03
Aug
2010
Lisa Robinson Talks to Michael
I just love when people start pulling out all this old footage they have of Michael and sharing it with the world! YAY! ********************************
In order to view anything on this site in full you MUST be a member. If you'd like to purchase one of our books, please click the "Lulu" button:
********************************
In order to view anything on this site in full you MUST be a member. If you'd like to purchase one of our books, please click the "Lulu" button:
117 Responses to “Lisa Robinson Talks to Michael”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
"So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee." W. ShakespeareCreate an account with FB, Twitter, Google and Yahoo!
It's automatic. You'll use the name & password you create to log in.
(Spike to Buffy, Buffy the Vampire Slayer.)
"So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee." W. Shakespeare
"----->His intelligence is instinctual and emotional, like a child’s. If any artist loses that childlikeness, you lose a lot of creative juice. So Michael creates around himself a world that protects his creativity”. ~ Jane Fonda
Yeah, I'm hoping he will go away too. I don't trust him. Other MJ fans are so desperate to have someone in their corner in the media, but look at this:
This is his statement:
If you can't see the whole thing, he says:
"Michael told more lies than any of these journos you pick on so I don't see what point you're trying to make."
Someone responds to him, THANK GOD, "Twisted, get a fucking grip. From the outside looking in, you're a lot worst than those you criticize. WE get it. You love Journos and you don't believe a word Michael says. Now change the record. We don't give a shit."
This is in January of 2009, just over a year ago. And the response he got lets you know that he has been that way for a long time --
That man is no friend to Michael and he's too biased to be able to do fair and honest reporting on Michael. I don't trust him. He only wrote those articles because he's looking to further his own career. If it comes to a point that he had to turn on Micheal to do that, I believe he would in a heartbeat.
Oh my God!!!!! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:
Charles Thompson, I sooo trusted the guy in the beginning but stopped following him on Twitter a while ago because he really started talking shit. I was really disappointed because I thought he was one of the good ones! I mean he did this really great interview on blog talk radio I think and I was like, wooow, who is this guy, well, it doesn't matter, he GOT it! I mean he said from the start that he was not an MJ fan per se but he hated how the media had treated and how he wanted to set the reckord straight even though he wasn't a diehard fan and I respected that. Then on Twitter he posted comments over comments on how there was some user who called him all kinds of sings because he had expressed his views on Michael's drug abuse and so on. He said she was kind of stalking him if I remember correctly. At that point I still believed him and was annoyed at other fans who try to make everybody look the bad guy as soon as they say something "negative" about Michael.
I mean I talked to him on Twitter a bit and he did express his opinion about how around 2001 Michael looked pretty bad and was doing obviously very bad. That he probably took a lot of medication and drank a lot of alcohol and so on. He actually was the one who got me upset with his comments Sabine, and then I came here and we had the Debbie conversation but the real issue was that I had heard about Karen having to reanimate Michael with Red Bull because he had passed out backstage during the MSQ shows. Charles was the one who told me that! I became upset and asked him how do you know and he said he was reliable sources and bla bla, yeah, everybody has that!
So that was actually the beginning of this dark phase for me, Charles' "insider knowledge". Ugh!!!!!!
So, are you sure "TwistedVision" is him? How do you know?
Wow. Cherry! Charles was gossiping with you, giving you insider information huh? That little shit.
Well, you're going to find this blog VERY INTERSTING.
HE IS Twisted Vision --
IT's clear right here:
Scroll to the bottom:
http://www.mjstar.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1130&sid=780ccc43f1c79ff82ac3e2318d0f477a
And in this thread:
http://www.mjstar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=736
But but BUTTTTTT!!! Read this and weep!
http://muzikfactory2.blogspot.com/2010/08/hypocracy-thy-name-is-charles-thomson.html
Make sure to Read part 1 AND 2 -- even I have said that Michael looked bad during that time and was in a lot of pain, but THomson, no, he is a nasty peice of work!
The things he said, disgusting!
And everyone who blogged with him (he was banned from three forums) knows it:
"funny thing is this guy (aka TwistedVision) used to be one of the most hated guys in the extreme fan community. "
"Oh my god.... that's twisted vision?..... man, I hated him lol. He was one of the main people on MJStar (MJfanclub). Twisted Vision said some very negative things in the past about Michaelt. He respects MJ, but he crossed the line once....but that all seems minuscule now that Michael has left us....."
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hGehIqkRykgJ:www.maximum-jackson.com/discussion/showthread.php%3Ft%3D19569+Charles+Thomson+TwistedVision&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Cherry, before you run off to read, what EXACTLY made you stop talking to him? What did he do?
I read an article he did with Lorette, something I think Lucag, on Michael, and the way he was talking, I was like Hmmmm, I hear some negativity and hostility in his words. Being a writer, the way he chose to phrase things seemed fishy to me. That was my first clue.
You know, I don't blame him for my reaction to his words per say but ugh, still, I kind of didn't like him that much anymore after that because I felt pretty horrible for a few days and I thought "well, if only he hadn't told me that" because as far as I remember I had asked him something not having at all to do with drug abuse or anything, I think it was something about Taraborrelli...and bam! his stupid insider information right in my face. Actually, I also felt a bit used because it seemed he had just waited for another opporunity to trash Michael aka "express his opinion about him" to the next person that tweets him...in this case, it was me.
Gosh, I'm trying to remember what exactly he said that made me click the unfollow button, I'm not sure right now but I'm going to find out! In general, it was his tone, I too heard the negativity and hostility and the "I have every right to say about Michael whatever I want on my personal twitter page"-talk, I think that was a big part of it. He was trying very hard to defend himself and I had enough of that.
Thanks very much for all the links, I'm going to check them out tomorrow, going to bed now because I have an appointment at the doctor's in the morning.
Good night! :kissing:
Oh okay, now he has protected his tweets so I can't see them anymore. I wanted to go back and reread some of them to tell you exactly which one made me stop following. I also can't read the tweets he addressed to me anymore. :getlost: And unfortunately I don't remember his exact words. I mean I had pretty much forgotten about him anyway until I saw you and Colette talking about him here...but it was his negativity on the one side and his ceaseless whining about fans bothering him because of his "opinion".
Man, I have to admit I'm a bit bummed out about this right now because even though I didn't follow him anymore I still kind of admired and respected him for his interviews and articles about Michael and now this.... :face:
Why are you stunned Cherry -- it seems as if your gut instincts spoke to you and you listened! Bravo!!!!!
"Do you people of you remember the pessimistic UNSUPPORTIVE comments from guys like TwistedVision on this site? If I recall was that TwistedVision together with some other members (now inactive since the O2 concerts announcement) only spouted negative foul language about MJ, only highlighting how far MJ had fallen since Thriller."
"I don't think TwistedVision and gang are inactive - I think they have just moved elsewhere."
http://www.mjstar.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12170
Yeah I remember back when TwistedVision used to post on KOP and he was a real piece of work then he got banned as he did on MJJC
Then he went by another name on KOP and then got banned now he's another name there...
http://prince.org/msg/8/341718?jump=18&pg=1
Shit, I wanted to be in bed almost half an hour ago LOL but I'm reading Charles THompson' blog post about this girl who stalked him on twitter and emailed him and all that and I have to say I agree with the things he says about how some "fans" really go too far and tear everybody down who says something about Michael having a dependancy problem because he DID! I really can't stand fans like that almost as much as the haters, both are so extreme, you can't talk to them...
Anyway, nighty night!
Oh, you're cheating. You need to read that other blog, to get a balanced view of what's REALLY going on. Why'd you go to HIS blog first?
