Official back & Front thread

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

There are some awesome Michael album threads in the archives which breaks down the whole mural and some interpretations

I particularly liked the propofol bottle (that'll make you go straight to the archives lol)

yeah...i'm thinking i shouldn't have posted these...  :icon_geek:

Doesn't bother me, this thread is a mish mash anyway. More just letting you know because i think you'll enjoy it, that are heaps of great finds in the 'Michael album threads' including link to a high res picture of album so you can look at it up close.

Enjoy

[MaryK]

.....  It would seem Tom Mesereau didn’t actually read the book.  Is he being forced at gunpoint to say this?
This is incredibly strange... :icon_pale:

This is just what I thought!  :icon_e_surprised:  Very stilted and not TM's usual confident, clear body language.

I am following a group on Facebook in which an email by Mr. Mesereau to an angry and disappointed fan has been published.

In this email he gives his opinion as to why the book should be read, why he thinks that the book will have a positive impact and why he supports it.

I will ask for permission to publish this email here.

That'd be great Mary. And we are sure it's genuine?

I think so. She made a copy of the email and the mail shows Mr. Mesereau´s business address, phone number etc.

[suspicious mind]

ok this is just my opinion on what is goin on with tom as far as the book. first of all tom always seems controlled when discussing michael , surely he is choosing his words carefully as he speaks because he knows how it can all get spun so easily.

as far as the book i think he wants people to take notice of things like who are these people who are saying the negative and is there a pattern and is there some benefit in it for them.  he wants people to notice who was around michael and what kind of things they were bringing on him by their actions and not actions of his own. he also wants you to ignore the stupid stuff and look for the hidden knowledge of who was doing what around michael.

perhaps the up on a pedestal status that has been given to michael by fans does more to make him seem like a freak than if people would consider that he actually has human faults and frailties .

like i said it is an opinion, that's all.

[bugsy]

EDITED

So I curiously went to the amazon page to read the reviews.... after reading one very informative long one(see below in quotes) and not finding any disgusting comments against the book just people replacing tabloid baloney from the book with real facts.. It occurred to me, when you listen to his endorsement he repeats how the reviews are disgusting, he seemed he really wanted to push that point, and when he endorsed it, it's almost like his gritting his teeth and not wanting to endorse it at all.


It is just human nature to look when someone tells you not to, how many people have looked when someone has said "don't look" they naturally look around... After him speaking his description of the reviews I decided to look.

If he wanted people to look at the comments to see the truth rather than call the book total baloney? As a lawyer he would know the possibilities of being sued for straight out saying anything against the book without being sued by Sulivan, if Sullivan was to take him to court, he has nothing on Tom because in the video Tom is doing nothing but endorse the book, it wouldn't be his fault if people went straight to the reviews before buying the book and read the facts it would be thrown out of court.

If he truly endorsed the book, his expression and coldness would not be as it was, I would only assume it would be more like his other appearances, instead it seems like he didn't like recommending it.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

By
Katerina - See all my reviews
This review is from: Untouchable: The Strange Life and Tragic Death of Michael Jackson (Hardcover)
How is it possible to write a book and already have it considered out of date by information that has been released over 2 years before it was published? It's a good question, and one I'd raise to both Randall, his publisher and the people who've excerpted his story all over their tabloids (where Randall's info mostly originates).

Any book which now proclaims that Michael did not have a nose, insinuates he bleached his skin recreationally, hems and haws over his innocence, claims Michael hated his race or claims Michael didn't have relationships with women is frankly anachronistic. There is much publicly available information which sheds light on all of that - none of which is covered here. Michael's autopsy report is publicly available, why is that not used as a source for the information about his nose and instead misatributed quotes from The Sun are presented as though they are fact? It would seem to me that Randall didn't even look at the autopsy report but got distracted by some tabloid recreation of it back in the days after his death and failed to research beyond that point. He goes on for pages about this supposed Bobby Driscoll's prosthetic nose he imagines Michael had, all of it entirely fictional and so absurd that I wondered at the degree of shame the author lacked in its recounting, at no point in this fictional nose nonsense did he seem to stop and reconsider how he was making himself sound ridiculous with this obsession, and not Michael. His nose is right there in his autopsy; and yet here he writes almost 4 pages about a fake nose that never existed. But it goes to show how absolutely anything goes with Michael and Sullivan - it seems there is no tabloid story too crazy or wild that Sullivan doesn't believe has a degree of truth in it. The Michael here is a monsterized version of tabloid literature come to life.

