole "MJ killed himself" by "self-injection" or "drinking Propofol" is completely journalistic liberties. If you read carefully it's all BS reporting. I agree with you. My comment before the article was more sarcasm than anything else. I guess we'll find out the truth as the trial continues on.
7
« on: February 10, 2011, 08:05:11 AM »
Another fine role model for our children. She and others like her have sold their souls to the Devil - whether you believe in one literally or figuratively. But dress it up with a catchy beat, T&A, and some ridiculous costumes and suddenly it's "performance art." Maybe she'll duet with Lady Gaga next....oh wait, queen Beyonce has already been there, done that.
8
« on: February 10, 2011, 07:49:44 AM »
I had the same problem and sent a PM to Souza. In the meantime, you can probably preview or submit shorter posts. That worked for me.
9
« on: February 09, 2011, 11:50:36 PM »
Okay, now they claim Michael drank the propofol? :roll: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginHinting at how they intend to get Dr. Conrad Murray off the hook, his defense team continues to float trial balloons of how they’ll plant reasonable doubt in jurors’ minds. Dying from a Propfol overdose at age 50 June 25, 2009, pop singer icon Michael Jackson was on the threshold of restarting his brilliant career, winning him more Grammies, platinum albums and praise from a worldwide audience. When he hired 57-year-old Trinidad-Tobago-born physician Dr. Conrad Murray in May 2009 for $150,000 a month, he thought he was in good hands. Preparing for a 50-concert British Tour, Jackson had just finished a powerful dress rehearsal at Los Angeles’ Staples Center the night before he was found dead in the morning of June 25. Murray treated Jackson’s insomnia by administering Propofol, a common short-acting anesthetic used by qualified anesthesiologists in certified operating rooms.
Murray set up an intravenous drip in Jackson’s bedroom, administering various doses of Propfol to keep Jackson asleep, without proper training or monitoring equipment. Never before had Propofol been used to treat insomnia. Only Murray’s distorted thinking and poor judgment created such a high-risk procedure, acceptable to no one but him. When his patient died from his gross negligence and incompetence, he scrambled to cover his tracks, fleeing from the crime scene, until the Los Angeles Police Department tracked him down. Now facing trial for felony involuntary manslaughter, Conrad put the blame on Jackson, not on himself. When Michael finished hours of grueling dress rehearsals, no one questioned his fitness. Only after Murray overdosed Jackson does his he want to blame the mishap on Jackson’s failing health and history of drug abuse.
Showing their cards, Murray’s lawyers seek to blame Jackson’s death on (a) his failing health and (b) on a voluntary self-administered Propofol overdose. Consistent with Los Angeles County Coroner Feb. 8, 2011 findings, the Murray’s defense claims Jackson had Profofol in his stomach, signaling the pop singer drank Propfol from a bottle without the doctor’s knowledge. Murray pleaded not guilty Jan. 25, 2011 to involuntary manslaughter charges, despite Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor’s finding that there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. Murray told police that Jackson “craved” Propofol, referring to the drug as his “milk,” something related to the drug’s milky appearance. Traces of Propofol in Jackson’s digestive tract doesn’t automatically mean the pop singer swallowed it himself or, for that matter, that Murray is off the hook.
Murray’s self-concocted insomnia machine, hooking Jackson up to an IV and administering Propofol without any medical precedent or proper training, constitutes gross negligence, warranting the more severe charge of voluntary manslaughter or even second degree murder. Regardless of Murray’s intent, acts of gross negligence that result in the death of innocent patients warrant more that involuntary manslaughter. Given the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s decision to try Murray for involuntary manslaughter, there’s plenty of evidence for conviction. Murray’s defense team hopes to hang the jury with enough “reasonable doubt” with respect to the coroner’s findings. When Jurors hear testimony from medical experts at how utterly outrageous Murray’s Propofol insomnia treatments crossed the medical line to gross negligence, trace amounts in Jackson’s stomach won’t matter.
Whether the coroner found trace elements of Propofol in Jackson’s stomach has nothing to do with gross negligence by treating insomnia with fast-acting anesthesia. Murray had no business giving Jackson Propofol or creating a dangerous, untested treatment that resulted in Jackson’s death. He can’t argue with a straight face that Jackson killed himself when he engaged in such gross negligence, no matter how well intentioned, or, for that matter, whether Jackson asked or begged for the treatment. No responsible physician gives a patient dangerous treatment simply because of patients’ demands. “Jackson could have swallowed Propofol,” said anesthesiologist Dr. Barry Friedberg,” signaling at Murray’s defense. Whether Jackson “self-ingested” Propofol or not doesn’t excuse Murray from engaging in the egregious gross negligence that caused Jackson’s death.