And you might know what I'm going to say:
The extreme fans who can't say Michael had a drug problem and the "haterz" are mirror reflections of each other. Two sides of the same coin. Both rigid, inflexible, and thinking that they have a monopoly on truth.
Okay, soooo I read both blogs now and more than anything I feel shock at what Charles (who is only 22 btw, my age, I thought he was older!!!!!) wrote on this forum, oh my God! And the language that he uses!!:sick:
I mean I don't like Twilight or Lady Gaga, still, I let the people who love these things love them and leave them alone because I feel about Michael the way the feel about Bella, Edward and so on and I can relate to that.
As I said, I really thought he was one of the good ones. The thing is, I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says on this forum but the way he put it is disgusting me. I mean, I agree that I was disappointed that Michael mimed his way through the History Tour and the Thriller 25 remixes are not among my top 10 songs but this has to do with the entertainer side of Michael and that, I have to say, has become less important to me. I don't only love Michael for the entertainer that he was, I discovered him through his music when I was 5 or 6 years old and I admire him very much as an artist but other things about him have become more significant. For Charles not, apparently, he has no regard for what Michael went through during and after the trial and hates on him because he didn't release an album two years later! As if this somehow should have been Michael's top priority! God, how insensitive can one be? He only came to this forum to trash Michael, both the man and the artist and I think it's one of the worst things to kind of infiltrate a fan community and then bash the thing/person everybody there loves in that way. UGH!!!!
On the other hand, however, I think it's absolutely horrible and crazy what this girl, Yazmeen did and I agree with Charles that people like her are hypocrites, as are many "fans" who say Michael is their rolemodel and it's all for love but then turn around and hate on everybody who doesn't agree with them. I don't know if I would call him one because it is immaterial what he thinks about Michael because what he wrote about, the allegations, is something that even a non-fan can look at critically and see the media conspiracy behind, you don't have to like Michael to understand that great injustice was done to him.
Still, what disgusts me about this is the fact that now, after Michael's death, he writes all these great articles and portrays himself as "neutral" when in reality he trashed Michael in the past and still does today "in private". I mean back in 2007 he was 19 and just getting started with journalism still, his opinion about Michael is obvious in those forum posts and leaves a very bitter taste.
All in all, he's just another guy who didn't get Michael. I appreciate his efforts to set the record straight on the allegations in a very thorough manner and I agree with him regarding the hypocrisy of this Yazmeen girl and her followers, I'm really disgusted with them, too. There are also a few other things I agree with him on regarding Michael, as I said above, but there are other things about him that are a 100 times more important to me. I admired and respected Charles before but now he really sank in my estimation a lot! :face:
Hey Cherry.
Well, let me give you my two scents on this -- I was actually having this same conversation on another forum about this topic.
The person I was speaking to, well one of them, maintained that it was okay for Charles to have negative opinions about Michael, and that she felt part of the problem was the fans who didn't want to hear that Michael was an addict -- she said Charles could have a negative personal opinion about Michael and still write positive professionally about him.
Well, I disagreed and here is why.
On the subject of what Yazmeen is "doing" and whether it's "horrible and crazy".
I seriously have no judgment about it. Why?
No. 1, Yazmeen did not nor has she ever held herself out as a journalist. Therefore, I don't view her as having any responsibility to be ethical in her speech to the public, to hold true to facts (fact check before speaking) and to remain neutral and partial.
Actually no, I have to disagree. It is very material what a journalist thinks IF that journalist believes he can judge and speak vocally about his criticisms in a public forum. Then this journalist ceases to be impartial and becomes a columnist or an editorial reporter. I don't get my news from people like that. Everyone has an opinion.
See how he through his inside information in your face. He'll be doing that some more, especially when the trial starts -- his insider information and his bias opinions.
But back to Yazmeen.
I see Yazmeen as I see all people, a human being w/ issues.
One of the issues she suffers from IS THE SAME issue that Charlie suffers from, which is why I find it particularly hypocritical and disgusting for him to be sooooooooooooooooooo upset with her.
He can dish it out but he can't take it.
She is painting him with the same critical, intolerant, rigid, uncompassionate brush with which he paints/painted Michael.
Rather than see it, he is doing what most human beings do, he is pointing the finger. This is an opportunity for him to look at the man in the mirror and change, but instead, he is playing victim.
The fans who hate on all the "haterz" who disagree with them are EXACTLY like the haterz -- they just think that their behavior is JUSTIFIED. That's why they're always fighting amongst themselves.
You hit it on the nail when you say Charles portrayed himself as neutral, which is what a journalist is supposed to do, and that is EXACTLY why Yazmeen had the opportunity to show him out.
He did that to himself, I don't care if he was 19 -- he has to take responsibility for his actions.
Yazmeen has to deal with her own issues, and she will, whenever she chooses, but since she's not the subject matter of this issue, did not hold herself as a reporter, then I'm not looking at or judging her behavior.
Charles is the one who wants to be, as his blog states the "Michael Jackson expert reporter" -- well you can't be one, I am so sorry, if you have negative biased judgmental attitudes about the man.
I, too, appreciate his efforts to set the record straight regarding the allegations and the trial.
I think when he speaks about the hypocrisy of Yazmeen and her followers, he needs to look in the mirror. I am not disgusted with them. I actually understand EXACTLY why they are like that. When you understand someone you stop judging them, because then you will also be able to see how you, yourself can behave that way, too.
My problem with Charlie, personally is not WHAT he said, but HOW he chose to say it, and that he tried to hide it, and then tried to justify it, and ultimately is standing by it; to be wrong and strong is despicable, IMO.
I see him as an opportunist -- Yazmeen is NOT doing that. She's telling the truth about him. If he didn't want his life put under a microscope, he should not have held himself out as an impartial journalist. He even said in his article with Loretta Lucij, that he was never a fan.
Yes, he was. A hater fan.
Like you said, also, I take issue with the fact that he infiltrated fan communities specifically to berate Michael. I don't like Twilight either, but why WHY would I join Twilight fan sites just to critique the book and the author and the story.
What does that say about the type of person that I am, if I was to do that?
As for the comments he made on thar forum 3 years ago, the way he put it actually really hurt and upset me and I thought, wow, so much hatred in that guy! But he wasn't a journalist back then, nobody knew him and as much as I am schocked at his opinion and disgusted with him for joining this forum and only to insult Michael, I don't think anybody got their knews from him then or relied on him for journalistically neutral information. I mean to me, reading his commentrs, he seemed just like the killjoy of the forum, pissing everybody off with his opinion, the one that is always against, always says no, always knows better, using this community to spread the negativity inside of him but he was a 19 year old student back then and his words were slanderous but I don't consider them as a the work of a columnist or editorial reporter because he wasn't one back then.
The almost bigger issue to me is that although he wrote those really good articles about the allegations, he never seemed to have bothered to wonder how Michael must have felt going though all that, otherwise he wouldn't have written what he did back in 2007 about how everybody still thinks Michael is peodphile and that he should just accept that he isn't as big as he was in the 80s and 90s and that he better hurry and bring out a new album because his past music sucked and bla bla bla. It's like he found all these super interesting information and put them together for us who don't have time or sources to research on our own but he stopped there and never bothered to think about what that did to Michael, he seperated those two things. That's why I said he didn't get Michael, didn't even try to and that's why I can say he did a good job accumulating information but apart from that he's just another blind man. And an opportunist, too, definitely!
Now, as for Yazmeen, I was mainly referring to the things Charles wrote in his article about the stuff she said on other forums, my God, what is that???
