[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by misterbug
I noticed that the mere mention of the name "Michael Jackson" resulted in the array of anti-MJ comments quoted above. I know this is a Fleetwood Mac forum, but somehow the anti-MJ sentiment leaked in, so I hope you people let me have MY say and defend him against these comments.

1. The first negative comment, within the same post as the first mention of MJ, is "as bad as Wacko Jacko". This unfortunate nickname implies that MJ is "crazy". However, there is no evidence that he is. He is, at worst, eccentric. Let's not forget that MJ had no real childhood to speak of, that he was always performing in front of 1000s, his father forbade him to play games, made fun of MJ at every opportunity, and also beat him with such objects as a belt and an electrical cord. The comment also suggests MJ looks bad. Well, that is subjective. Why not, instead, say he looks "unconventional"?

2. The second and third comments imply that MJ does not look good, AND that "looking good" was his goal. Before and especially after his first surgery (nose), around the time of Thriller (ca 1984), MJ was quite good-looking by conventional standards. So if he kept getting all of this surgery, while being a heartthrob, I think the conclusion is that MJ was not trying to "look good". Specifically, I think MJ is trying to look like Peter Pan (the eternal child) as part of his attempt to experience a childhood he never had. It fits not only his apparent psychology (witness some of the comments he made on the ABC special: "I am Peter Pan at heart", e.g.), it also fits physical evidence: for instance, his ranch suggests strongly that he is trying to recapture a childhood he never had. I also suggest you visit this website: geocities.com/plabcures/peterpan.html. It presents a convincing photo-analysis of MJ's face.

Ok. Flame away. I'll be waiting to defend my arguments.

No flames, everybody has the right to their opinion.