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 - Bee Bee
Filter to certain boards:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 24
16
« on: December 08, 2011, 01:38:16 PM »
Don't you think you're overreacting a little? Nobody, nobody in this thread has thrown any rocks at Janet. Some people value the lives of living creatures more than someone's freedom to do whatever the heck they want to at the expense of others - thousands of innocent animals in this case. We are appalled and disgusted about Janet's behavior, and if you want to call that "judging", so be it. If criticizing someone for promoting the killings of thousands upon thousands of animals to make a quick buck is judgemental, then being judgemental is just the right thing, if you ask me. However, I tend to disagree about the meaning of that term.
Yes, Michael was judged for dangling Blanket over the balcony. That was not nice. But let me show you the difference: As Michael himself said, he got caught up in the excitement of the moment. When Janet got together with Blackglama for the first campaign, did she get caught up in the excitement of the moment? How about when she did the second campaign? And how about when she decided to launch her own fur line with Blackglama, knowing well that thousands of animals will be killed in her name? Yes, I guess she just got caught up in the excitement.
Poor Janet. I can't believe I criticized her about this. We all make mistakes, being responsible for a bunch of animals being slaughtered for vanity and money really is no big deal at all.
P.S.: When you're attacking us for "judging" Janet, when you point out the media was wrong for judging Michael, what are you doing? You're criticizing our behavior, the media's behavior, as we're criticizing Janet's. When you think it's wrong and judgemental to simply point out that somebody is wrong about something, then you shouldn't be trying to tell us right either. "#EPICFAIL", right?
I stand on my statement, and I will reiterate one major point I made about this thread...
It is both unproductive and malicious.
Show me where criticizing Janet's decision has stopped cruelty against animals?(waiting :|)
Other than judging her for her behavior what have YOU done to educate people about and encourage them to take a stand against animal cruelty?
Anyone can sit back and throw words around or criticize someone's decisions, be it right or wrong, permanent or "in the moment".
.....but what have YOU done to stop animal cruelty?
Voicing your opinion is never malicious, unless you're offensive. Nor is it unproductive, as you might reach somebody with a similar opinion or even convince somebody about something you care about.
What I do to stop animal cruelty? Sorry, I don't really see how this has anything to do with my right to criticize someone who's making money selling a bunch of 'fashionable' dead animals. One thing to do against animal cruelty is, for example, to NOT wear, buy or promote fur. Anyway, in case you're serious and you really want to know, I do not wear fur, I'm a vegetarian, I donate to animal welfare organizations and I even used to be a PETA member. I speak out against animal cruelty whenever I can, as I've been doing on this thread. In case you haven't seen, I've also posted information about how many animals are killed for one fur coat to make people aware of the extent of this issue. And even if I'm not reaching anyone with what I say against fur and against Janet's decision to cash in on this barbaric industry, I will never ever keep silent about it because I simply consider shutting your mouth and saying "yes and Amen" to everything people do (including Michael's little sister) WRONG and insipid.
Nobody's been attacking Janet on this thread, calling her names or throwing rotten tomatoes at her. However, when you're passionate about something, you will not keep quiet even if nobody's listening. The reason behind this thread was not to stone Janet nor was it to change the world. If people can be reached, fine, if not, fine.
And I can't believe I'm defending myself. Not wearing fur and cashing in on it is enough to entitle you the right to criticize somebody for doing the opposite, and everybody has a right to voice that opinion. That is not malicious or unproductive, it's simply right. And you know a very good reason why? BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE A VOICE.
Perhaps you may want to consider starting an animal rights forum. Clearly this is something yourself and others are passionate about. It would do the animal rights cause more justice than here on a HOAX forum.
p.s. I have also responded to your PM. typing/
Are you trying to say, "This is not the appropriate place to be speaking out against fur"? Janet fans tell you the same thing when you bring this up on her pages. See, the sad thing is, though... Animal rights forums are usually read by animal rights advocates. I'm sorry if you feel annoyed by our rants but you're free to ignore them, you know? In my opinion, any place is the right place to criticize cruelty. The ones suffering from it will probably agree. I hate fighting with people over the internet as to what can be said where and what can't. If Janet can wear fur in California, each and every one of us can be speaking out against that in each and every forum, any time, any place. Peace.