And also about how she tried to get information from him and accusing him for conspiring with Sony against Michael and so on. It's always the same old story. And it's not like I don't understand what fans like her and her followers are trying to do, protect Michael's legacy and reveal people like Charles but they way they go about it is too extreme for me. So I agreed with some points he made about a certain group among Michael's fans. Yes, he only used them to make himself look better in that situation. Still, if they even bothered Randy or Katherine, something is very wrong. Also, not only Charles was hiding his past but Yazmeen, of course, didn't say what was going on between her and him, either, at least not in detail. OF course everybody tries to protect themselves but they both had sceletons in their closet before they made blog posts about the whole affair imo.
So I don't blame Yazmeen for telling the truth about Charles but I don't want to have anything to do with her as much as I didn't want to follow Charles anymore. Both of them are talking too much trash.
This is really sad, was anyone ever really there for Michael?
http://muzikfactory2.blogspot.com/2010/08/all-truth-passes-through-3-stages-first.html
Sabine have seen all this,OMG, he's such an asshole
Hey Ms. Cherry, just got back.
Okay, I have to tell you about my pet peeve -- everyone has them. I have a few, but one is I HATE when people enable another person or make excuses for their behavior.
They were not all three years ago. Some of them were as late as January of 2009 - THAT'S LAST YEAR.
Not true. He did hold himself out as a journalist back then, and even if he didn't, so what? He is one now. There's a reason they do background information on you if you want to run for office, or hold any position in which you have a duty to the public. If you found out Charles was a member of the Ku Klux Klan, would you say the same thing? That that was then and this is now? Especially since he says he stands by everything he said?
Actually, he did hold himself out as a columnist then, and yes he was 19 THEN. But more importantly he IS a columnist now, and he's NOT 19 NOW. So Charles has to put his big boy pants on and take responsibility for his words and for his actions.
I think it's obvious that Charles could have cared less how Michael felt, and since he says he is standing by his words, that means he still doesnt care now.
Because he doesn't care.
I agree he's an opportunist, and because of that, I don't care to know more about him after that. just like I don't care to know any more about Bashir. I don't care if he's nice to his to his friends and always calls them on his birthday!!!! He's a jerk, and a liar and user, and I don't need to know any more than that.
He is in no moral position to cast aspersions on Yazmeens behavior. Physician heal thyself.
In my mind, THAT'S WHAT YOU GET Charles -- he set himself up for that. I have zero sympathy for him. If Yazmeen said those things, is she wrong, of course, but so is Charles and two wrongs don't make a right.
You can't be Hitler and be sensitive.
Like I said, flip side of the same coin.
But Yazmeen is not holding herself out as a journalist, so really, who cares what her issues are? How many people read her blog, really?
I stay away from drama and all dysfunctional people, so I think that's probably the healthiest thing to do. To me they are both talking trash because they are a lot alike.
It's untrue that Charles was not a journalist back then and didn't hold himself out to be one.
This is an article he wrote for MJStar which he posted on June 28, 2007 entitled:
EXCLUSIVE: Jackson Rep Reveals Future Plans
By Charles Thomson
I already linked it before.
http://www.mjstar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=736
On Saturday, September 15, 2007, Charles Thomson submitted questions for an upcoming interview with Ted Riely.
Someone commented that they were the "best questions ever".
and Thomson replies "It's my job".
http://www.mjstar.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1130&sid=94b3480c4031b046fe55d29f96689483&start=15
Colette, yes, I read the blog and Charles is an official asshole, which is much worst than just a regular old asshole!
I'm not making excuses for him, at least that's not my intention and I don't have sympathy for him either. What he wrote on this forum, even in 2009, shocked and disgusted me as I said so many times now but I think it's not right to say, well, Yazmeen can say what she want, nobody reads her blog (uhm, yes, we do) so it doesn't matter anyway but because Charles is a journalist, his opinion about Michael expressed on forums or Twitter is worse than Yazmeens comments about him and also worse than those really nasty ones about "niggers". I mean I know you're not offended by it and all but the reading this article Charles linked to his blog posthttp://mjssfljunky.tumblr.com/post/926104815/the-muzikfactory-saga, reading all her comments I am as disgusted with her, really and her blog didn't do anything to change that, I can't take it seriously and it doesn't make me take her side in this. I'm not on his either. I'm glad she posted those screencaps of Charles' comments and revealed his true colors but that doesn't make what she wrote any better.
Charles, of course posted this link above to make himself look better right now, this didn't have anything to do with him personally and he's trying to make her look as bad as possible to defent himself. Still, if you look at Charles' past you have to look at Yazmeen's too imo and reading HER Twitter posts as well as HIS forum comments I can easily see how the whole affair between the two got this nasty, they use the same methods. That's all I wanted to say, both of them are as bad as the other imo and I don't like to apply double standards when it comes to blaming people for what they did or said. Charles' slanderous words and ignorant opinion about Michael doesn't become worse because more people read his words than hers and Yazmeen's are not any better just because she's a "nobody". That's like saying she's a better person because she does all the trash talking in private, which she actually doesn't because people read wht she says, too. To me, it's about what their comments reveai about them as people and as you said, they are very similar to each other.
Ugh, anyway, I've had enough of the negativity, this is between them and I don't want anything to do with it. Charles can think about Michael whatever he wants, his opinion doesn't matter to me, he managed to temporarily contaminate my brain with it but actually I feel sorry for him for being so ignorant and thus never being able to feel the LOVE no matter how well researched his articles are.
Ooo, girl, Cherry, I feel like you didn't read what I wrote, or at least just skimmed it. I've said it over and over.
Sabine: To me they are both talking trash because they are a lot alike. . . . Like I said, flip side of the same coin. . . .two wrongs don’t make a right. . . . . I see . . Yazmeen . . suffers from . .THE SAME issue that Charlie suffers from . . . He can dish it out but he can’t take it. . . . She is painting him with the same critical, intolerant, rigid, uncompassionate brush with which he paints/painted Michael. The fans who hate on all the “haterz” who disagree with them are EXACTLY like the haterz — they just think that their behavior is JUSTIFIED.
Okay,
I'm confused as to why you just didn't say I agree with you???? 
We're saying the same thing.
When one of my kids is in trouble and they say,
I'm not talking about them right now. I'm talking about you. Worry about yourself.
Pointing fingers is a child's game.
I can't explain it any better and you it's okay if you don't agree with me on that point, it's just my sense of justice kicking in.
Peace.
Charles' comments are nasty and ignorant and nobody is responsible form them but him and it was right to show them to us and everything, no doubt about that, but when I read this
"In an email on July 29th she wrote, "I screencapped your posts both on MJ and James Brown forums & a queer site.... I am NOT trying to expose you but your denials and attempts to discredit ME is leaving me no choice.... I wanna know why Sony was involved in AEG concert. I wanna know more about MJ wanting to back out. I want INFORMATION. Keep your source, give me information."
I gave her all the information I had. She outed me anyway."
and the rest of Charles' explanation for their fight and Yazmeen's blog about him, I think this Yazmeen girl is pretty crazy. It's perfectly fine for her to be raging mad at Charles for his comments on the message board and it was right to present them on a blog but all the stuff that has been going on before that shows what kind of a person she is and her tactics to get information from Charles really really rub me the wrong way.
Hey Cherry!! Good morning/afternoon/evening:
Cherr: She isn’t any better but you tried to make look what she did, wrote and said less important/less bad just because she isn’t a journalist."
do not care
about her opinions because she isn't writing as a journalist and doesn't have the audience that Charles has and the potential to do as much damage. I don't think she owes it to any one of us to be honest, good kind -- she owes that to herself, but if that isn't who she is, who am I to stand and say, you should write like this on your blog???? No one was reading that blog before the drama, it was actually just created. I just won't read her blog.
