I would only advise that when you do write that first article, start simple with all the oddities we've collected that are featured in the index page. That way, you're piquing their interest without going "out there." <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> Good luck with it! The worse that could happen is that they twist our words but if people go on this site via their link, they can get the truth and they are not a major publication so if anything, they run the risk of losing visitors instead of us.
i could be wrong but i think when we signed on here the agreement was that whatever we contributed belonged to the site owner , or at least that is what i understood. just thought everyone should be reminded of that as this goes forward.
This situation is a damned if you do and a damned if you don't.
What we have to consider:
1. If we don't cooperate with this magazine, they could still publish the material found on the site. Rewriting it any way they choose and we would have less input into the articles but the magazine would not be connected to us.
2. If we cooperate with this magazine, they can edit the material and still present it as they choose but after the first article we would know the angle that would be used. But the magazine would have piggy backed us for sales already. As a result we may get more visitors to the site but If we then decided to withdraw our support the magazine could continue to write the articles anyway they chose to but possibly disconnect from the site.
Also depending on how this magazine is accepted by the public, we have no idea what the effect will be on the acceptance or denial of the hoax and the whether we will be labelled even further publicly as "crazies".
3. The members of this forum, do not even agree on the major theories. I for one am adamant that the doubles theory is majorly flawed as it has been presented on the site. The twin theory is totally illogical. I believe that both of those theories have contributed to the loss of credibility, for both us and the hoax, that we have been experiencing. These theories and many others have affected the entire hoax. How can we, in good conscious, present these theories as factual when we can't even agree that they are even truly plausible?
4. I know that Souza is the administrator of this site but she is not the spokesperson for the entire hoax community and not even for myself. I believe that before "We" decide anything in regards to this that members and administrators of other forums should be approached for their thoughts on this idea.
5.After reading Souza's post, it is apparent that she will do what she wants whether we like it or not.
You all know I never ask permission to talk to the media about the hoax, and this time I won't either, because unless someone can show me that these people can't be trusted, I think this will be a great platform to get the story out there.
Souza is not asking us for our permission, she has already decided what she is planning to do. She is justifying why she believes this to be a good idea; in other words selling us on why her decision to cooperate with this magazine is a good idea. Well, that is presumptuous of Souza and disrespectful to us all, if we are a "team". Now, Souza is free to do as she pleases but don't try and disguise that as "US" deciding because that isn't what is going on here. At this point, I am concerned that Souza has forgotten that she is only an investigator in this hoax, just like everyone else and no one elected her to speak for the entire community.
6. This magazine has not even printed a single issue yet, they have no readers. They could very well be using Michael's name as a marketing tool. If we can write articles, we can create our own magazine and then would have full control over the content and any all proceeds could be donated to a charity of our choice.
I will not be participating in this, not because I don't think that we should be utilizing the media to get the message out but because we need to control what appears in print and is attached to our investigations. In this format, control is taken completely out of our hands, given to Souza to edit any articles before submission to the magazine and then further given to the magazine to make further changes to the submitted pieces.
Souza, if you choose to continue this, without further consideration for the members of this forum and others within the hoax community, I feel that this will reflect poorly on you; I will definitely lose respect for you, and withdraw my support of this forum itself. You do not have the blessing of the members here or the community at large. This is not your choice to make alone, on ours or Michael's behalf.
SD, you are again judging me before I have even voiced what I am planning to write. Besides that, I asked others to participate and I also said I would post it here first. Nowhere in this thread have I said that I am going to throw in the double theory or any other theory people do or do not agree on. In fact, I have not said anything at all about the content of the first article I want to write. Maybe you should hold your horses until you have read the draft. The only thing I have stated is that I do not have to ask permission to talk to any newspaper about the hoax, since we all (and therefore me as well) can do whatever we want. I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone and I will not speak for the members of this forum. Maybe you should wait with your judgement on me until you have read what I am about to write first.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
SD, you are again judging me before I have even voiced what I am planning to write. Besides that, I asked others to participate and I also said I would post it here first. Nowhere in this thread have I said that I am going to throw in the double theory or any other theory people do or do not agree on. In fact, I have not said anything at all about the content of the first article I want to write. Maybe you should hold your horses until you have read the draft. The only thing I have stated is that I do not have to ask permission to talk to any newspaper about the hoax, since we all (and therefore me as well) can do whatever we want. I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone and I will not speak for the members of this forum. Maybe you should wait with your judgement on me until you have read what I am about to write first.