17
« on: December 08, 2011, 01:13:29 PM »
Don't you think you're overreacting a little? Nobody, nobody in this thread has thrown any rocks at Janet. Some people value the lives of living creatures more than someone's freedom to do whatever the heck they want to at the expense of others - thousands of innocent animals in this case. We are appalled and disgusted about Janet's behavior, and if you want to call that "judging", so be it. If criticizing someone for promoting the killings of thousands upon thousands of animals to make a quick buck is judgemental, then being judgemental is just the right thing, if you ask me. However, I tend to disagree about the meaning of that term.
Yes, Michael was judged for dangling Blanket over the balcony. That was not nice. But let me show you the difference: As Michael himself said, he got caught up in the excitement of the moment. When Janet got together with Blackglama for the first campaign, did she get caught up in the excitement of the moment? How about when she did the second campaign? And how about when she decided to launch her own fur line with Blackglama, knowing well that thousands of animals will be killed in her name? Yes, I guess she just got caught up in the excitement.
Poor Janet. I can't believe I criticized her about this. We all make mistakes, being responsible for a bunch of animals being slaughtered for vanity and money really is no big deal at all.
P.S.: When you're attacking us for "judging" Janet, when you point out the media was wrong for judging Michael, what are you doing? You're criticizing our behavior, the media's behavior, as we're criticizing Janet's. When you think it's wrong and judgemental to simply point out that somebody is wrong about something, then you shouldn't be trying to tell us right either. "#EPICFAIL", right?
I stand on my statement, and I will reiterate one major point I made about this thread...
It is both unproductive and malicious.
Show me where criticizing Janet's decision has stopped cruelty against animals?(waiting :|)
Other than judging her for her behavior what have YOU done to educate people about and encourage them to take a stand against animal cruelty?
Anyone can sit back and throw words around or criticize someone's decisions, be it right or wrong, permanent or "in the moment".
.....but what have YOU done to stop animal cruelty?
Voicing your opinion is never malicious, unless you're offensive. Nor is it unproductive, as you might reach somebody with a similar opinion or even convince somebody about something you care about. What I do to stop animal cruelty? Sorry, I don't really see how this has anything to do with my right to criticize someone who's making money selling a bunch of 'fashionable' dead animals. One thing to do against animal cruelty is, for example, to NOT wear, buy or promote fur. Anyway, in case you're serious and you really want to know, I do not wear fur, I'm a vegetarian, I donate to animal welfare organizations and I even used to be a PETA member. I speak out against animal cruelty whenever I can, as I've been doing on this thread. In case you haven't seen, I've also posted information about how many animals are killed for one fur coat to make people aware of the extent of this issue. And even if I'm not reaching anyone with what I say against fur and against Janet's decision to cash in on this barbaric industry, I will never ever keep silent about it because I simply consider shutting your mouth and saying "yes and Amen" to everything people do (including Michael's little sister) WRONG and insipid. Nobody's been attacking Janet on this thread, calling her names or throwing rotten tomatoes at her. However, when you're passionate about something, you will not keep quiet even if nobody's listening. The reason behind this thread was not to stone Janet nor was it to change the world. If people can be reached, fine, if not, fine. And I can't believe I'm defending myself. Not wearing fur and cashing in on it is enough to entitle you the right to criticize somebody for doing the opposite, and everybody has a right to voice that opinion. That is not malicious or unproductive, it's simply right. And you know a very good reason why? BECAUSE ANIMALS DO NOT HAVE A VOICE.
18
« on: December 08, 2011, 12:11:09 PM »
Wow....just wow.
#EPICFAIL
.....and I'm not talking about Janet Jackson either.
Funny how some people on this thread are quick to say "we're not judging" , yet have judgemental commentary up and down this thread.