But Charles is different, because he's set himself up as a "Michael Jackson expert" who's going to be reporting on him and giving news to the world about him. As a writer for publications like the Huntington Press, he has a wide audience that he has a responsibility to, IMO. If he's a snake in the grass, that's important for me to know.
I've clearly said over and over that I think they are the SAME and just as bad as each other. I just think you're not hearing me
It seems to me that your focus seems to be on Yazeem, and making the point that she is just as bad (which I already said a bunch of times.)
I'll tell you what. Let's just get two crosses, you can nail Yazmeen to one and Charles to the other one. We'll even let you make Yazmeen's cross bigger, and her nails longer.
Why does this quote make him shady?
Outing refers to disclosing, and possibly publicizing, secret information about a person's status without that person's content.
You can't out someone, unless they have something to hide. If a person says I've been outed or someone is "outing" me, they are hiding something that they don't want to be revealed.
Oh, I think he was talking about his homosexuality, at least that's how I understood what he wrote. Have you actually read his blog?
Charles: "This culminated in her latest assault on my character, in which she nastily outed me as a gay man, as though that in itself is a legitimate reason for her followers to turn on me. This was something she'd threatened to do last month while pressing me for info on Sony. [...] But what's more absurd is Yazmeen's decision to unnecessarily reveal my sexuality to her readers. My sexual orientation is completely and utterly irrelevant to my profession, so to publicly declare it in a below-the-belt attempt to discredit my work was beyond petty. It iwas downright spiteful."
I'm just shaking my head over here. Cherry, you're just making excuses for Charles. That's what his mouth said, that she outed him as a gay man and that's why he's upset.
Yazmeen clearly showed us that Charles wasn't in hiding about being gay. He told everyone he was gay. It was right on the internet, easily searchable and obtainable by any and everyone who wanted to find out. If he was hiding it, he was only hiding it from the MJ community.
If that were true, if he really thought it was irrelevant, he would have shrugged his shoulders and said, So what, yeah I'm gay. And he would have left it at that. Me thinks Charles protests too much. When a person is trying to hide their wrong doing, they throw in the kitchen and the sink to try to distract someone from the real issue. In court we call that behavior using red herring tactics.
Okay, you think I'm making excuses for him but I'm not. I'm not even talking about his comments about Michael anymore, what I am talking about is what went on between Charles and Yazmeen before each of them presented their version of what happenend on their blogs and how this makes me think about the two of them. They're both pointing their fingers at each other but to me, Charles is more right to do so than Yazmeen, not when it comes to the comments he made (about that she told the truth) but only regarding what they did to each other and, as always when you ask two people to explain what happenend, we have two versions of that and I think Charles' is more probable.
As much as I dislike Charles for his comments on this message board and all that I believe him, mainly because of the link he provided where you can read Yazmeen's nigger tirades and also because she must have been really really upset with him for his comments on Mike (extreme fans like her always are) as well as for not giving her the information she wanted. I can totally imagine that she said to him, well, if you don't give me what I want and stop talking about me I will tell everybody in the MJ community that you're gay and if, as you say, he was hiding it from this community, then her threatening to "out" him is really low. And even if she didn't out him because it was known that Charles was gay it's still wrong to use his homosexuality against him in any way. I don't think Charles invented that because as we can read on his blog he stands by his opinion of MIchael as expressed on this forum. I mean he probably isn't happy that she revealed these comments but he is not talking about that actually but about what happenend BEFORE she revealed them.
You chose to believe Yazmeen's version of the story and to me Charles' was more convincing, that's why I understand his reaction and agree with him about extreme "fans" like Yazmeen. Again, I'm not making excuses for his comments on Michael and for writing favorable articles about him now to profit from the pro-Michael-wave that has hit the world ever since he died. That totally makes him an opportunist.
So, I'm on my way out but I really have nothing more to say to that anyway, it's quite draining, really. We partly agree, Sabinem and for you and me, that's quite an accomplishment I'd say.
Bye.
I think it's draining because of this:
But before you said:
Even though I told you more than once that I think Charles and Yazmeen are the same, you accused me of thinking/saying she was less bad. But it's really you who thinks Charles is MORE right. You're accusing me of thinking what you think -- you don't think they're the same at all. You think one is worst than the other, in short, you're doing the same thing to me that Charles is doing to Yazmeen.
I know you do, Cherry, and I'm going to be honest with you, that's where you and Charles are missing an important point.
The extreme fans that you agree with him about are no different than you, and they are no different than Charles.
Charles is EXACTLY like them -- what you did to Michael, remember when you were so hard on him about his drug problem and were so angry with him about his choices, when you said Michael lied and misrepresented himself and you couldn't stop being angry with him, you were being just like the extreme fans are when they speak to someone who doesn't agree with them about Michael, they are just on the opposite end. You just did it TO Michael. They do it to other people who don't agree with them about Michael. Charles did it TO Michael, too.
We spoke about it before, and I told you that before. I don't want to upset you, but girl, that is what you're doing.
I'm not saying your character is like Yazmeens, but that single minded thinking, that rigid judgmentalness is the same -- it doesn't take into account everything else.
I don't think one is more right than the other, I think they are both the SAME. But you agree with him, that's why you're more on his side.
I'm not doing anything to you Sabine, really, what am I doing to you? This is not about you, I just tried to expIain my view on this and you don't have to agree with it, that's ok but I think you don't even understand what I think Charles is more right about...
Also, if you think I am just like Charles or the extreme fans, ok, that hurts, especially since you don't even know me really but it's your opinion and I won't argue with you about that, I'm too tired. I'll just say that even though we talked about my issues for a few days and you really helped me get through this phase, I think you still judged me for "criticizing" Michael for a few choices he took and imo that makes you just like those extreme fans, you can't take somebody saying something negative about Michael without judging them or acknowleding that it's okay to not agree with all of choices all the time.
Also, how am I like them when I suffered from my thoughts about Michael, I didn't want to have them, I tried to fight them, I was miserable because of them. I couldn't stop being angry with him, that's true, but I tried to, you have no idea, I wanted to very badly because it's not my natural state of being. But he wasn't perfect and he made mistakes, like everybody else does and apparently it's right for you to point out the mistakes I made but it's not okay for me to say something about his because he is Michael Jackson and his life was so difficult. You say when criticizing him I don't take everything into account but when you say I'm just like Charles or óbsessive fans you say that without even knowing me personally. That's applying double standards right there.
And how am I single-minded and rigidly judgemental? Wow, I can't believe you say that. You don't know anything about me really, have you forgotten that I agreed with a lot of the points you made about Michael having reasons for his addiction and about my own behavior that you pointed o ut? God, I've gone through his reasons over and over again in my head and in an attempt to outsmart my own mind, I collected postive videos, articles and so on as an emergency plan in case my thoughts run amok again. I teared myself up about the whole mess and tried to look at it from Michael's perspective and from his perspective I understood it. Still, I wish he had acted differently, yes, but don't you, too? As I said before, I really try to understand why he sometimes did what he did and i can understand it, I just think he had other options too and I am sad he didn't use or see them. And as much as I hate having negative thoughts about him, I think I am right for saying e.g. that I don't like that he took propofol because it knocked him out so much that he wouldn't even have been able to comfort Blanket when he had a nightmare and wanted his Daddy. Or what if there had been a fire or something happene to one of his childern? He wouldn't have the faintest idea about it until he woke up. From Michael's POV I understand why he took it, he only wanted to sleep, but he was a Dad so he should have taken the consequences his decisions and actions could have for his children into account...
