0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mjkate:It could be, but if this is a hoax does it really come complete with a trial where unsavory things get revealed about Michael?! Would MJ want that? The idea makes me doubt the hoax itself... And if it is a hoax, why is there a man (Murray) involved? [I don't believe Murray to be non-existent or MJ in disguise whenever we see him; there IS a person other than Michael who's involved.] Wouldn't it have been simpler for Michael to use a simple "overdose"? If this is a hoax, then there has to be a point for Murray...Anyhow, I can see how surgeries can help explain painkillers and insomnia can explain sleeping medication... But propofol is neither - it's an anesthetic, and I can't for the life of me understand WHY, and HOW, one would get addicted to that. There's no other known case of "propofol addiction"!I think some things are just confusing and we'll have to wait for various developments to play out to understand... The O2 conference seemed confusing as hell at the time, but in retrospect it makes sense. Likewise, I'm hoping that time will provide answers to our current questions and confusion.
Datroot: To the world out there, Murray is a doctor charged with involuntary manslaughter of the King of Pop. (And there's talk of him possibly losing his license.) If CM helped MJ, why would Michael want him to look guilty to so many people?! I know we tend to fall down the rabbit hole, but we should keep in mind how things look to the regular guy on the street, who's not obsessed with everything MJ-related and doesn't follow and dissect every little thing.
Our beliefs/opinions are just that. We don't possess the truth about a lot of things. And I don't think it's irrelevant how things look to "the world", especially if the hoax is about teaching people a lesson. Now I can see how CM may have helped Michael, but I still don't know (and am trying to understand) why Murray has to go through the charges-trial thing... I believe the current facts don't allow us to draw conclusions with respect to that, so I'm just hoping that there's a point to it, and that it will come out.
Quote from: "truthprevails"Datroot: To the world out there, Murray is a doctor charged with involuntary manslaughter of the King of Pop. (And there's talk of him possibly losing his license.) If CM helped MJ, why would Michael want him to look guilty to so many people?! I know we tend to fall down the rabbit hole, but we should keep in mind how things look to the regular guy on the street, who's not obsessed with everything MJ-related and doesn't follow and dissect every little thing.That's just my opinion and I stick to it. Of course the ordinary person on the street thinks he's a doctor - doesn't mean he is though does it?
I've been lurking here for a while but felt this was the perfect thread to make my first post. So, hello everybody!Personally I think that the less you shelter kids, the better.I don't have any kids, so what do I know?Well, I do know that I was not sheltered growing up. I had 2 great parents that were very straight with me about everything. They told me the right and wrong and the consequences for certain actions and situations, then let me learn from my mistakes. I've never been in trouble with the law, I never joined a gang, and I didn't knock any girls up. Also, I never OD'd on drugs, though I have been known to have a good time every once in a while. I just know my limits.And that brings me to my point.I had several friends growing up who were sheltered and did have very controlling parents. As soon as they were of the age of adolescents they lashed out and rebelled. A couple of them did several stints in Juvi, and eventually spent some time in jail. All of them have some sort of drug problem, and a couple of them had kids right out of high school. One actually became a parent her junior year.All I'm saying is, if you give a kid reason to rebel- they will. But if there is no need to rebel, it will be less appealing. Not saying some people aren't predisposed to making bad decisions, but if they are raised knowing that every action comes with a reaction or consequence they will generally be a lot smarter in their life decision making.All that being said, and I could have said a lot more:Think about it, if he is dead, and Kathering and Joe are now in charge. MJ and his brothers were in the public spotlight from a very young age. Mostly because Joe allowed it, but Katherine didn't put up much of a fight against it. So what's to stop Joe and Katherine from putting his kids through the same thing?Joe has already expressed a few times that he wants to make stars out of Michael's kids. If anything I'd say that the kids are being forced to be in the public eye at this point. Even though it's something they may want in the future, you're right they did seem uncomfortable with it at the moment.And I'm not saying that your opinions of parenting are wrong, and I hope it works out for you. I'm just saying that not all parents are like you, and its very obvious that the Jackson family has no concerns about keeping too much of their private business private.
mjkate ยป Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:01 pm I have thought long and hard about this post and have written it several times in the past when I have seen the children in public speaking or being photo graphed. I am the mother of 2 girls 11 and 13. We are a private family and my girls are sheltered and protected. They are a little naive and innocent because of that but we are around to protect them until we feel it's time and they are ready to be exposed to the "real" world where things aren't maybe as rosy. But we want to take our time before we gently ease them into some of the more harsher sides of life. When I see Michael's children in public situations (the funeral, the grammy awards, pictures at restaurants, and now Oprah) I think about the laws that would be in place to protect minor children. If MJ was not around, I don't believe social services or professional psychologists or his family would believe that these situations would be good for orphaned children who have been without the love and protection of their doting father for the last year. I don't care if it's Hollywood or scmollywood. Young children's emotions are not to be messed with whether the young children think they are ready for Oprah or not. Children's brains are not fully developed until they are in their early 20's and they are not capable of making sound decisions. A tramatic event like losing a cherished father at that young age is a child's nightmare and what they need is love, support, snuggling, protection and most of all shelter from prying eyes and the media. Little Blanket is 8 for goodness sake and clearly did not want to be on Oprah. Prince didn't look like he was comfortable either. While Paris looked and sounded mature, there was a nervousness to her and there have got to be laws that would protect these children from media circuses like this. I know that Michael has to be alive these children would not be seen out at all. He showed them to us in June of 09 and that must have been his turning point in allowing them out with his blessing as long as he is with them (for the hoax or it was just time) Am I making sense? Basically a long story short. If Michael is not alive there is no way Debbie Rowe or Katherine would be able to condone letting the children awkwardly answer the questions of a stranger in a media circus. There was nothing said by any of the children that was all that necessary. We all saw them at the memorial and to me that was enough. Paris's testimonial said it all and they should have left it at that unless MJ thought more needed to be said.mjkate