-- He now claims the autopsy not revealing a prosthetic is based on the fact that Michael removed it at night. I'm not sure if he's aware but in the autopsy photos Michael clearly still has his nose, and neither the coroner, the bodyguards, paramedics, or even Murray ever mentioned the lack of a nose in their reports. Did Mike keep this jar of noses by his bed? At what point during the day would it be glued on? Why have none of these noses ever gotten out? Mike left his phone everywhere, almost his entire life has been ransacked and paraded for show, but his detachable take-it-off-at-night-nose never went missing? None of the thieves around him ever bothered to run off with it to Ebay? Wouldn't these fake noses be worth bazillions? Why weren't they photographed by the crime scene photographers? Cited anywhere by anyone involved that day? Did it manage to re-attach itself to him during death for the photos? How exciting for it. It's also at odds with the original description in his book of how the coroner had to cut away the prosthetic (coroner never says this). Either he had it in the autopsy or he didn't; either way, we can clearly see in death his nose was with him, the coroner did not mention this lack of a nose and the nose seen there was the one he was normally seen with, i.e. this prosthetic nose business has absolutely no basis in reality.

-- As a further death knell to this issue, which should never have been an issue, a fan contacted the LA County Coroner's office, and they responded, "As far as Mr. Sullivan's book information he might have a copy of the [autopsy] report since it is a matter of public record, however I can assure you that he does not have the autopsy photos or other photos involving Mr. Jackson. The photos have been secured, and the location is only known to two of us that have them. I can tell you that Mr. Jackson did in fact have a nose and that it was nothing like described by Mr. Sullivan. I guess he just wants to sell books..." In a few days a fan was capable of getting more proper confirmation and info than the 3 years Sullivan spent on this book.

He uses a quote from Taraborrelli's biography to claim Michael started bleaching in the 70s with his sister LaToya. Of course no source are named, and it's easily debunked as Toya has always been naturally very light skinned (their father Joe Jackson has green eyes because his mother is biracial and his father is listed as mulatto, as are all Michael's grandparents.) These stories about Michael's skin have been going on since the 80s because of his skin disorder, with the media seeking to fill in the blanks to explain the lightness in his skin for him, but when his vitiligo became public it should've illuminated many people on how easy it is to lie and perpetuate the lie about him, but instead Sullivan seems to lack any common sense and can't see what is obvious in hindsight. Or like the nose, was it that he just liked the idea of Michael hating his race so much he just couldn't let it go? Does he not ask himself why it's only the people who have something against Michael who claim he hated his race and bleached his skin (Blanca Francia, Stacy Brown, Bob Jones) and not people he was really close to? That he let his children be raised by an African woman and insisted on ensuring they were raised well versed in African history and that besides his mother he wanted a black woman raising them (Diana Ross)? He kept hundreds of books on black history, literature and photography, including many just dedicated to black women. His daughter even says, "I'm black and I'm proud of it." Obvious questions go unasked and unanswered here.

He claims Michael Jackson was a virgin, a moment in the book where I audibly laughed - a reaction I'm sure his ex wives and girlfriends would also share on such news. Even if he couldn't find people around them willing to speak, Randall should've perhaps taken note of those two G spot articles the police found amongst his things in 2003? Lisa Marie is quoted here as saying Michael was "somewhat asexual", you'd think with the way he presented this remark that this was a damning comment about their sex life: no, in reality she had been asked about his physical appearance, and that was her description. This is the kind of casual misquoting and omitting of information Randall does throughout his book. If it doesn't fit in with what he needs, he ignores it or re-contextualizes it. None of Lisa Marie's other remarks are included here (he made the moves on her, she wouldn't have married him if the sex wasn't good). He believes Bob Jones and the Neverland 5 (successfully countersued; exposed as liars on the stand) who claim nothing happened between Michael and Lisa, even though they had obvious agendas against Michael, were seeking to profit from the scandal, had left their jobs before they'd even married and were thoroughly discredited as witnesses (their testimony is like reading a surrealistic comedy); but we must forget, those are his best sources here. -- He's now claiming Lisa Marie and Michael may have "sexual contact", but suggests Lisa doesn't really know what sex is. That must be a real shocker to Mike who was trying to have a baby with her. He says that only Lisa can say if Mike was a virgin - that's funny, she's repeatedly confirmed they've had sex.