I really thought you got me and my internal struggle about that but it seems you didn't. But that's ok, it wasn't your problem anyway and I should have known that nobody really understands it unless you are in it.
oh, boy
Listen, you and I are having mis-communication. I wouldn't want to leave it like this and not resolve it, because you're misreading what I'm saying, but I feel helpless -- I don't know how to get through to you. The words are here on the screen, and I don't think you're seeing them.
I feel you are triggered and some of the things I'm saying you are taking it wrong and as an attack.
I didn't say you were single minded and rigidly judgmental, where did I say that? I specifically made sure to tell you I was not saying that, but you still say I said it!:
I'm talking about a way of thinking on a single subject -- that is not YOU! Don't you have lots of thoughts on lots of subjects???? Who you are is the SUM of all those things, not just one thought on one idea or one subject, and you're right, I don't know all of your thoughts on every subject, and also these thoughts are always changing. That's why we can never fully ever know anyone.
I don't' judge people and put them into categories and slaps labels on them, remember I told you that? I judge behavior. Remember the basket analogy I gave you?
I said:
That doesn't mean you are just like them in every single way. I said, IMO, when you behaved that way, you were behaving in the same way that they treat a person who disagrees with them or criticizes Michael.
No, I don't. I told you that. I just try to understand why he acted that way. He acted that way for reasons, and I just accept it and try to understand it. I wish Michael would have known how beautiful he was -- that I do wish, but I also understand why he didn't so I am not angry or upset with him about anything he did. We talked about all of this before.
I don't' want to say much more unless we can figure out where the the mis-communication is originating from and how we can resolve it so that we both feel understood.
Right now you don't feel understood by me (that makes me so sad) and I don't feel understood by you.
What can we do to resolve this?
I don't like unresolved conflict. I'm open to hearing suggestions.
And by the way, one of the reasons why I felt so bad about my thoughts about Michael is that no matter where i try to express them or try to explain how they hurt me, too, I always get criticized for criticizing Michael, it's just about me, not about him at all. The discussion turns to why my feelings are entirely MY fault right away. This is why I always felt I shouldn't have these thoughts, like questioning him even in the slightest way is something forbidden and doubt or disagreement is something you have to hide in order to not be labeled a hater, weird, judgemental or single-minded.
Imo, it's not impossible to be a fan of Michael and love him very much and still not like some of the things he did at the same time. Because this is how our relationships in real life are as well, we love the people we love no matter what. I love my sister so much but recently we had a fight and her words hurt me quite a lot and I absolutely could not agree with her on something, still, I love her. It's the same with Michael for me, just because I think what I think about certain issues it doesn't mean that I don't love him and by expressing that I'm only trying to heal. But I also appreciated your view on this, Sabine, and I agreed with you on many of the things you said about me that I didn't see before. It wasn't nice to look at myself like that but I did it, I admitted my mistakes. Still, from now on I will try to not let myself talk into the idea that when "critizing" Michael, something is very wrong with me and it doesn't have absolutely nothing to do with him.
I'm just so sad about this, I just wish I could express myself without someone feeling that I'm trying to attack them -- where/when do I get room to be me?
Okay, yes, it seems there is a huge mis-communication, it happens, I'm sure if we would have talked about it face to face it wouldn't have gone this far. I did take some of the things you said as an attack because they hurt me since you say when I "criticized" Michael I behaved like extreme fans do but IMO I don't because I feel horrible about it and they don't. So to me it feels like you missed my whole point when we talked about this some weeks ago and that's why you put me in the same category with them. I feel like you're judging me for being angry with him even though I explained many times that I'm working on it, that I hurt myself with this and all of that. But I'm so glad for you that you understand Michael and never wish he would have done things differently and are totally comfortable with it all, that's great.
Right now I just really really want to stop discussing this, I initially came here for fun and good times and I don't want have that ruined for me or ruin it myself. I was glad to find somebody in you that I could talk to about this and I am grateful that you too the time and listened to me. But it upsets me too much discussing things that are just my opinion and that don't have to do with anybody else but me and nobody has to agree with them or like them, that's why I will stop now even though I like to debate but it gets to a point where it's just draining.
So as far as I am concerned, the conflict is solved, I misunderstood you in your second to last quote but hear what you say in your last and that's that, for me. If I can do anything in helping you feel that he conflict is solved, too, let me know.
Sabine, this is your site, be you, I don't want to keep from it. But this is exactly what I am talking about, I just tried to express myself about Charles, Yazmeen and Michael without you or anybody feeling attacked because when you express yourself it's not about me or the whoever you talk to in that moment but about you, and it's the same with me in that moment. The person we talk to can then either agree or disagree with our opinion but this shouldn't lead to a fight between the two of them. People have different views and just as you say we should try to understand Michael and not judge him I think we should be that lenient with each other, too because we all have our reasons for what we do/think/feel and it's never as easy as it seems on the surface, especially when communicationg via this medium.
Cherry, I hear you.
I am sorry you feel judged. I am sorry you feel that I misunderstood your whole point about being angry with Michael.
I don't have those feelings at all, and I've tried to express that to you, but I am failing miserably.
I do not feel attacked by your opinions. I am okay with you disagreeing with me. I have no judgmental feelings about you at all.
What can I do to help you understand that I do not have those feelings. Is there anything I can explain better or articulate in a different way?
I don't think the conflict can be solved if you still have these ideas that I have feelings that I don't have, and it hurts me to know that you are hurt.
I don't want you to go to bed having these feelings.
Is there anything at all that I can say or do to help you feel better?
Oh my God, now I am actually crying because of the silliness of it all.
I can't believe it got this far.
What I don't understand is that you say you don't judge me for being angry at Michael sometimes but earlier you said this makes me or rather my behavior as judgemental and narrow-minded as that of those Yazmeen-like fans. It's either one thing or the other, isn't it? You can't understand me and think I'm like them at the same time. I don't understand that.
To me, this is all about being heard when I say that I never stop loving Michael even though I don't like some of the things he did or decisions he made. Everything I said above about that, I just want this to be heard even though nobody agrees with me on it or understands it. My nightmare/fire example....you didn't say anything to that, did you get it? Do you see what I did there, saying that from Michael's POV I understand it but looking at it from another perspective, in this case his children's, it makes me "critizice" his decisions.
This all feels like a heavy weight on my chest that I want to get off now really really badly but It's very late here and my mind is working slowly now so this is all I can think of at the moment.
Is there anything I can do to help make you feel better/heard/understood?
Cherry,I dont' think this is silly at all, because this is what happens when old wounds get triggered, people start misunderstanding each other. And it's not really about this conversation -- it's about all the STUFF it is bringing up, which is why you're emotional, why I'm emotional.
Admittedly, an old wound for me, is being misunderstood.
Honey, I did NOT say that. Please, please just read my words.
I pulled this from the conversation we had last time, so that maybe you can understand:
--- So you see with Charles, it's the same thing. I HATE users, and I hate user behavior, and because I see him as USING Michael to further his own career, I can't stand him, and it's very hard for me to have compassion for him.
I am. This is what you said Sabine, how am I getting this wrong?
I really have to go to bed now so if you write something, don't think I ignore it, I'll be back.
Before I go let me tell you I did go back and read what you wrote and if you think I got you wrong then please just tell me what you meant but I think your words were pretty clear.