No, This isn't me judging you at all. You have made it perfectly clear that you have decided to do this with or without our blessing. Since this is the case then as I said, I will no longer support this forum or you personally. If you want to write articles and publish them in this magazine, then you do so as yourself and keep the rest of us out of it.
You do not speak for me, your views do not even reflect my own and you have a lot of nerve to say "what I am planning to write" and " I have not said anything at all about the content of the first article I want to write." This is telling us all that you have decided this and that you will be writing the articles maybe with some input from others on the content. It doesn't matter what the rest of us feel about this then. Well, no one crowned you Queen of the hoax community and you do not dictate to us.
Well, say hello to Dutch Pearl Jr. unfreaken believable, use the material that the forum members have uncovered to write articles/book so a magazine/book can profit.
And to think, I have been defending your ass on mjhd.net...perhaps I should be careful about whom I decide to back up.
Of course Souza, you can do whatever you like, and inkeeping with your claim not to be a spokesperson for anyone, I would like to ask that you make it clear in any articles you submit, that the views expressed are your own and not necessarily those of other hoax believers and especially not MJ's. I don't see how anyone can have a problem then.
SD, you are again judging me before I have even voiced what I am planning to write. Besides that, I asked others to participate and I also said I would post it here first. Nowhere in this thread have I said that I am going to throw in the double theory or any other theory people do or do not agree on. In fact, I have not said anything at all about the content of the first article I want to write. Maybe you should hold your horses until you have read the draft. The only thing I have stated is that I do not have to ask permission to talk to any newspaper about the hoax, since we all (and therefore me as well) can do whatever we want. I never claimed to be a spokesperson for anyone and I will not speak for the members of this forum. Maybe you should wait with your judgement on me until you have read what I am about to write first.
No, This isn't me judging you at all. You have made it perfectly clear that you have decided to do this with or without our blessing. Since this is the case then as I said, I will no longer support this forum or you personally. If you want to write articles and publish them in this magazine, then you do so as yourself and keep the rest of us out of it.
You do not speak for me, your views do not even reflect my own and you have a lot of nerve to say "what I am planning to write" and " I have not said anything at all about the content of the first article I want to write." This is telling us all that you have decided this and that you will be writing the articles maybe with some input from others on the content. It doesn't matter what the rest of us feel about this then. Well, no one crowned you Queen of the hoax community and you do not dictate to us.
Well, say hello to Dutch Pearl Jr. unfreaken believable, use the material that the forum members have uncovered to write articles/book so a magazine/book can profit.
And to think, I have been defending your ass on mjhd.net...perhaps I should be careful about whom I decide to back up.
You are free to do whatever you want SD, and I never asked you to back me up anywhere. You have been wrong about me before, you are again now. Until you have read the piece, you can't possibly judge it. Yet you do. I thought we had learned more the past 20 months.
Maybe you should start your own forum and show people you can do a better job. You have my blessings.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Of course Souza, you can do whatever you like, and inkeeping with your claim not to be a spokesperson for anyone, I would like to ask that you make it clear in any articles you submit, that the views expressed are your own and not necessarily those of other hoax believers and especially not MJ's. I don't see how anyone can have a problem then.
Good idea. That way it clears us from any unnecessary drama that I already see is brewing.
Of course Souza, you can do whatever you like, and inkeeping with your claim not to be a spokesperson for anyone, I would like to ask that you make it clear in any articles you submit, that the views expressed are your own and not necessarily those of other hoax believers and especially not MJ's. I don't see how anyone can have a problem then.
Good idea. That way it clears us from any unnecessary drama that I already see is brewing.
i would think that could go a long way in setting the tone for the integrity of the magazine as well.