He claims that Debbie has never said she's had sex with him. This isn't true. The only reason we know Debbie's name is because in the News of the World exclusive in 1996 which broke the story, a journalist had befriended her undercover for 2 months while she was pregnant, this is what they taped her saying: "We started by fooling around a bit and the next thing we knew we were doing it. We knew we were going to try for a baby." And taped again undercover in 1997: "I can't wait to see him again. We're going to stay all day and night in bed - I can't wait." He claims Michael's kids didn't know who Debbie was until after his death. This is untrue, Paris has said that Michael would talk to them about Debbie. She also didn't only meet him when Michael "spilled bleaching agents on his scrotum," in early 93, she met him in 1981. The confidentiality agreement she signed after the divorce where she agreed not to talk about him or the kids in public was there to protect him, the kids, in case she wanted to hurt him in the future, and to protect Debbie from herself, as she'd already been caught speaking about both unawares before, it does not say anywhere Michael is not the father - Debbie and Debbie's custody lawyer have repeatedly stated he was.

He claims Sneddon had 5 victims who were going to show up and testify for him, and only one did (Jason Francia; could go down as "the one the juror's laughed at"), Jordan refused to testify against Michael, he was prepared to go to court in order not to have to testify. Randall doesn't say that the other 3 supposed victims? Absolutely testified. They were the defense's first witnesses; Wade, Brett, Mac. Randall also doesn't note that it was these boys that the Chandler's allege Michael had abused (because we all know Michael is the most selective pedophile in the world with all the kids he befriended and never abused) - kind of takes the sting out of that whole argument, huh? Neither does he go into the bizarre attempts of the prosecution attempting to convince their own supposed victims they had been molested. He doesn't counter the alcohol in cans story, even though that one was easily debunked thanks to the prosecution's own witnesses, the airline stewardesses.