Oh, I only saw now that you added someting to your post. Well, to me this is not about Charles anymore, we agree about him concerning his comments about Michael and I absolutely understand your anger at him for saying such nasty things about Michael. I also remember that you hate users and I agree with you 100 % that Charles is an opporunist, he furtheres his career by using Michael even though he actually hates him. He's a jerk and I'm glad I got rid of him on Twitter. You don't have to have compassion for him or stand him, I don't either. What we don't agree on is his role in what went on between him and Yazmeen as presented by both of them, and that's that, I can live with that.
What I can't live with is what I just quoted from you because I don't understand how I am getting this wrong or rather why you say you didn't say it.
:sigh:
Okay let me try again. We spoke about this before, Cherry.
when I say: "You just did it TO Michael.They do it to other people who don’t agree with them about Michael.Charles did it TO Michael, too"
The problem I think in this sentence is the word IT. What do I mean by "IT"?
This is what I mean by it.
TwistedVision aka Charles Thomson had a negative idea of who Michael was: A user, a liar, lazy, manipulative, a washed up, has been, hated by everyone, thought of as a pedophile by everyone and unable to make a come back -- a musician who Prince was better than in every way.
This was his vision of Michael which he expressed vehemently over and over on the MJstar forum to any/everyone who was around to read it. NOTHING anyone said would get him to give up this idea/image he had of Michael.
Extreme fans have this idea of Michael: Loving, kind, good, sweet, health-conscious, averse to drugs, loving the Earth, giving, compassionate, non-drinker, love children etc.
NOTHING anyone says will get them to give up this idea/image they have of Michael. It cannot receive anything negative.
Now Yazmeen has this RIGID idea of who Charles is and Charles in his defense creates this rigid idea of who Yazmeen is. They are doing to each other exactly the same thing; they are now mirror images of each other but each in their mind believes they are RIGHT.
When Charles talks about the extreme fans and their inability to hear anything negative about Michael he is just as unable to hear positives about Michael that DO NOT FIT INTO THE IMAGE he's created in his mind of who Michael is. They cant hear, accept, recieve understand anything that doesn't fit into the image in their mind that they've created of who Michael is.
You also had this image of who Michael was, remember and part of it was negative. (I don't want to rehash it because we spoke about this before.) Its something you've struggled with because it made you upset with yourself, upset to think negatively about him, to be angry with him, to be disappointed in him and you could not reconcile it with the good kind fun image you also had of Michael.
Remember what I told you?
The extreme fans have an idealized view of Michael.
Charles has an idealized view of Michael.
You had an idealized view of Michael.
None of these idealized views ARE Michael. All of them have some aspects of Michael but Michael was a unique complex multifaceted human being and one has to remain open to who hewas, to learning and understanding all aspects of him, good or bad.
That is the IT that I'm talking about that Yazmeen had done to Michael, Charles had done to Michael and Charles does to the extreme fans and then the extreme fans do to anyone who disagrees with them and that yes you did it to Michael too. Everyone has IDEAS in their head about exactly who the other person is w/o having individually gotten to know the person and to learn to understand the person so that they can then understand that person's behavior/opinions and ideas.
And yes that type of thinking when it will not consider other ideas and will not include other opinions but dismisses them on face value is rigid and it is being judgmental.
Have I done this to Charles?
YES! In a way I have. I am considering the information on a whole but believe me I'm prepared to dismiss it all in the face of his usury.
We all do this at one time or another to each other especially when we dislike someones behavior. It's extremely difficult NOT to do this when you dislike a person's behavior. I can look at Charles' background and try to understand him so I can have compassion for him but like I told you with Debbie, I don't want to BECAUSE I HATE USERS -- this is something I have to continue working on because I have an issue with users that I have not gotten over.
Okay so let me see if I got this right:
You think I have an idealized version of Michael, meaning that I only see the good things of him and when I hear something negative, it makes me questin him. You also think when I "criticize" him I am not remaining open to him, learning and understanding all aspects of him, good or bad. And you say in that I am like Charles or extreme fans because I don't consider other ideas and dismiss other people's opinion at face value and that makes my thinking about Michael rigid and judgemental.
Well, if that's your opinion, okay, I'm going to have to accept that even though I don't agree. I actually am quite baffled by it because I think in our conversation a few weeks ago I was ready to accept your opinion about him and his drug use e.g., I didn't dismiss it at all, I considered the ideas you had very thorougly and agreed with you many times, otherwise I wouldn't even have talked to you so long about that and just said, whatever, I'm not listening to you anymore. And you still maintain that my critical thinking about Michael is rigid and judgemental even though I said over and over that it doesn't mean that don't I love him and that I DO look at his actions and decisions from his perpsective and understand them from there BUT what you don't understand is that it's not the only one I'M looking at it from and that's what you and fans like Yazmeen don't like because you think that means I'm not remaining open to Michael. I am remaining open to Michael and to everybody else, too! If his children will talk about their time with him one day and will say somethng about him that's not so nice or contradicts his image as a perfect father then will you say, well, they didn't understand, they didn't remain open to Michael? They will always love him but it's ok to criticize his behavior if it hurt them and I'm sure it did sometimes. So looking at it not only from Michael's perspective but from other people's involved is my sense of fairness and balance. That's why I brought up the nightmare/fire example on which you still didn't comment. With it I tried to explain to you how my mind works when I say I don't like that Michael took that stuff. I understand why he waned it but not only did he want something that hurt himself but it also hurt his children. And imo telling me I shouldn't do that because it makes me not understand Michael, that's absolutely not true and it's absolutely rigid and judgemental in itself.
I mean, whenenver I am in that phase, I feel horrible myself as I said because I don't want to be there but I am there so I have to deal with it. Now , from what you tell me it seems that I have only two possibilites. I either perfectly and completely understand Michael and like what he did all the time or, if that's not the case, I am narrow-minded and judgemental. To you, it seems, there's nothng in between and that to me is rigid thinking right there.
I can say the same thing about you actually, you don't remain open to people as soon as they do something you don't like, in this case, use Michael. You just say, well I considered the information on a whole but I dismiss it because I hate users, I hate their behavioir and nothing else matters, neither how the situation came about nor what the other person(s) involved did. And that is your issue, okay, I understand it, especially with all you told me about your childhood. I didn't go through what you went through so I think differently but I don't label your thiking or say that it makes your behavior this or that...
We are actually in quite smiliar situations, we both have issues. Yours is not wanting or not being able to understand people who are users, no matter what and mine is not being able to only look at things from Michael's perspective but considering how his actions or decisions affected t hose around him and how it would have made me feel had I been there. We both know we have to work on it and we can't expect any more from each other than that.
I wanted to add something I tried to formulate earlier but couldn't. It's how I feel and I know you won't agree with me but...yeah.
The thing is that you label my critical thinking of MIchael rigid and judgemental when this is exactly what you could call your thinking about Charles.
Again, I'm not talking about what you think about him because of his comments on the message board, we agree they are horrible.
I'm talking about how you immediately shut down when you read his comments. So when I then said, well, as far as this nasty flaming between him and Yazmeen goes, I believe him more or I believe he is right to defend himself about that, you thought I was making excuses for his comments about Michael which I absolutely wasn't doing at all. To me those are two different issues.
But just because you won't consider what went on between him and Yazmeen in the face of his usury, as you said, doesn't mean that I have to do that, too.
And I feel that just because you are ready to dismiss everything else because of YOUR issues with users, you blame me for not doing that, too, for looking at what went on between him and Yazmeen from his perspective, the bad guy's perspective. How dare I?
Well, it's your issue, it doesn't have anything to do with me. I can look at stuff from many people's perspective, even from that of a guy like Charles, or try to at least, I don't always succeed of course.