Initially I think it is a good idea in some respects and in other respects, we need to be vigilant. I think it is great that a magazine is willing to take on this project of this magnitude as we have been working hard for the past 20 months on investigating Michael's "passing".
My only concern is that all members should be in the loop on how this is written, particularly when members' posts are actually referred to and credit is due when given. Giving credit to a person is one thing, but using their own words to fit the context of another writer is another thing. That is where my concern is and some members may get upset that their postings are being used in a different context as to what they wrote in the first place. I am purely coming from a legal point of view, I am in the field and my brain always jumps to the legal aspects of people's rights and protection of their views and opinions. So that being said, I hope that this is taken into consideration. We have to protect the privacy and postings of individuals on here.
Initially I think it is a good idea in some respects and in other respects, we need to be vigilant. I think it is great that a magazine is willing to take on this project of this magnitude as we have been working hard for the past 20 months on investigating Michael's "passing".
My only concern is that all members should be in the loop on how this is written, particularly when members' posts are actually referred to and credit is due when given. Giving credit to a person is one thing, but using their own words to fit the context of another writer is another thing. That is where my concern is and some members may get upset that their postings are being used in a different context as to what they wrote in the first place. I am purely coming from a legal point of view, I am in the field and my brain always jumps to the legal aspects of people's rights and protection of their views and opinions. So that being said, I hope that this is taken into consideration. We have to protect the privacy and postings of individuals on here.
Again, I do not speak for others, nor will I use other's theories in what I write. Instead of that, I have asked everyone in my original post to participate if they want. Please wait for the draft before judging because everyone is only assuming what I will do, and yet no one popped the question "Souza, what do you have in mind with this?". I see no questions, only assumptions.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Souza - I think it is a good idea - I said that at the beginning - however, I think we should all take part in what should be written and how the reader will view our opinion about a certain section of the hoax. That is why I mentioned that we should all have a read at what you are drafting and if we think there should be revisions to the article, we all make them together. Once we are satisfied that all aspects of the article is what we all agree upon then it can be published.
However, for those who do not wish to participate in this process, there should be a disclaimer at the end of the article stating that the views expressed in this article are not from all the members of the MJHD Forum, just to make it clear.
We are in this together and I believe any undertaking particularly something that will be viewed by the general public, should be our collective thoughts and theories and should be worked together on and agreed by all who wish to participate.
I am confident that if Michael had a problem with this idea, Souza would already know about it.
Souza, what do you have in mind for the article?
Souza doesn't have a direct line to Michael. She is not an insider nor involved in the hoax. Michael is not communicating with her, he is not here speaking for himself; his voice has been silenced. So no, Souza would not know already about whether Michael has a problem with this or not. None of us here actually speak directly for Michael; not Souza, not TS, not you, not me and no one else.
Here is the idea. Because we get a column and will be able to send in articles for every issue, I thought it would be best to start the first article with an introduction without going into details. Just something that might peak the interest of the readers and my personal thoughts about the hoax.We can use the articles after that to go into detail about the odd stuff and anyone who wants to participate can write. I know for example that the AR is full of BS, but I am not a medical savvy. Someone with a medical background might be more qualified to write a piece about the AR. Someone else might have done research about something else, and is invited to write a piece about that.
I am planning to end the article with saying that the above are my personal thoughts on the hoax, which made me believe what I believe now and that Wonderwall gave us as a forum the chance to tell our story and that everyone on here has their own, and their own thoughts on the whys and the hows, but that we are all aiming for one goal: clearing his name and debunking the lies of the media. If you bec for example would want to write part 2, your name will be under the article and you could express YOUR thoughts on the hoax. Let's say the goal for my article is to make people question his death. I will write about the stuff that made me believe he didn't die, and I can express my thoughts on it. You for example write a piece about your thoughts on the hoax and why and what you believe, and have as main subject Conrad Murray and all the BS surrounding him. That way people will presented with the different theories without it being a main subject, plus people get informed about the hoax and all the strange stuff surrounding it.