There are so many other casual egregious errors throughout the book that it gave me a headache reading, just some - the proposed book circulated between Jermaine/Stacy was not written by Jermaine, but by Stacy (he's admitted as much, but now blames others). In that Stacy Brown (he's never properly met Michael, never worked for Michael, etc) proposal he claimed Michael had shocked the family in the manner he had held his 3 young nephews after their mother's death - perhaps they were just shocked that Michael could fit his arms around 3 twenty year old men on a bed at the same time. Yes, they were full grown men, not children, so how would that work? Ask fanfic writer extraordinaire Stacy Brown. It did not circulate during the trial, but in 2006, which speaks volumes about its validity as attention hungry Stacy never mentioned it in 2005. Britney didn't supposedly cheat on Kevin Federline with Wade Robson, she supposedly cheated on Justin Timberlake. Debbie Rowe didn't have her first boyfriend at the age of 30, she had already been married/divorced by then (that was another moment of laughter from me). Michael didn't move into Neverland in 1990. Michael was not called "liver lips" by his brothers, Marlon was. LaToya didn't claim sexual abuse by her father in her book, she claimed it on the book tour. Michael never said he used any medication for his skin on Oprah. Uri Gellar is about as close to Michael as Martin Bashir. Corey Feldman was the one to ask about the book of skin diseases which involved STDs on Michael's table, so Michael explained them to him, is Randall really suggesting skin diseases and STD's were Michael's hook for kids, really? Mike had many books on skin diseases because he had skin diseases. Michael Jordan says it was Michael himself who called him up to ask to do the music video, which makes me suspect that he may have known who he was on the set - just a suspicion though, don't quote me as a fact on that, Randall (using Bob Jones' as a source for anything will just embarrass you; ask Tom Sneddon). On that note, there is no mention of head licking in any Jordan case documents, that ridiculous story came entirely from Gavin, then was bizarrely copied by Bob Jones/Stacy Brown; their testimony about it on the witness stand was another moment of comedy gold. The Jacksons contacted Branca 2 days after Michael's death because they knew he had the will, so how could they also claim they didn't know they had a will that first week? He quotes Schaffel saying Michael was scheduled to perform in the United We Stand Benefit concert in Washington but Michael failed to show up, that's odd as he also managed to perform "What More Can I Give?" at this same concert. He says TJ Jackson had 3 sons, he doesn't. He calls Eddie Cascio by his brother's name throughout the book. He mentions that Michael stayed with the Schleiter family after the trial and makes it seem like Michael only spent time with the son (who was in his 20s, not a kid), for some strange reason his sister Franziska who was there throughout is completely ignored (all the females in Michael's life are given this treatment, he enacts a genocide of immense proportions against any woman Jackson interacted with - there's no mention of any of the female kids he'd befriended too, even in Wade's testimony Randall never mentions Wade said his sister also slept in the room with him, she testified to that too, so did Brett's sister and Simone Jackson). He brings up the panic room in Michael's bedroom - in reality that room came with the house, the original owner had installed it when he built it. He uses the locks on the door as a sign Michael wanted to keep people out; yeah dummy, that's why it's a panic room, do you normally have a welcome mat outside one of those? And if you think it's odd he needed this room, ask yourself why the original owner, one of the richest men in California at the time, had wanted it. If he was not a deviant, why is Michael? He mentions online posts where fans wish death upon Evan but fails to mention the death threats and stalkers Michael had which are both a matter of police and FBI record and also can be found on gossipy sites online, which he used as sources. He cites a blog which speaks about what Jordan was up to as a "Jordan Tracker" blog, as though fans were militantly sharing info regarding his every waking moment, when it was just that one page from 2007 based on info shared by his uncle and the tabloids. He claims Schaffel placed an item into the Vaccaro storage unit in 2002, this was impossible as that unit was seized in 1999 and anything remotely incriminating shipped off to Diane Dimond/Sneddon by Vaccaro himself during the trial for media whoring purposes. Evan Chandler did not kill himself on November 14/15th, he killed himself on the 5th and the media reported about it before November 17th, which is when he bizarrely claims Evan was found. The stuff about Michael buying Elizabeth Taylor for the Private Home Movies thing is from Schaffel, I'm just amused the price of that supposed jewellery has gone up with each retelling.