But I try because I think it's important. You don't want to do that or can't because of your issues and I can understand that but they're your issues and not mine so I don't have to behave or think like you.
But instead of saying, okay, this is actually a good quality, to be able to look at things from many perspective you say it's making excuses, you try to make me feel that I am wrong for doing that.
If you remember, I said I am glad it's so easy and natural for you to accept and understand everything Michael did, even the "bad" things. I never said, well you are naive or blind in your love for him because you never criticize him. I never said that, I could have, I could have called your behavior that because it's different from my own but I didn't.
So it's like we have this big discussion about what my behavior and thinking is like and I admit that I was wrong about certain things but with you it's like you see your thinking about Charles but it's okay for you to think about him the way you do, to not consider anything else but his comments because you don't want to and thus don't have to. No matter what happenend before or who else was involved, it doesn't count to you. This is rigid and narrow-minded, too in my opinion.
And one last thing I want to get off my chest before you it's your turn is that I don't and probably never will understand why you and many other fans simply won't acknowledge that it's irresponsible for a man with 3 young children to want to take somthing as dangerous as Propofol, to go look for doctors who will give it to him and ignore other's warnings about it and why, when expressing that, it makes my thinking narrow-minded, judgemental, hypocritical, bad, wrong or whatever you can think of. I understand why he felt he needed to take it, he went through A LOT and just wanetd to sleep, but to me, this doesn't make it less irresponsible when you look at where his children are now. (But I'm open to anybody who will explain how it isn't irresponsible.)
So I think you have an idealized version of MIchael also because you decide to always look at things from Michael's POV and as soon as somebody looks at it from another perspective, which, in turn, makes Michael's behavior or decision look irresponsible in that moment, you want to tell them something is wrong with THEM for feeling that it's irresponsible and that it has nothing to do with Michael's behavior.
To me, saying it's irresponsible AND understanding why he did it can go hand in hand and I have the right to express both, depending on whose perspective I decide to look at it from. And imo other ans should be able to take that.
My issue in all of that and the difference between me and you is that I am angry with Michael when I look at it from his childern's perspective for example and you are not and this is what I admire you for and why I said wow, that's great. I am aware of my issue but generally, I don't think it's wrong to call a behavior by it's name even though you understand it.
Ok, I'm finished pouring my guts out.
No. I'm surprised you're asking me this again, because we spoke about this in depth, and you told me you understood and actually agreed with me, but I guess it didn't stick.
I said you have an idealized idea of who you think Michael is, both good and bad, and that you were holding onto it and not allowing yourself to be influenced by the information you hear, to incorporate it into a newer, more fuller understanding of Michael -- instead you try to make the information you hear FIT into the image you have of Michael that you created in your mind -- which is not really him, but just your idea of him.
It's so interesting, because you agreed before when we spoke about this earlier. The comments are still there, and you can go read them. I guess you're in a different place emotionally right now.
Okay, oh, boy
-- you are not understanding what I've said.
No one said you didn't love Michael. Do you see how you're reading into what I've written?
Please don't lump me into a group with Yazmeen, I am as unlike her as anyone can be ON THIS SUBJECT.
I'm sorry, but go back and read what you wrote in the Debbie thread -- that's not open. You know that, because you agreed, but now you are kind of sensitive and defensive. I hope in time you can come back and see it.
You are totally missing my point. This is not about being able to criticize someone and still love them -- this is about UNDERSTANDING someone's behavior and having compassion.
When trying to understand MICHAEL -- other people's perspective have no business in the equation. You can look at other people's perspective if you want to understand THEM.
You said I didn't comment on it, and then in the next breath you said I said you shouldn't do that -- I didn't even address it, so who told you you shouldn't do it? Not me.
In that analogy you are sympathizing and having compassion for the children -- understanding their point of view, which is helpful for us to understand where the children are coming from, something you can relate to very well, since you, too, have a father who was/is on drugs. But that doesn't help us understand Michael, because Michael's perspective is different from the children's perspective.
I told you before, and I will tell you again. When I told you this before you thanked me, and now I am giving you the same information and you are completely resistant. Hopefully you will be able receive this later:
Sabine: "Feelings are not wrong, honey, they just are. Give yourself permission to feel whatever you feel. You have those feelings for a reason. Just try and understand why."
I don't understand Cherry. I already said this, are you reading what I'm writing? This is why I'm saying for some reason right now you are not able to receive what I am saying.
Sabine: " Have I done this to Charles?
YES! In a way I have. I am considering the information on a whole but believe me I’m prepared to dismiss it all in the face of his usury.
We all do this at one time or another to each other especially when we dislike someones behavior. It’s extremely difficult NOT to do this when you dislike a person’s behavior. I can look at Charles’ background and try to understand him so I can have compassion for him but like I told you with Debbie, I don’t want to BECAUSE I HATE USERS — this is something I have to continue working on because I have an issue with users that I have not gotten over. "
Yes, I agree -- I already told you this. I think we can expect each other to always acknowledge our flaws and issues and to never, like Charles, deny them or point fingers at another person's issues/flaws to try to use them to distract us from our issues.
Cherry, in regards to the comment you made at 9:05 - I'm happy to have this discussion with you if it will lead to healing, but I'm not going to do name calling or mud slinging.
I have said that I have issues with Charles, because he is a user, and I have a hard time having compassion for users. I told you earlier also, I have a pet peeve with people who make excuses for behavior -- why? I'll tell you. My parents always say, and my family, HERE IS THE GOOD REASON why it was okay for me to hurt you, lie to you, use you, touch you, hit you and there is NO GOOD REASON. So that's what get's triggered there, the outrage that someone would try to justify hurting another.
I have admitted to at least two of my issues. I don't beat myself up over what I think or feel -- I just accept it and try to understand it.
I understand that I grew up with a mother who was a user and father who was a user, and so when I come in contact w/ people like that I am immediately triggered -- not so much because of them, but because of who they remind me of and what they are reminding me of, what I went through.
I hope you can see that this conversation has your father written all over it, how you feel about him, and how you feel about yourself having negative feelings about him -- and I hope you can give yourself permission to have these feelings and can step back from them and try to understand why you have these feelings and how you can help yourself heal.
If you can do this, believe me, you will release a lot of inner turmoil and free yourself to be able to see things in a different way.
It's untrue that I won’t acknowledge that Michael was not irresponsible in his behavior. I cannot speak for other fans, and I really wish you wouldn't lump me together with them.
The truth is my focus is not on calling Michael's behavior irresponsible, because I already understand why he was not responsible. It is very hard to be responsible when you're in pain. When you're in pain, especially emotional pain, you can't even think straight. It is like asking a man with two broken legs why he let his little girl walk so long, why he didn't carry her -- well he didn't carry her because he COULDN'T - it hurt too much.
Remember my basket analogy? You have to go back and read it. You said you liked it before. I have a basket with all the qualities that I attribute to Michael, remember? That's how I look at Michael. Characteristics, good and bad can be taken away and given back, some remain in the basket and never change no matter what, but it's all still Michael -- it's an open basket, not a closed box, not an idealized idea that never changes, but one that is constantly growing and becoming more rich and more intricate.
Yes, you are angry at Michael. The question for you Cherry is WHY -- and it's not about Michael, Cherry. It's about your Dad.
Oh! And I also want to thank you! Because I had such a disturbing dream last night, and I know it is going to help me deal with some of the deeper issues I have regarding my family. I think when I went to bed last night, I was still thinking about our conversation, and it pulled up some stuff inside of me, so thank you, because I am always trying to look at myself and deal with my issues
Ugh, I think we're talking in circles. Okay, one last try, then I will step away from this.