As for credits: I don't think it's possible to credit everytime we say something. If I for instance refer to an oddity about Conrad, it would be very hard to find out who exactly was the first who found it. We all found stuff and just saying 'it was posted on the forum' should be enough. People can search for it themselves and see who mentioned it first. People don't have to credit me either, because I think we should work as a team to get the word out and I don't think we should have fights about who said what first. It's not a competition in my eyes.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
SD: The point is that Souza's intention is out there, publicly, on the forum, in this 3 page thread, being much discussed.
I am confident in the fact that anything we discuss here on this public forum, Michael is privy to one way or another. If he doesn't like it, or wants it stopped, he has ways to make that happen.
that we are all aiming for one goal: clearing his name and debunking the lies of the media
That´s my goal as well.
We all found stuff and just saying 'it was posted on the forum' should be enough
I agree.
It's not a competition in my eyes
Is not.
The goal is clear I believe, clearing his name and debunking the lies of the media.
I may add, that is important to focus in theories that can be provided as a fact, as an example time lines, the AR, and the signatures shown in different documents i.e
Imo, "para-theories" as NWO, Visions, Michael=Holly, alien or world saviour via hoax etc, should be omitted.
@Souza - I am just wanting to put that out there because if you or any writings are not cleared by the actual author or you copy word for word someone's else's post without their permission and do not credit them, you may end up in a lawsuit. I am talking about crediting something you may quote word for word, not a topical issue generally (for example: Conrad Murray oddities). Not saying that anyone on here would do that, but just protecting you and everyone here and making sure they understand what they are getting into before the put their words into action.
I believe setting the tone of the first article is very important and I think it should be written with Michael in mind and why we think he did this and then perhaps in the next article be more specific about a certain situation (ie the ambulance)... perhaps we should be start from the beginning (which would be the 911 call) and go from there. As Michael always the story needs a beginning and an end. Right now we are in the middle of it <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
a little help from berry goordy: don't remember the exact words but it was something about remembering where you have been in order to know where you are going.
"WONDERWALL" = do they have permission from Oasis to use that name for their magazine?
Im a huge fan of Oasis. <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> I wonder what Noel Gallagher would think?
Ummm... well, im not adverse to the magazine idea. The only issue is with the money. If the money paid is completely open and tranparent and can be easily seen to be tracked by all the forum members here... that we can track the payment from the magazine to the chosen charity then i believe this is a good thing.
Anything that would benefit a charity, in the name of Michael, is a wonderful thing and i know MJ would approve. Because thats what its all about.
I am confident in the fact that anything we discuss here on this public forum, Michael is privy to one way or another. If he doesn't like it, or wants it stopped, he has ways to make that happen.
I agree with this Bec, and I really think that Michael is ok with this forum, that it has his blessing, as it were. It is, the "official" one afterall (TMZ blogroll, TS, etc.) and Souza has said a few times that if the family opposed the forum then she would shut it down.
@ Souza - I think it's a good idea to have different members write different articles for this magazine, if the magazine goes ahead with publication. I believe most members here don't have a full grasp on every aspect of the hoax but may have a firm grasp on certain aspects so it's a good idea to have someone write about something that makes sense to them, that they fully understand (from their perspective at least).
Anyways, I am done with this. I have stated my reluctance to be involved and my opinion on Souza appointing herself as the representative of the Hoax community. I am currently researching the legal issues about my posts on this forum and whether or not the forum owner must honour a request, by me, to delete theses posts.
Comments
What we have to consider:
1. If we don't cooperate with this magazine, they could still publish the material found on the site. Rewriting it any way they choose and we would have less input into the articles but the magazine would not be connected to us.
2. If we cooperate with this magazine, they can edit the material and still present it as they choose but after the first article we would know the angle that would be used. But the magazine would have piggy backed us for sales already. As a result we may get more visitors to the site but If we then decided to withdraw our support the magazine could continue to write the articles anyway they chose to but possibly disconnect from the site.
Also depending on how this magazine is accepted by the public, we have no idea what the effect will be on the acceptance or denial of the hoax and the whether we will be labelled even further publicly as "crazies".
