![]() |
Quote:
|
I loved Farrah as a girl, my brother even had the infamous poster. I watched Charlie's angels but prefered Jacqueline Smith as my fav angel, probably because I thought I looked more like her. I did not like it when Cheryl Ladd took Farrah's place, then I missed her on the show.
For me Michael Jackson will always be that sweet faced little boy who could sing like an angel with the Jackson 5. I also remember the solo song he did after that about his beloved pet dying, my only dog had just died so I related to it. I'm just saddened that a lot of my 70's icons seem to be dying off. It makes me feel very old indeed! |
Quote:
As to not wanting to let go of childhood, I think we all have our ways of doing that to some extent or another. But if you're going to talk like a toddler, walk up and down the street with a pony and invite little kids to come in your backyard and bury you in the sand, you can't blame people for what they think of you. |
Interesting...
There is already talk of setting up Neverland Ranch for tours much like Graceland. What do you think? Would you go? |
Quote:
In his later years (i.e. the last 15ish), he was seriously mentally disturbed and creepy as all getout. When I said that many people (me included) would most remember him as such isn't all that surprising -- as Morrigoon pointed out, we lived through it. There were tons of mentally disturbed people that we revere today as creative geniuses, but we didn't have to live through their particular insanity. If you lived in the same city as crazy alcoholic/drug addicted Edgar Allan Poe, I'd venture to guess that the crazy alcoholic/drug addict behaviour that you observed would overshadow the genius that later generations have viewed him as. So I think that yes, the next generation will mostly "remember" MJ as an innovative musical genius. But not by the people that through half their lives, MJ was a crazy freakin mofo. That's just my 2 cents about the matter, but my opinion is not always "correct" either ;) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Many thought it was unfair that OJ had to endure the civil trial after being acquitted in the criminal trial. However, double jeopardy doesn't work that way.
Had there never been a civil trial, I'm sure we all still have had our opinions based on what we heard at the trial and in the news about OJ's guilt. All an acquittal really means for sure is that an accused doesn't have to go to prison, he can still vote, own a firearm, and be considered for positions for which a felony conviction might be a bar. However, no prospective employer would have to ignore what they heard at the trial. And no prospective social acquaintance would have to ignore it either. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and just wondering (no, really) why do people have to think of him as only one OR the other, can't you remember him as a crazy person who was ALSO an innovative musical genius? (and I don't think he ever FO'd his MO, so that ephitet doesn't apply, either.) |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.