He claims here that the Chandler's attempted to keep a low profile after 1993. Does he know about the book deal they sought immediately after Michael's insurance settled? How Ray Chandler admitted in court records that Evan moved him in right after the allegations broke just so he could write it? Does he know about how Ray sold stories about Jordan to the National Enquirer throughout the 90s on behalf of his brother? Did he think Evan Chandler's 1996 lawsuit and demand for a record album to be released was a show of Evan seeking to be low key? Ray claimed he hoped the 2005 trial would bring vindication, why did he not ask why the Chandler's didn't seek this in 1994 with a criminal trial instead of book deals and frivolous lawsuits and demands for record contracts? Why didn't he ask Ray why he didn't take the stand in 2005? Why didn't he ask Ray why he claims now he told Jordan to testify in 2005, when in 2005 during his various paid for media appearances he claimed he had no contact with either Evan or Jordan at the time, as well as claiming that in his subpoeanas? Was Ray lying? Which time was he lying? (At the time he also claimed Jordan was out of the country as an excuse for why he didn't testify, but then he was photographed skiing in the US.) Does he know how on the audio recording before he claims Jordan had even confessed Evan said that he himself wanted to make it as public as possible? That recording was on July 8th; Jordan was supposedly drugged to confess on July 16th. How does that jibe with his claims it was the Chandler's who wanted to keep it low key and Michael who made it a public issue? Why would Michael want to make being a pedophile a public issue? Why doesn't he explain Evan's failure to report MJ was molesting Jordan at June's custody hearing, but the police only learned by the psychiatrist the next day? Is it because he didn't want Michael to sue him for making false allegations? Why does he not realize the explanation given for why Jordan cut off contact with him in 2005 doesn't make sense? If Evan suffered from cancer and manic depression, wouldn't he sympathize with him? Why wouldn't Jordan care about the man who rescued him from supposed "anal sex" when he died, a moment most people would forgive their parents any mistakes? Why does he act like the crazy fans made the Chandler's stop from going to criminal court (not even in defense of poor cancer victim Gavin), when he can only cite one instance which involved a fan (Pfeiffer) just graffitying outside his dental place in 1994 and making phonecalls? Does he realize that the Arvizo's, Francia - hell, the most hated of all, Diane Dimond and Sneddon, all have online accounts and recognizable faces and have managed to survive unscathed for years? Does he think it's a bit strange the only person who's hurt Jordan and scared him to the point of criminal action in all these years was his own father? How did Evan abandon his two younger kids but still lived with Jordan, who was apparently close to both? Why did he abandon the two kids with no money, but stuck with the millionaire son? Why does he say that Jordan had two younger brothers? He doesn't, he has only one, he completely misgendered the other one. Why does Ray Chandler need to research books on pedophiles, if Michael was one and he can just go by that? Why does he need to further inform himself of how they work? Who describes their nephew's abuser as someone who just "had needs"? Do you think the relatives of Sandusky's victims react the same way to him? He claims Evan stated in his petition to remove custody from June that she had "prostituted" her son to Michael; does he not think what Evan Chandler threatened on those tapes on July 8th ("It'll be a massacre if I don't get what I want"), how he had been demanding money in private over the idea his son was molested ("irrelevant to me"), just according to a psychiatrist who had not met any of them personally, and how he only wanted a civil lawsuit, a book deal, an album deal, a script deal (initially), and a further $60 million was not also prostitution? But according to Ray, this was "protecting" his son? I've included these questions here as none of them were posed to Ray or addressed to the Chandlers at any point throughout the book.

He claims Michael was paralytic with drugs almost the entire way through the last 20 years. It seems every drug story about Michael on Earth has been added here as a fact. It amuses me greatly that Michael was such an opiate addict, and yet managed to wean himself off these drugs entirely by the time he died, and the only drugs inside him were non opiate sedatives administered by Murray. Isn't it a bit ironic that Michael could wean himself off this huge addiction to every drug known to man, but only died because of another non addictive drug? That none were found in his home or autopsy? That none are presented in any medical documents from the last months of his life, besides Demerol for the treatments with Klein, which the drug addict specialist in the trial even admitted did not fall into an addict's level of use? He even copied and pasted a remark from a tabloid about how Michael shirked away from sunlight at one point as evidence for Michael's drug use - in reality, Michael was photo sensitive because of his discoid lupus.