3. The members of this forum, do not even agree on the major theories. I for one am adamant that the doubles theory is majorly flawed as it has been presented on the site. The twin theory is totally illogical. I believe that both of those theories have contributed to the loss of credibility, for both us and the hoax, that we have been experiencing. These theories and many others have affected the entire hoax. How can we, in good conscious, present these theories as factual when we can't even agree that they are even truly plausible?
4. I know that Souza is the administrator of this site but she is not the spokesperson for the entire hoax community and not even for myself. I believe that before "We" decide anything in regards to this that members and administrators of other forums should be approached for their thoughts on this idea.
5.After reading Souza's post, it is apparent that she will do what she wants whether we like it or not.
Souza is not asking us for our permission, she has already decided what she is planning to do. She is justifying why she believes this to be a good idea; in other words selling us on why her decision to cooperate with this magazine is a good idea. Well, that is presumptuous of Souza and disrespectful to us all, if we are a "team". Now, Souza is free to do as she pleases but don't try and disguise that as "US" deciding because that isn't what is going on here. At this point, I am concerned that Souza has forgotten that she is only an investigator in this hoax, just like everyone else and no one elected her to speak for the entire community.
6. This magazine has not even printed a single issue yet, they have no readers. They could very well be using Michael's name as a marketing tool. If we can write articles, we can create our own magazine and then would have full control over the content and any all proceeds could be donated to a charity of our choice.
I will not be participating in this, not because I don't think that we should be utilizing the media to get the message out but because we need to control what appears in print and is attached to our investigations. In this format, control is taken completely out of our hands, given to Souza to edit any articles before submission to the magazine and then further given to the magazine to make further changes to the submitted pieces.
Souza, if you choose to continue this, without further consideration for the members of this forum and others within the hoax community, I feel that this will reflect poorly on you; I will definitely lose respect for you, and withdraw my support of this forum itself. You do not have the blessing of the members here or the community at large. This is not your choice to make alone, on ours or Michael's behalf.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."You do not speak for me, your views do not even reflect my own and you have a lot of nerve to say "what I am planning to write" and " I have not said anything at all about the content of the first article I want to write." This is telling us all that you have decided this and that you will be writing the articles maybe with some input from others on the content. It doesn't matter what the rest of us feel about this then. Well, no one crowned you Queen of the hoax community and you do not dictate to us.
Well, say hello to Dutch Pearl Jr. unfreaken believable, use the material that the forum members have uncovered to write articles/book so a magazine/book can profit.
And to think, I have been defending your ass on mjhd.net...perhaps I should be careful about whom I decide to back up.
You are free to do whatever you want SD, and I never asked you to back me up anywhere. You have been wrong about me before, you are again now. Until you have read the piece, you can't possibly judge it. Yet you do. I thought we had learned more the past 20 months.
Maybe you should start your own forum and show people you can do a better job. You have my blessings.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Good idea. That way it clears us from any unnecessary drama that I already see is brewing.
i would think that could go a long way in setting the tone for the integrity of the magazine as well.
My only concern is that all members should be in the loop on how this is written, particularly when members' posts are actually referred to and credit is due when given. Giving credit to a person is one thing, but using their own words to fit the context of another writer is another thing. That is where my concern is and some members may get upset that their postings are being used in a different context as to what they wrote in the first place. I am purely coming from a legal point of view, I am in the field and my brain always jumps to the legal aspects of people's rights and protection of their views and opinions. So that being said, I hope that this is taken into consideration. We have to protect the privacy and postings of individuals on here.
Again, I do not speak for others, nor will I use other's theories in what I write. Instead of that, I have asked everyone in my original post to participate if they want. Please wait for the draft before judging because everyone is only assuming what I will do, and yet no one popped the question "Souza, what do you have in mind with this?". I see no questions, only assumptions.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."Souza, what do you have in mind for the article?
However, for those who do not wish to participate in this process, there should be a disclaimer at the end of the article stating that the views expressed in this article are not from all the members of the MJHD Forum, just to make it clear.
We are in this together and I believe any undertaking particularly something that will be viewed by the general public, should be our collective thoughts and theories and should be worked together on and agreed by all who wish to participate.
