I'm not trying to start a fight here, but because of the amount of money MJ has donated to charitable causes I'm suppose to view him in a higher light than, say, someone (a common person) who gives up their afternoon to visit the elderly at an old folks home? In a certain sense, while I'm obviously being hypocritical, I'd give a non-famous person a little more credit: no one expects them to do a damn thing, whereas when your famous, you're pretty much expected to give back.

"I don't think I'm the only one who gets upset when I'm told by status quo and media in this country who to admire. I'll choose my own heroes thank you very much." - George Carlin

How in any way does that diminish the impact of the deed? Money is still being given to these people, expected or not.

Whoa, people are getting pissy for no real reason! Chill people...

but anyway, I actually think the reason he's gotten much more attention than poor Farrah Fawcett is because he's had a more erratic (so to speak) life as far as I can tell, and this makes him more "appealing" to the media. Plus, I think he was much more famous. Jackson is still known worldwide, not sure how famous Fawcett is these days. Lastly, the fact that he died all of a sudden makes his death "more newsworthy" to the media. Anyway, the media always likes to blow certain stories out of proportion, this is just one of them.

cheers,

-avatar!

Hi avatar!, and welcome to the Internet!

*sigh*

Perhaps you don't realize how stupid that sounds.

1. Michael Jackson was a celebrity. He had that status regardless of what I think of him.

2. He was a celebrity because he was a "prominent, influential musical artist." He was not a celebrity and "also" a "prominent, influential musical artist."

Perhaps you meant to state: "Michael Jackson was a celebrity because he was a prominent, influential musical artist."

But that would be giving you too much credit. After all, you have a problem with what you describe as a "tangent" after 1) you give an anatomy lesson in response to a simple joke, and 2) the soundtrack to Sonic 3 was discussed. It seems that topics on internet message boards can be, you know, fluid.

But I apologize for inferring that perhaps Michael Jackson, like other celebrities, probably don't deserve all the credit they are given. Obviously, you are quite sensitive about what people say about Michael Jackson. My only excuse is that ... I'm bad. Really, really bad. You know it.

i will now spend the rest of the day trying to come up with a joke about birth control and cayenne pepper...

Like I said above, this is a hypocritical view. The point I was trying to make, and I guess I didn't phrase it really well above, is I think donating time can sometimes be more important than donating money. I sometimes think people just throw money at certain proplems and say - "oh, it will be ok now" because giving up their time is harder to do than putting some loose change in a collection pot - something we're all probably guilty of on one level or another. I'm not saying MJ is (er, was) doing this, but I'm sure some people, including some celeberties, do think this way as well.

Actually, now that I think about it, that sounds a lot like our goverment at the moment, and I wasn't even trying to take a jab at them.