...and some even claim to be in the "Army of L.O.V.E" :roll:
Glad to know Michael would be so proud to see these thread posters going after his own sister with hanging ropes and torches!You are not allowed to view links.
Register or Login
...was it poor judgement on her part? Yes...she's human.
Quit throwing rocks!
Lest I remind you, some of you sound like the media did the day after Michael dangled Blanket from the hotel balcony...and determined he was an unfit father and didn't deserve his kids.
...again, was it poor judgement? Yes... but he's human
You have YOUR BELIEFS about animal fur, which you are entitled to...but take care to put Janet on blast for YOUR BELIEFS.
It is both unproductive and malicious.
...and if anyone wants to take personal exception with what I'm saying, you can PM me...I'll be waiting! 
Don't you think you're overreacting a little? Nobody, nobody in this thread has thrown any rocks at Janet. Some people value the lives of living creatures more than someone's freedom to do whatever the heck they want to at the expense of others - thousands of innocent animals in this case. We are appalled and disgusted about Janet's behavior, and if you want to call that "judging", so be it. If criticizing someone for promoting the killings of thousands upon thousands of animals to make a quick buck is judgemental, then being judgemental is just the right thing, if you ask me. However, I tend to disagree about the meaning of that term. Yes, Michael was judged for dangling Blanket over the balcony. That was not nice. But let me show you the difference: As Michael himself said, he got caught up in the excitement of the moment. When Janet got together with Blackglama for the first campaign, did she get caught up in the excitement of the moment? How about when she did the second campaign? And how about when she decided to launch her own fur line with Blackglama, knowing well that thousands of animals will be killed in her name? Yes, I guess she just got caught up in the excitement. Poor Janet. I can't believe I criticized her about this. We all make mistakes, being responsible for a bunch of animals being slaughtered for vanity and money really is no big deal at all. P.S.: When you're attacking us for "judging" Janet, when you point out the media was wrong for judging Michael, what are you doing? You're criticizing our behavior, the media's behavior, as we're criticizing Janet's. When you think it's wrong and judgemental to simply point out that somebody is wrong about something, then you shouldn't be trying to tell us right either. "#EPICFAIL", right?
19
« on: December 08, 2011, 09:45:04 AM »
Would we please stop judging Janet here please???
I really feel bad about this, not that I encourage the killing of the animals for their fur. I don't agree with this but I also don't like to see we judge her.
I understand you're worried. I don't like judging people either, but nor do I like sugarcoating things. It is my opinion that when somebody does something essentially wrong, it has to be pointed out. Otherwise people would never see they're making a mistake. I don't think any of us is judging Janet, just her decision to support the cruel fur industry. We're not asking for her to be burned at the stake, we're merely criticizing her behavior. Please don't forget about the thousands of animals who will have to give their lives for Janet's fur line. In my opinion, lives are more important than somebody's freedom of expression, especially when they feel it is alright to wear coats made of a hundred innocent living creatures as a fashion statement. She needs to be criticized about this, not judged but severely criticized.
20
« on: December 08, 2011, 07:53:07 AM »
This cheers me up: One of Janet Jackson's longtime fans is so disgusted by the singer's decision to launch a fur line he's selling his memorabilia collection in protest.
Animal lover Sean Oltersdorf of Michigan has teamed with animal rights activists at PETA to auction off 25 years' worth of Janet collectibles after learning Jackson has teamed up with fur company Blackglama and plans to release a new line of pelts later this year.
He says, "I am a long-time Janet Jackson fan - or I should say I used to be. I am disgusted and have decided I want to auction off my entire 25 years-plus of Janet items and donate the proceeds to PETA.
"I have three rescued chinchillas and find Janet's decision reprehensible."
Oltersdorf's collection, which includes posters, magazines, photos, vinyl and more, will be placed on eBay.com next week.
Jackson's luxury mink collection, which features 15 items ranging from coats to gloves, is due to be released in high-end retailers later this month.