It makes me wonder if it's possible to write a book about Michael where almost the entire source material doesn't come from people who have been found to have lied about him in court cases, lawsuits or found to have stolen from him, considering the sources Randall mainly uses here: Tohme (stole $5,000,000 million from MJ), Schaffel (stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from Michael, planted negative stories about him in the press, Debbie Rowe amusingly recounted Schaffel's creepiness in her testimony in 2005), Adrian McManus (successfully countersued by Michael; was found to have stolen toys from sick children & from her own nieces and nephews), Mark Lester (claimed to be Paris's father 4 years before he'd been re-acquainted with Michael, even his ex wife came out and denounced him as a liar desperate for media attention), Matt Fiddes (only met Michael briefly after Blanket was born; known as a "vainglorious attention seeker" by Channel 4 producers) Howard Mann (has lost many lawsuits against the estate, blackmailed Michael's mother into dodgy deals involving his kids), Ray Chandler brother to Evan (Michael subpoenaed him in 2004 demanding he show up with the evidence he claimed he had in his book; Ray refused and eventually he admitted he had no such info, which should mean his book was essentially fiction), Terry George (he wasn't found out because rumors reached the LAPD, what nonsense, he had a gay sex chat line back then and when the scandal broke he seized on that to sell a story in The Sun for thousands of pounds, this is why anyone knows about him; FBI and DA didn't find him credible, he's changed his story a few times since - the one here is a new fancy retelling, he was and is still obsessed with Michael and even he admits Michael refused to take his calls, so much for grooming kids) Stacy Brown (admitted to lying in his book for money in his 2005 testimony; sued by juror's for plagiarism after that, a habitual liar who admits he never even really met Michael), Bob Jones (admitted he had an axe to grind, admitted to lying about MJ for money in the trial, and yet his book is used here as gospel) and so on and so on. Were these the only people willing to speak to Randall? Or, more likely, were these the only people Randall wanted to hear about Michael from? Was he incapable of deducing which things were lies by the amount of evidence, or did he assume the things which were the most ghastly and often repeated (what sells more?) had to be true? Would he be shocked to discover not everyone around Michael was a liar and a thief and there were many, many decent sources he could've used? Did he just not care? Whatever the answer, in the end the result is an almost entirely fictional book.

Perhaps the author had the best intentions for this book (though I suspect, not for Michael). Perhaps he really believes the information he presented is fair and objective. Perhaps he felt this was all there was to the story. But I can't understand why so many problematic sources were used as though they were absolutes, why so much information was not properly researched beyond tabloid articles, and why so much info has been seemingly intentionally misquoted. It comes across intentionally done and I can't understand why.

I find it bewildering really that he will talk about Michael as being a good father - something even the liars and the thieves around him have all agreed upon, and yet people still fail to realize the way he was with his own children was how he was with every other child. It doesn't take a genius to have to work that one out, but it's an inconvenient truth for many, so instead we're left with all the liars and thieves and rehashed The Sun articles, and can now count the willfully uninformed Randall Sullivan among them.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
27 Comments |

[MaryK]

Ok, since the FB group is open for everyone to read, I decided to put the screenshots of the emails on here.

First 2 screenshots are from an email of a fan to Mr. Mesereau, the next 3 screenshots are from his response message.

The FB page I got this from is:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So here goes:

[Australian MJ BeLIEver]

Mary, very interesting indeed. Thank you so much for posting. So much sounds like MJ coaching / influence

Bring on bam & truth / wrongs righted! Justice for MJ!!!

[Im_convincedmjalive]

I been looking for you on the TIAI thread but you said you're in watching mode so I know you are here and respect that.

 :bearhug:

haha :icon_exclaim:  You talkin' 2 me bec? cuz there is no name 2 your comment so I have 2 assume you are talkin' 2 me. I love U girl.  :icon_geek:

I was just makin' a general observation comment and it wasn't necessarily directed at anyone. But it does make me wonder sometimes IF people really do care about others or are they just sayin' they do cause it sounds good?

Deep thinkin' these days, ya know? That's all.

Peace 2 U.

[Love4Michael]

I been looking for you on the TIAI thread but you said you're in watching mode so I know you are here and respect that.

 :bearhug:

haha :icon_exclaim:  You talkin' 2 me bec? cuz there is no name 2 your comment so I have 2 assume you are talkin' 2 me. I love U girl.  :icon_geek:

I was just makin' a general observation comment and it wasn't necessarily directed at anyone. But it does make me wonder sometimes IF people really do care about others or are they just sayin' they do cause it sounds good?

Deep thinkin' these days, ya know? That's all.

Peace 2 U.

I think there is still a lot of hollow compassion and caring out there too I'm.  Some is pretty easy to see through...some is not unfortunately.  Thank God that there are some true genuine souls that exist or we'd all be perpetually disappointed.

[Im_convincedmjalive]

One more thing since I'm here...

My observation of the past almost 3 years of watchin' fans/non fans, admirers, etc. of the Man (MJ) is that everyone seems to think they know what's best for him. I wonder tho how many of us have really taken the time to find out from the Man himself (by paying attention to his own words) what He thinks is best for himself, his fam, children, etc.