Yes, you are right, I agreed with you and that and I still do but here you only addressed the idealizing issue. What was more important to me is that you said:
and this
So to me this is still about you saying that I did to Michael what Charles did to Michael and that hurt me and made me feel completely misunderstood. It made me feel that you missed my whole point in the conversation we had a few weeks ago, which is that I hate to think negative about Michael, especially since I try hard to understand him but I don't succeed as often and as thorough as I want to. My point was how utterly frustarting it is to intellectually understand a problem I have but, at the same time, to feel like I am not able to do anything about it. (You don't have to understand that, it's just how I feel about it.)
And on top of that you tell me that my thinking is as judgemental and rigid as that of Charles or extreme fans and lump me in the same category with them about that when I myself feel horrible enough about it.
You label my behavior/thinking without considering what we talked about a few weeks ago, you say it's judgemental and rigid and on the other hand you write that you didn't say that, that you don't have any of these feelings at all.
IMO I am different from Charles because he likes himself in the role of the killjoy, he enjoys talking trash about Michael and he gloats over the reaction he gets from others. And he doesn't feel remorse about it, and he also, as you said, doesn't accept anything that is positive about Michael, he turns it around to make it fit his own purposes of trashing Michael. I, however, did agree with you on a lot of the things you said the last time, you say so yourself in your last post. I mean I was ready to have my views changed, in fact I was desperately looking for a solution and for somebody else's input on the whole thing and you said some things that were very good and very true and that helped me. I've said so over and over now, I listened to you and agreed with you and STILL you say that my type of thinking about Michael sometimes is the same that Charles has:
And I thought by saying this
Sabine:
It’s so interesting, because you agreed before when we spoke about this earlier.
you acknowledge that I AM different from him because I WAS ready to see what you say. I thought you had gotten that. But reading what you wrote above it seems you missed my point because you still say in my negative thinking about Michael (which is not all the time, anyway) I am as judgemental and narrow-minded as Charles is, but I am not.
But I'm really too tired now to argue about this any longer with you or to wait for you to come to the same conclusion which you probably won't anyway. That's ok. That's your opinion and it makes me sad but it's not the end of the world.
Yes you definitely have and I told you that I understood where it comes from and it makes sense but that doesn't mean I have look at things the same way, that's all. And I felt that you blamed be for not having his pet peeve for users and for looking at things from their perspective, too. Same with Debbie, I think you didn't like that I had compassion for her or that I think that Michael used her too. But that's ok, we will never agree on that and I know the reason why you will always think differently, you explain in it the above quote and I understand it. But that's YOUR reason, your issue and not mine and I have every right to defend Debbie as much as it's okay for you to think about her the way you do.
I try to understand it, too. Your ahead of me when it comes to accepting it.
I hear you and understand that.
A big part of it has to do with him, yes. And I know you saw this a few weeks ago but now I felt you didn't anymore. So to me a lot of this was about the fact that IMO, you understand your issues and give them as a reason for you feelings and thoughts towards Charles but according to you, MY feelings and thoughts about Michael are simply rigid and judgemental and narrow-minded, and my issues or what could have triggered me/my thoughts doesn't count. Like you have issues, that's your explanation/excuse and I am just rigid and judgemental. That's what it felt like to me and that was why I said you apply doube standards. So if it wasn't like that then I'm glad I am/was wrong.
Really? Our conversation was still on my mind all day so I'm glad I was at least able to sleep last night.
And I'm glad something productive came out of this for you.
Sorry, my last post is messed up. At the top is a quote from you and underneath I commented on it, not the other way round. ^^
Oh, boy
Cherry, I'm going to ask you to take a minute and maybe come back and re-read this conversation later -- maybe you will, maybe you won't. I wish that you will. You are not receiving my words in the spirit that they are sent. You are being triggered by the words "rigid" and "judgmentalness" -- you don't like those words. You don't want them said in description of anything you've ever said about Michael or thought. You think by my saying that I am just dismissing you, as rigid and judgmental.
I have said over and over that I am not, tried to explain I am talking about behavior and not YOU your whole being, because you have lots of thoughts and I've tried to explain to you that we ALL do this, including myself, but you are not able to hear me. You probably cannot even hear what I am writing right now, but I'm hoping maybe sometime in the future.
This is an exercise you can do FOR YOURSELF.
Please ask yourself if this is really true. Ask yourself: Is it really the truth that I have never been rigid in my thinking about who Michael should be and how he should act? Is it true that I have never been judgmental in my thinking of how Michael should have behaved and what choices he should have made.
Please don't come back and tell me -- the question is for yourself. Afterwards, you can just sit silently and see what comes up. Write it down. You'll be amazed.
Then I would replace the name Michael, with your Dad, because that is really who this conversation is about, and do the same thing.
I do understand it, I think it's just that you do not like my explanation. Emotional problems cannot be understood intellectually and healed that way -- they must be FELT.
I'm sorry that you feel horrible about your thinking -- I am sending lots of positive energy your way that you will begin to allow yourself to have your feelings and not beat yourself up over them or think badly about yourself for having them. You have them for a reason. All you need to do is understand that reason.
I'm sorry you think I am putting YOU in a category with Charles and extreme fans -- I hear and understand that you would like to be seen as different; that you do not like them and don't want to be seen as thinking like you believe they do.
I've said it over and over and over, and you just cannot hear me, What I am putting in the same category is the behavior, and the truth is, and I've said this, WE ALL DO THAT.
You also have other characteristics/behaviors that Charles does not seem to have. The ability to self reflect. The ability to listen, and thank God, because if you didn't you would suffer so much more with your unhealed wounds, as I bet Charles is suffering. But maybe I'm wrong and he can self reflect, maybe he just is full of pride. i don't know, because I don't know him.
Yes, I said SOMETIMES. If your thinking IS still that same kind of thinking, on the subjects we discussed in Debbie thread, at the times that they are then yes, it is the same judgmental thinking; if you've had a change of mind on those subjects that you sometimes struggled with, then great, and if you are still struggling with this, then still fine. We can't change what we don't acknowledge. But it is a disservice to ourselves to continue to deny our issues because how then can we change?
But Cherry, really, I have to emphasize again, this is about your father because otherwise you wouldn't have such a strong response -- and you really need to talk to someone about this, because if not, it will continue to leak into your relationships with other people whenever you are triggered.
I am sorry you are hurting, really, but this is ooooooold hurt, from an old wound, and it's only being aggravated by this conversation.
I am not arguing with you. I am having a conversation with you that I hope will lead you to have greater understanding of yourself, which is really the only journey worth taking.
Don't you want to hear about my dream?
I also want to say I do not have these feelings at all. My issues are my issues and when I express myself, it's not to "get" the other person to agree with me or to "change their mind" it's to just share how I feel/what I think.
Now I've even gone a step further and told you why I feel/think the way I do.
I don't blame -- I try to understand. So thank you for telling me about your own story, so I can understand more where you're coming from.
In regards to Michael, I just choose to concentrate on the good and love he gave to the world, and not on his faults. I can do that, because none of his faults trigger me. The faults he did have, I can go behind them and look and understand them because I am not angry at him for having them.
You don't seem to be there yet, because some of his faults mirror the faults your own father had that hurt you, and that is normal, and so don't beat yourself over it.
Just concentrate on healing, Cherry.
You might not know, but even this conversation we are having is healing. It's picking away the dirt and the contaminates from the wound so it can heal without an infection.
I want to also share this story, from a reporter -- he's posted it on the new site he's made, I've just linked it.
I think it's beautiful, and relevant to the conversation:
The link is "Speechless" on the bottom of the page.