Jackson came under fire from animal-rights campaigners last year after she modelled mink items in an ad campaign for the brand. You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginIn case you want to bid, here's the link: You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginThe price isn't all too high at the moment, sadly. Maybe people just don't care about Janet anymore. (She doesn't really deserve any better, I guess.)
21
« on: November 25, 2011, 09:48:22 AM »
The real price of fur must be measured in deaths--not dollars. To make one fur coat you must kill at least fifty-five wild mink, thirty-five ranched mink, forty sables, eleven lynx, eighteen red foxes, eleven silver foxes, one hundred chinchillas, thirty rex rabbits, nine beavers, thirty muskrats, fifteen bobcats, twenty-five skunks, fourteen otters, one hundred twenty-five ermines, thirty possums, one hundred squirrels, or twenty-seven raccoons.
You are not allowed to view links.
Register or LoginThat's the kind of stuff that makes me ashamed of being human.
22
« on: November 25, 2011, 09:33:33 AM »
I probably couldn't be more disappointed with somebody I once respected. You'd do anything for money. That's what it's all about, I guess. And that is someone who supposedly loves animals. I will never ever be able to understand how someone can have such little compassion for other living creatures. Janet is in her forties and probably well-informed about the cruelty involved with the production of a fur coat. Anyway, it is my opinion that even if the production was cruelty-free, it is never alright to slaughter an animal, especially up to a hundred or more for one item of luxury. That's the sickest and most disgusting thing in the world, I'm sorry. No, I'm not sorry, strike that out. Janet makes me want to say certain words starting with the letter b... or c... or the like. I won't lower myself, though. Janet's lyrics feature enough dirty language. 
23
« on: November 13, 2011, 09:43:51 AM »
Just goes to show how stupid and spiteful Quincy is.
There were other doctors lined up... So what? If one drug dealer is responsible for selling a kid heroin, the kid dies, and Quincy goes: "What a joke. There were 20 more drug dealers involved." Doesn't change the fact that selling drugs is a crime, does it?
And you don't kill someone who's paying you? Well, the prosecution has never alleged that Murray wanted to kill Michael, and the jury has not found him guilty on that.
So, how ridiculous is this?
24
« on: November 03, 2011, 10:43:27 AM »
Is it actually normal for a dead body that is not in the state of rigor mortis yet to have its head hanging to the side? Would it have been impossible for his face to be facing the camera without help? I've honestly never seen a dead person, so I don't know.
25
« on: November 02, 2011, 10:15:15 AM »
Didn't Tito once say he was not aware of Michael having drug problems? I might be wrong but I kinda remember him saying this.
And yeah, right, they tried to help but couldn't; if you fear someone you love is in danger, you're going to stop at nothing to get him out of that situation. Imagine your beloved brother being a drug addicted mess, and you go, "Oh, I'm trying to help him but I can't get through to him. Too bad." And then? He also had children, if you know something bad is going on you have to intervene. Properly.
26
« on: November 01, 2011, 10:27:50 AM »
I thought Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only Witnesses will be resurrected? I don't know that much about the religion, only what I've read in MJ books, but that's the info I gathered. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've also read multiple times that according to the religion's strict rules, Katherine or Rebbie normally wouldn't have been allowed to ever speak to Michael again after he left the faith. So, they were already not acting according to their religion then. Personally, I do not believe that, if this is a hoax, most of Michael's family members are in on it. Could you imagine his brothers, for example, being in on it? Michael reportedly didn't trust them, and from what I know, it wouldn't have been smart to involve them in this. That's just my two cents. 
27
« on: October 29, 2011, 08:30:24 AM »
That sounds so sad and so convincing... at least at first. Then you have to wonder why on earth Michael would resort to something he hated so much and wanted to quit decades ago: a series of life shows. There must've been other ways for him to get money, at least some money. He was sitting on so much stuff, I just can't understand why he wouldn't, for example, release past tours on DVD, Victory, Bad, HIStory, everybody longed for that stuff, yet, it was never released. I don't get that. A new studio album would've certainly helped too, so why go back to those exertions of a tour? The job he hated to do most? It doesn't make sense to me.
