Originally Posted by DrPhil (Post 1820262)

It's not even this complex to me. LOL.

Originally Posted by KSig RC (Post 1820428)

Yeah - it seems inordinately simple: the guy was one of the most talented human beings to ever live. He was also, most likely, a total nutjob. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06 (Post 1820410)

Someone was asking about the kids, and I think Dateline is saying that their "mother" doesn't really have rights to them, but she may try to come back into the picture.

I think they're saying that legally, the kids will most likely go to his mother Katherine right now.

I feel so badly for them. They were apparently home when was taken to the hospital. That's so sad.

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 1820434)

Am I the only one who never believed (and I still don't) that those kids are biologically his?

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06 (Post 1820443)

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1820446)

I do think it's a bit sketchy for someone's doctors to start speaking publically about one of their patients, even after their death.

Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1820529)

I completely agree. Does the doctor/patient confidentiality agreement go out the window upon the patient's death? (That's a serious question - I really don't know.)

Originally Posted by Little32 (Post 1820233)

Most folks that we admire and celebrate have all kinds of skeletons in their closets. Michael Jackson is no different.

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06 (Post 1820614)

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 1820434)

Am I the only one who never believed (and I still don't) that those kids are biologically his?

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06 (Post 1820614)

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 1820434)

Am I the only one who never believed (and I still don't) that those kids are biologically his?

Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 1820241)

I was going back and forth with a group of friends about this, and this is what I wrote:

"The Michael Jackson that many people are mourning has been gone for about 15 years. Nearly everyone has memories of Michael Jackson songs and videos for years before the molestation claims came to light; as someone on NPR said this morning, there's not a Michael Jackson hit that doesn't invoke memories. You remember where you were in your life when "Beat It," "Bad," or "Black or White" was popular. It's probably how our parents felt when John Lennon and Marvin Gaye died. Someone who created the soundtrack to our youth--our wonder years, as it were--is dead, and it reminds us that much more that we're getting older and we're going to die too, regardless of how they actually died.

In other words, the Michael Jackson I and at least a billion other people around the world are mourning is not the one who called his son "Blanket," who was rumored to have purchased the Elephant Man's skeleton, or the one who, as we now know, was addled with painkillers since his brush with death back in the 80s. We are mourning the little kid and the dance machine--in other words, the talented and charismatic entertainer.

It's not my place to determine the veracity of the molestation claims, but I could honestly see them going either way. I'm not a Michael Jackson fan per se; I've never purchased one of his albums, a concert ticket, or a glittery glove. That said, when I heard that he had taken ill and later died, the MJ from "Billie Jean" and the Jackson 5 popped in my head, not the pale, plastic shell of that person who he became in his later years. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of mourners are seeing that person. He's kind of like Elvis that way."

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1820532)

I'm not sure, although I would imagine not. I know that it's an open question in some states whether attorney-client confidentiality ends.

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 1820434)

Am I the only one who never believed (and I still don't) that those kids are biologically his?

Originally Posted by SydneyK (Post 1820529)

I completely agree. Does the doctor/patient confidentiality agreement go out the window upon the patient's death? (That's a serious question - I really don't know.)

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 1820644)

In my jurisdiction, it goes to the grave (of the attorney).

There's no question.

At any rate, I don't know the facts here, but assuming that these docs were indiscriminately supplying this guy with meds, some licenses should be pulled.

Originally Posted by Kevlar281 (Post 1820285)

I freaking hate when people pander to the camera while they are "grieving."

Originally Posted by KSigkid (Post 1820446)

Maybe they did - we don't know what his doctors said to him, whether he listened to their treatment instructions, and we probably never will know for sure.

I do think it's a bit sketchy for someone's doctors to start speaking publically about one of their patients, even after their death.

Originally Posted by kddani (Post 1820726)

MJ, bringing all ages, races and walks of life together with their terrible dance moves!

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06 (Post 1820614)

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 1820434)

Am I the only one who never believed (and I still don't) that those kids are biologically his?

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest (Post 1820292)

Yup, I feel the same way. I was a HUGE fan growing up. When I hear his music today I always think of the Black MJ...LOL! Not the pale, weird figure that totally destroyed his beautiful face and who obviously had deep psychological issues.

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB (Post 1820776)

There was a photo of him with the two kids that are supposedly his on some Web site the other day, and honestly, I could see a resemblance. This reminds me of when Katie Holmes was pregnant and people insisted the baby couldn't possibly be Tom Cruise's...then she had Suri and it was undeniable that she was the product of Tom and Katie. Maybe MJ's were thru invitro, but they would still be his in that case.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1821032)

MJ's death slows the internet to a crawl

If Michael Jackson's death can bring the net to a crawl...what would have to happen to shut it down and what should the wolrd do to beef up equipment to avoid that happening?

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1821072)

I question, on a what-does-it-say-about-us-on-a-cultural level, whether MJ's death should be the kind of event like 9/11 that slows the internet, but that's a different thread all together. I've got nothing against him, certainly, but it's weird that a pure pop star celebrity has turned out to be as significant in death to us as he has.

Even with the "slow" internet, information still got around a lot faster than I think it would have pre-net, and that's kind of the amazing part about it. How quickly after 911 was called did you know about Michael's collapse?

Originally Posted by UGAalum94 (Post 1821072)

I question, on a what-does-it-say-about-us-on-a-cultural level, whether MJ's death should be the kind of event like 9/11 that slows the internet, but that's a different thread all together. I've got nothing against him, certainly, but it's weird that a pure pop star celebrity has turned out to be as significant in death to us as he has.

Even with the "slow" internet, information still got around a lot faster than I think it would have pre-net, and that's kind of the amazing part about it. How quickly after 911 was called did you know about Michael's collapse?

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1821214)

The net did slow to a crawl on 9/11. Sites like CNN were not accessible due to the huge traffic. I had a co-worker come to my desk and ask if I could get the local news radio station in from my cubicle because she saw on CNN that a plane hit the WTC but then CNN went down. I turned on the radio minutes before the second plane hit. That news was spread in most places very quickly. I imagine if you were sitting in a classroom, you wouldn't have heard until that class was over, back then. Now, with smartphones and wi-fi everywhere, you'd probably have heard it within 10 minutes.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid (Post 1821216)

So...when all is said and done...do any of you folks are we better prepared to get big event news like that or are we still lagging?

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 1821274)

In case of a true national emergency, like 9/11, the Emergency Alert System still exists on TV and radio. Michael's death is not an emergency.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 1821214)

The net did slow to a crawl on 9/11. Sites like CNN were not accessible due to the huge traffic. I had a co-worker come to my desk and ask if I could get the local news radio station in from my cubicle because she saw on CNN that a plane hit the WTC but then CNN went down. I turned on the radio minutes before the second plane hit. That news was spread in most places very quickly. I imagine if you were sitting in a classroom, you wouldn't have heard until that class was over, back then. Now, with smartphones and wi-fi everywhere, you'd probably have heard it within 10 minutes.

Originally Posted by AOII_LB93 (Post 1821317)

I'm sad about the death of MJ, but do we really need SO much coverage of everything that is being speculated? This half-hourly updates crap by CNN and some of the other stations out there is getting insane

There is other news in the world, some of which might actually be important. Ironic how prior to the death CNN was speculating the hell out of the Iranian elections, and post MJ you barely hear anything.