Michael Jackson...

Breaking news from la.

Irish Stamp said:
I swear there's a factory making these jokes up - my girlfriend told me one at midnight last night and she was getting it off a work colleague anywyay :lol:
Click to expand...
His Dr. has gone on the run,
been giving him dodgey jabs every day:whistle:-Oh dear!!!!!
 
I still can't beleave half this stuff, i;m glad i'm not in the Dr's shoes he won't be safe inside or out, no smoke without fire and all that.
 
As you've edited my post, Warbler, perhaps you'd like to prune Rory's at the start of this thread, too, if you wish to preserve the genteel quality of posts on TH? I rather think you're in denial about 50% of the take on Jackson in the world outside this forum, though - there's no doubt about unbridled and unconditional fanship, but there's also a more suspicious, or at least jaded, view about the latter stages of the man's life. Personally, I think a $20m pay-out (or pay-off) to accusers seems a little bizarre, when defending one's rep at a trial wouldn't have cost that much. Or, even if it did, surely winning the case and keeping one's rep intact would've been worth it?

As for the jokes, they're hardly outside the strict guidelines of this forum.
 
If you want to turn the thread into a running update of child abuse jokes (as if the internet isn't full of them), then there's a dedicated 'jokes' section for you to indulge yourself until your hearts content, and no shortage of alternative sites who will host stuff of this nature

Rory's comments were an opinion that Jackson is no loss to the planet as a person, which is different, and in a similar vein to stuff posted recently about Clement Freud.
 
"RIP my arse. Which incidentally he once threatened to do when I was nine."

That isn't an opinion. That's a 'joke' aimed at child abuse. And why, pray tell, would off-colour remarks about MJ be any more acceptable in a jokes section than in the context of a discussion section? If they're off, they're off. I trust the moderators will be watching very carefully for future giggles about incest, murder, rape, wife beating, drug addiction et al in case these should also be consigned to the dustbin.

I was indecently assaulted by a 43 y.o. father of two when I was 10, so thanks, but I do have some slight acquaintance with the subject, and I think that while it's fine you delete the so-called jokes, then why allow any ribald remarks on the subject to pass?
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
As you've edited my post, Warbler, perhaps you'd like to prune Rory's at the start of this thread, too, if you wish to preserve the genteel quality of posts on TH? I rather think you're in denial about 50% of the take on Jackson in the world outside this forum, though - there's no doubt about unbridled and unconditional fanship, but there's also a more suspicious, or at least jaded, view about the latter stages of the man's life. Personally, I think a $20m pay-out (or pay-off) to accusers seems a little bizarre, when defending one's rep at a trial wouldn't have cost that much. Or, even if it did, surely winning the case and keeping one's rep intact would've been worth it?

As for the jokes, they're hardly outside the strict guidelines of this forum.
Click to expand...
You go girl.

The questioning of Jackson's personal physician is hardly a surprise is it? It's well known that Jacko was virtually living on opiates for the past twenty years. Those will, in large part, be obtained illegally and there must be a question of culpable homicide against person or persons unknown who allowed his abuse of prescription drugs to continue.
 
Crikey - (thinks: are we allowed to discuss this?) - do you think so, Rory? I hadn't even thought of that angle, but now that you express it, I suppose it could have contributed towards a weakened heart or overall system. Maybe one reason he seemed so dreamy most of the time, and did things like the baby-dangling - literally not thinking straight. Who would bring a case against him, though? The family/the police?

Darn - just when posts take an interesting turn, I've got to start sorting myself out for Lingfield!
 
As you acknowledge yourself, for whatever reason, Jackson has a fanatical and dedicated fan base that probably transcends rational explanation. Just because you think it's funny to indirectly mock his death, doesn't mean that you can't try and show a bit sensitivity to those who are moved by it.

By all means raise legitimate questions about him, and give an alternative interpretation of him if you feel suitably strongly enough on the subject, and then allow his fans to disagree with you etc but if you must resort to cheap shots then do so in the jokes area.

In my opinion the area probably serves little purpose anyway, but that's just an opinion, and I tend to agree that there's a contradiction in there in terms of posting something somehwere and same thing somewhere else. In this case though, it might just serve as a lightning conductor.

Will those of you who feel it necessary to dance on Jackson's grave, please go and indulge yourselves over there rather than bait out any fans he might have who are bound to take offence if you try and turn this thread round, and will then put in their own series of complaints leaving it in a no win situation.

The original thread was a breaking news announcement, followed by some retrospectives and kind of tributes, i suppose it's getting close to running it's course now when it slips into the 'lets laugh about it', as "Jackson still dead" isn't really news anymore (unless you work for the Express).

If you want to speculate on his death (re the role of the Doctor) if you want to re-evaluate his career, if you want to discuss his contribution, or even if you want to question his flaws then do so, but I'm struggling to see what's being added by way of insight if all you want to do is fill up the thread with a series of jokes which you know are bound to cause offence in some quarters
 
Last edited:
Rory's thought for the day:

The real Michael Jackson died circa 1988. His music, however, lives on, so why should anyone weep for him now?
 
rorydelargy said:
Rory's thought for the day:

The real Michael Jackson died circa 1988. His music, however, lives on, so why should anyone weep for him now?
Click to expand...

Have you got your hands on Johnny Murtagh's book? :p

Perhaps I over-reacted a bit in my first post, and for that I appologise, but I certainly think the molestation jokes etc. doing the rounds are tasteless in the extreme at this time and will be deleting any I see here.
 