So what is the topic that you have in mind?
@shelby61,
I agree with your post
Thank you for asking bec!
Here is the idea. Because we get a column and will be able to send in articles for every issue, I thought it would be best to start the first article with an introduction without going into details. Just something that might peak the interest of the readers and my personal thoughts about the hoax.We can use the articles after that to go into detail about the odd stuff and anyone who wants to participate can write. I know for example that the AR is full of BS, but I am not a medical savvy. Someone with a medical background might be more qualified to write a piece about the AR. Someone else might have done research about something else, and is invited to write a piece about that.
I am planning to end the article with saying that the above are my personal thoughts on the hoax, which made me believe what I believe now and that Wonderwall gave us as a forum the chance to tell our story and that everyone on here has their own, and their own thoughts on the whys and the hows, but that we are all aiming for one goal: clearing his name and debunking the lies of the media. If you bec for example would want to write part 2, your name will be under the article and you could express YOUR thoughts on the hoax. Let's say the goal for my article is to make people question his death. I will write about the stuff that made me believe he didn't die, and I can express my thoughts on it. You for example write a piece about your thoughts on the hoax and why and what you believe, and have as main subject Conrad Murray and all the BS surrounding him. That way people will presented with the different theories without it being a main subject, plus people get informed about the hoax and all the strange stuff surrounding it.
As for credits: I don't think it's possible to credit everytime we say something. If I for instance refer to an oddity about Conrad, it would be very hard to find out who exactly was the first who found it. We all found stuff and just saying 'it was posted on the forum' should be enough. People can search for it themselves and see who mentioned it first. People don't have to credit me either, because I think we should work as a team to get the word out and I don't think we should have fights about who said what first. It's not a competition in my eyes.
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."I am confident in the fact that anything we discuss here on this public forum, Michael is privy to one way or another. If he doesn't like it, or wants it stopped, he has ways to make that happen.
That´s my goal as well.
I agree.
Is not.
The goal is clear I believe, clearing his name and debunking the lies of the media.
I may add, that is important to focus in theories that can be provided as a fact, as an example time lines, the AR, and the signatures shown in different documents i.e
Imo, "para-theories" as NWO, Visions, Michael=Holly, alien or world saviour via hoax etc, should be omitted.
I believe setting the tone of the first article is very important and I think it should be written with Michael in mind and why we think he did this and then perhaps in the next article be more specific about a certain situation (ie the ambulance)... perhaps we should be start from the beginning (which would be the 911 call) and go from there. As Michael always the story needs a beginning and an end. Right now we are in the middle of it <!-- s;) -->;)<!-- s;) -->
<!-- l -->viewtopic.php?f=97&t=9657&p=161702&hilit=once+again+the+sun#p161702<!-- l -->
Im a huge fan of Oasis. <!-- s:D -->:D<!-- s:D --> I wonder what Noel Gallagher would think?
Ummm... well, im not adverse to the magazine idea. The only issue is with the money. If the money paid is completely open and tranparent and can be easily seen to be tracked by all the forum members here... that we can track the payment from the magazine to the chosen charity then i believe this is a good thing.
Anything that would benefit a charity, in the name of Michael, is a wonderful thing and i know MJ would approve. Because thats what its all about.
I agree with this Bec, and I really think that Michael is ok with this forum, that it has his blessing, as it were. It is, the "official" one afterall (TMZ blogroll, TS, etc.) and Souza has said a few times that if the family opposed the forum then she would shut it down.
@ Souza - I think it's a good idea to have different members write different articles for this magazine, if the magazine goes ahead with publication. I believe most members here don't have a full grasp on every aspect of the hoax but may have a firm grasp on certain aspects so it's a good idea to have someone write about something that makes sense to them, that they fully understand (from their perspective at least).
http://wonderwall.msn.com/
And of course the song by "Oasis".
Anyways, I am done with this. I have stated my reluctance to be involved and my opinion on Souza appointing herself as the representative of the Hoax community. I am currently researching the legal issues about my posts on this forum and whether or not the forum owner must honour a request, by me, to delete theses posts.