When you then think about the fact that by "dying" Michael could get rid of all of his debts in a pretty short time, everything suddenly makes a lot more sense.
28
« on: October 25, 2011, 07:58:18 AM »
Pfft. Janet almost never showed up for Michael's 2005 trial, as far as I can remember she was in the studio. That was more important to her, as it seems. Michael's life was basically at stake back then, he needed all the love and support he could get, and now that he's gone she postpones her tour dates? What for? Because the family needs her to be with them? I just don't understand that family.
29
« on: October 24, 2011, 04:16:22 PM »
Thank you for all your replies. I agree with most of you. Also remember what Michael said about criminals, even Hitler. He said he would've wanted to show him love, so he could be 'healed'. I don't know if it's possible to help a person get back to normality once they're as mentally disturbed as Hitler but Michael's belief in that shows what a sweet person he really is. We can never know what it's like to be in anybody else's shoes, we will never be fully able to understand what makes a murderer tick... But I daresay I do know that it must've been pain and suffering that brought them there, so who am I to wish any more pain on them? Kafka wrote, "We are as forlorn as children lost in the wood. When you stand in front of me and look at me, what do you know of the griefs that are in me and what do I know of yours? And if I were to cast myself down before you and tell you, what more would you know about me than you know about Hell when someone tells you it is hot and dreadful? For that reason alone we human beings ought to stand before one another as reverently, as reflectively, as lovingly, as we would before the entrance to Hell." I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in hell, but I'll take this as a metaphor.
30
« on: October 23, 2011, 05:57:16 PM »
I don't know if this is the right place to post this but it IS about L.O.V.E., a concept a lot of fans haven't understood if you ask me...
I've just had some discussions about Murray, and I've been so very shocked about the hate and spitefulness coming from fans, I have to let it out somewhere. I can't believe Michael fans who claim to love him for his good heart and quote "it's all for love" wherever they go want a man to rot in jail or burn in hell.
To set the record straight, I can understand anger, and I realize you have to let it out sometimes. But every now and then you have to step back and use your brain. Hating this man for supposedly being responsible for Michael's death is not sensible. Seeing him being punished, hurt, killed will not bring Michael back if he's dead. What I also find particularly upsetting is that they keep emphasizing he did it to MICHAEL, MICHAEL, as if it would've been far less terrible had Murray given drugs to some bum down the street and killed him. Murray's on trial for involuntary manslaughter, not even for having purposedly murdered anyone. And they call him the devil and a monster, most certainly because they themselves just can't deal with the loss.
I'm not saying Murray should be allowed to live a king's life if he's guilty. He shouldn't be allowed to practice, since that's what his supposed crime was all about: being negligent while taking care of a patient. In my opinion, as much as I love Michael, I seriously do not believe he deserves to be burned at the stake for what he did [if he did it]. There are a lot of things I would do to get Michael back, but I simply cannot believe those "L.O.V.E." screaming fans consider it right and just for Murray to be crucified publicly, to be spat on, EVEN IF HE'S GUILTY. That's not what love is about, and, AS I SAID, I can understand anger, but you are not to lose your sensibility and reason.
They believe Michael was given Propofol by Murray - stone me for being honest -, don't they think that Michael ASKED him for it, and that if Murray hadn't given it to him, he would've found somebody else? Somebody less negligent, maybe, but unless they're trying to say Michael was murdered, they have to admit that Michael is partly responsible himself. Now burn me, but, seriously, those people are NOT being sensible. They hate someone because he took Michael Jackson's life, at the same time they claim to love Michael and all he stood/stands for: LOVE, JUSTICE, and even FORGIVENESS. I suppose they want Michael and themselves to always be treated with love and an open mind, but it doesn't go for anybody who goes against Michael. Yet, he himself wrote in Moonwalk that he can't understand the concept of revenge, and his little soldiers of love are screaming for a man to be burned alive. That's what I call L.O.V.E.
I do hope somebody will agree with me because I feel quite lost right now.
|
Show Posts