Getting back to the musis, it was suprsing how little he released over the years... Apart from the genuine dance/pop classics (dont stop, Billie jean, rock with tc) some right drivel. But also, arent "artists" incredibly unproductive these days? Beatles released how many albums and developed their sound how far...in seven years?

Proof really that albums are released not for creativity but to fill a maketing void. Top jazz artists regularly bang out 1/2 annually
 
with the music I like I was not a fan of MJ..but can accept he was good at what he did and a very popular performer.

I am concerned about him buying his innocence in a country with a history of rich people getting verdicts that looked unlikely. If that way of making sure the verdict goes your way or never gets to court...looks like.."never got convicted"..to some people ...then I feel they are a maybe little biased.

Lets say that Gary Glitter had money and lived in the US when his case came up..and he .."never got convicted"...would he have been as acceptable afterwards as MJ?...I doubt it.

I'm not a big fan of double standards..paying for innocence don't cut it with me ..so for me there is always that doubt about MJ.....which is a shame..but whatever ailed the bloke ain't ailing him now.

so RIP MJ
 
I don't think I saw the post of Krizon's that was edited but from what I've read subsequently I can't help but feel that you are being precious, Warbler. People are entitled to their views and it surely can't be right that posts not praising Wacko disappear just because he's dead now. Nevermind all this 'have a bit of sensitivity for his fans' bollocks - how about having a bit of sensitivity towards the kids he was accused of abusing? I don't give a shite if he was Mother Theresa - she at least, didn't have several accusations of kiddy fiddling hanging over her nor was she as obviously insane as Jackson was.
 
As you say, you didn't see it, and perhaps you should leave it at that rather than take uninformed guesses as to its content.

If you want to slag off his music, or question his private life using reasoned debate, feel free. No one is denying you the right to be critical in this regard.
 
Last edited:
If Krizon still feels she wants to attach her name to it? Then she has been invited to post it in the jokes area.

In the meantime anyone who wishes to compose a reasoned critique about Jackson putting what I'll call 'the other side' (as there are no shortage of people who hold contrary opinions) is welcome to. Just because he's dead doesn't mean we have to observe an insincere deference. In that regard it's no different to the posts about the late Clement Freud which were allowed to stand, despite some of them generating complaints. For reasons I don't personally 'get' Jackson has a mixture of obsessive supporters and casual admirers as indeed he does convicted haters, which ever way we go with posts of a certain nature, we'll receive complaints and generate arguments for either allowing them, or disallowing them. In this respect we're in something of a no win situation.
 
Last edited:
rorydelargy said:
It would be nice to have seen it though wouldn't it, rather than have it culled by the TRF nanny state....
Click to expand...

And yet Rory, the mods team regularly have pm's from other members (including some who have contributed to this thread with some iffy posts) asking other posts to be removed/edited due to libellous content or inappropriate comments on other topics all of which would be pretty similar to the ones edited on this....its a fine line to balance it but I think in general this forum is done pretty well and in the last few months there has been little enough need for the mods anyway. But as usual if anyone has any suggestions/feelings on this matter the PM function is always there and best used rather than derailing threads.

Anyway..getting back to the topic at hand...seemingly his rights to the Beatles stuff etc is all protected so the creditors lining up to get paid cannot get that so the kids will be well looked after financially (whoever they end up with). His album downloads/sales have gone through the roof since his death.
 
Just had a good listen to "dont stop" again tonight. Beautiful lightness of touch. A perfect single which has never dated. Quincy showed his brilliance once again by keeping the pyrotechnics under restraint. the music just soars and keeps doing so.

his suggested dark side was not proven and was almost certainly not at Glitters level (or quite a few other supposed riock idols you hear rumours about...including some very self righteous arsehole ones) so, although i wasnt much of a MJ fan, should just remeber him for what he did best
 
Warbler, can you PLEASE just stop going on and on and on about the joke? It did the rounds of a bunch of jockeys, was about jockeys, and in the context of a racing forum didn't seem that crass at the time. We've exchanged enough damn PMs on the subject, I feel, and we don't need to keep blarting on about it. You wanted to delete it, you've deleted it, end of. Let's move on.
 
his suggested dark side was not proven and was almost certainly not at Glitters level

to be fair Clive, you don't know what level he was on

not proven.. as in paid off ..isn't really ..not proven. If it were one of these rock stars you don't like so much, we were discussing, you wouldn't be so quick to omit that justice was bought.

as I said..I don't feel strongly about the issue...but double standards again imo.... it is this slightly veiled defence of him that irks a little..neither of us know what went off in reality...all we know is he felt the need to throw a lot of money about to keep something quiet.

he should have let that case run its course...paying people off isn't clever if you have nothing to hide

Glitter weren't rock either...pap maybe :p
 
I can't understand the removal of a joke down to it being in this thread and not the jokes thread - if it was that bad surely it shouldn't be allowed anywhere on the forum? To remove it from one section whilst freely inviting the original poster to stick it up in the jokes thread seems a little draconian and precious to me.
 
clivex said:
Getting back to the musis, it was suprsing how little he released over the years... Apart from the genuine dance/pop classics (dont stop, Billie jean, rock with tc) some right drivel. But also, arent "artists" incredibly unproductive these days? Beatles released how many albums and developed their sound how far...in seven years?

Proof really that albums are released not for creativity but to fill a maketing void. Top jazz artists regularly bang out 1/2 annually
Click to expand...

He seemed quite productive for a few years then went quiet. I agree some of his stuff was drivel but some of the good stuff was brilliant.

As for jazz, it's ok for them to bang out 1/2 annually. Most of that is esoteric sh*te :p
 
Back
Top