When books are published regardless of content or reasons I find it is better to actually read the book IF I want to form a true opinion about it than to take others words as gospel. What I see so far is a whole lot of emotions being thrown around regarding TM's reasons for his statement and I see a whole lot of emotionally charged expressed opinions regarding the content of the book in question and it appears that some peeps may have NOT even read the book itself but are just taking others words as truth and basing their opinion off of that.

IMO not very smart. Ok that's all.

~Peace~

p.s. Hey Front....missin' U.  :bearhug:

[bec]

I been looking for you on the TIAI thread but you said you're in watching mode so I know you are here and respect that.

 :bearhug:

haha :icon_exclaim:  You talkin' 2 me bec? cuz there is no name 2 your comment so I have 2 assume you are talkin' 2 me. I love U girl.  :icon_geek:

I was just makin' a general observation comment and it wasn't necessarily directed at anyone. But it does make me wonder sometimes IF people really do care about others or are they just sayin' they do cause it sounds good?

Deep thinkin' these days, ya know? That's all.

Peace 2 U.

Yah I'm talkin to you.

Some care, some want to care, some just want to look like they care. But no matter, it's all better then hating, and everyone's actions trump their words anyway.

In regards to TM (Trust-Me!), I don't think anyone forces that man to do anything and he is and will always be one of MJ's biggest and best supporters.

Thank you, MaryK for posting that email exchange. Wonderful words from presumably the source. His reasoning is sound to me (and actually very interesting), and I agree with him upon reading what he had to say.

[mindseye]

 :icon_lol: thanks Im_convincedmjalive for the gangsta pink panther. FroNtsta must be really busy.  :suspect:

One more thing since I'm here...

My observation of the past almost 3 years of watchin' fans/non fans, admirers, etc. of the Man (MJ) is that everyone seems to think they know what's best for him. I wonder tho how many of us have really taken the time to find out from the Man himself (by paying attention to his own words) what He thinks is best for himself, his fam, children, etc.

I agree. And even if we pay attention to his own words, how many of us would disagree with him and still think we know what's best?  :icon_e_confused:

Thanks MaryK - I only read that long review and the book intro...was a bit confusing. So it's great to read TM's own words and his reasons for supporting the book. Very interesting.

I guess we just keep watchin'  :icon_mrgreen:

[gwynned]

Thanks for posting that email exchange which clears up, for me, that TM is being quite logical in his support for the book and a very clever strategy.

[BeTheChange]

Oh and I'm not sure exactly how long it's been since I've posted/actually read through the threads but I do wonder how many people actually notice when a long time member goes MIA? Do people really care like they say they do or is it all smoke N mirrors?  :icon_rr:

@IM...I check in to hoaxbook daily and have seen you popping your beautiful self in and outta there, so I know you're never too far away  :icon_razz:  I was actually thinking about you just the other day, while going through some older threads here...and my thought was 'wow'! You had some really amazing posts, especially during TS' levels....you contributed so much valuable info and connected many 'dots', even way back then!  I really enjoyed them the first time around and re-reading them now (just yesterday was re-reading the post about the two factions)...and based on what we know now, you should be picking a prize from the top shelf  :icon_lol:

Sending much love and  :smiley_abuv: your way

With L.O.V.E. always.

[katy (MJFAN7)]

Oh and I'm not sure exactly how long it's been since I've posted/actually read through the threads but I do wonder how many people actually notice when a long time member goes MIA? Do people really care like they say they do or is it all smoke N mirrors?  :icon_rr:

I've noticed quite a few missing. All4Loveandbelieve, Purelove, Applehead62509, dancingthedream went missing a while ago, theres a bunch unfortunately

[sweetsunsetwithMJ]

Oh and I'm not sure exactly how long it's been since I've posted/actually read through the threads but I do wonder how many people actually notice when a long time member goes MIA? Do people really care like they say they do or is it all smoke N mirrors?  :icon_rr:

I've noticed quite a few missing. All4Loveandbelieve, Purelove, Applehead62509, dancingthedream went missing a while ago, theres a bunch unfortunately

Purelove was banned.