When Murray found Jackson lifeless in the morning of June 25, 2009, he did everything in his power to cover-up the crime scene, dispose of evidence and escape police questioning. Now that he’s about to stand trial for involuntary manslaughter, his defense team led by Atty. Ed Chernoff seeks any way to find reasonable doubt. “I’m curious as to how ‘safe’ Dr. Friedberg thinks a doctor must be to prevent a patient from injecting himself or drinking as drug when he leaves the room,” asked Chernoff rhetorically, floating too much info before trial. Chernoff must convince a jury that Murray—without proper training, equipment or medical precedent—did not engage in gross negligence, administering Propofol for Jackson’s insomnia. Diverting jurors’ attention on what the coroner found in Jackson’s stomach doesn’t excuse Murray’s gross negligence and guilt.
10
« on: February 09, 2011, 10:40:46 PM »
A hard week at work and a few days away from this forum...I apparently missed the devastation. As luck would have it, I logged in shortly after it opened up again. And despite not having posted very much lately, I still have my account. Yay! Souza - Thank you so much for your commitment to making this forum the wonderful place it is to be and for continuing to look out for the welfare of its members. I hope you now get some much deserved rest! And by the way, I DID have to reset my password so yes, things seem to be working according to plan. 
11
« on: February 02, 2011, 11:24:13 PM »
Maybe the point is that "Michael Jackson The Beer Hunter" is the one who is dead and not "Michael Jackson The King of POP" I rather like that reasoning. 
12
« on: January 29, 2011, 09:17:46 PM »
Here's one with a video: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginThe guy who owns it decides to sell it because his wife might run it over with the car. Really? Tell me they're not just making stuff up to see what people will blindly believe. Seriously.
13
« on: January 14, 2011, 11:00:38 PM »
Yes, I thought the parallel to the recent controversy over MJ's recordings made it worth posting this little tidbit. I don't get the URL, though. It ends with "explicit-oral-sex" ? I guess that must be alluding to the explicit dialogue this guy Lambert claims in the full 30-minute version. Just kinda weird to use that as an identifier, TMZ, especially when the clip or story makes no mention of any such thing. “If you don’t like Jerry’s peaches, then get your f**kin’ ass away from my tree."
Sorry. Also Elvis sounds a little tippy to me... :?
Okay, thanks...guess that one went right over my head. :lol: I wouldn't exactly call that "explicit," though.
14
« on: January 13, 2011, 07:44:41 PM »
Yes, I thought the parallel to the recent controversy over MJ's recordings made it worth posting this little tidbit. I don't get the URL, though. It ends with "explicit-oral-sex" ? I guess that must be alluding to the explicit dialogue this guy Lambert claims in the full 30-minute version. Just kinda weird to use that as an identifier, TMZ, especially when the clip or story makes no mention of any such thing.
15
« on: January 13, 2011, 03:27:59 PM »
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login1/13/2011 11:40 AM PST by TMZ Staff TMZ has obtained a 30-second clip from what could be a historic recording of Elvis & Jerry Lee Lewis back in 1960 -- their only duet in existence -- but there's a problem ... some people claim it ain't legit. The clip allegedly features Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis shooting the breeze at Jerry's house -- and based on the audio, Jerry's a big fan of the King. A guy named Rod Lambert from Nashville tells TMZ, he bought the tape over ten years ago at a yard sale ... and only recently discovered that he could have a piece of rock and roll history on his hands. An audio forensics expert verified that the voices on the tape were indeed Elvis and Lewis ... but Lambert -- who posted more of the clip on his website -- tells us, the company in charge of Elvis' catalog denied it was really the rock legend. Lambert claims the full 30-minute version of the tape contains some pretty explicit dialogue -- and although Elvis doesn't say much ... according to Lambert, Lewis wasn't so cautious, saying things like, “If you don’t like Jerry’s peaches, then get your f**kin’ ass away from my tree." Check out the clip for yourselves and decide. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
|
Show Posts