Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Candidly, the thread title - which is missing the point that a gifted artist and wonderful man being has died - and this discussion about the exact time his death occurred merely serve to detract from the possibility of having a discussion to acknowledge a warm, decent and generous human being, a man who was brave both as an artist and as a person, and who deserves far better than this - rather trite - distraction.
 
Candidly, the thread title - which is missing the point that a gifted artist and wonderful man being has died - and this discussion about the exact time his death occurred merely serve to detract from the possibility of having a discussion to acknowledge a warm, decent and generous human being, a man who was brave both as an artist and as a person, and who deserves far better than this - rather trite - distraction.
Strange that you decided to concentrate on the title and a few posts instead of the majority of the posts that do acknowledge the great loss because you think people are drying to distract from his death.
 
Strange that you decided to concentrate on the title and a few posts instead of the majority of the posts that do acknowledge the great loss because you think people are drying to distract from his death.

I have already commented on the tragic passing of a gifted and generous artist and a brave and decent man.

But, the thread title is misleading, - and frankly, poorly phrased - and seems to invite discussion of the time - and perhaps - manner of George Michael's death, rather than acknowledging and celebrating his life, which I have already done over a number of posts.

As the OP, it does lie open to you to amend it, if this is what you wish to make clear you would prefer to have stressed.
 
I have already commented on the tragic passing of a gifted and generous artist and a brave and decent man.

But, the thread title is misleading, - and frankly, poorly phrased - and seems to invite discussion of the time - and perhaps - manner of George Michael's death, rather than acknowledging and celebrating his life, which I have already done over a number of posts.

As the OP, it does lie open to you to amend it, if this is what you wish to make clear you would prefer to have stressed.
It doesn't bother me what people decide to talk about in threads (as long as it is close to being on topic), it struck me as odd that, once again, someone died just a few days after a death hoax. I changed the title.
 
It doesn't bother me what people decide to talk about in threads (as long as it is close to being on topic), it struck me as odd that, once again, someone died just a few days after a death hoax. I changed the title.

Fair enough.

As amended, the title is a lot better.

Candidly, I hadn't even noticed the death hoax.

An absolute gentleman, a gifted artist, and a brave, decent and generous man, who was held in high esteem by those who knew him, his sudden death at such a relatively young age is a real tragedy.
 
Why would I think that?
Really? You said that the Death hoax was true all along. That they just delayed the announcement. But the hoax was days before he died. And when they announced his death, they said he died that day. So for the hoax to be true, they would have had to lie about the day of his death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scepticalscribe
Really? You said that the Death hoax was true all along. That they just delayed the announcement. But the hoax was days before he died. And when they announced his death, they said he died that day. So for the hoax to be true, they would have had to lie about the day of his death.
He was found by his partner on xmas day.
 
My favorite song from him...

If you are the desert
I'll be the sea
If you ever hunger -
Hunger for me
Whatever you ask for
That's what i'll be. .

So when you remember the ones who have lied
Who said that they cared
But then laughed as you cried
Beautiful darling
Don't think of me

Because all I ever wanted
It's in your eyes baby, baby
And love can't lie. No...
(greet me with the eyes of a child)
(heaven is a kiss and a smile)
Just hold on, hold on
I won't let you go, my baby


PM Dawn samples "Father Figure" for "Looking Through Patient Eyes" which also is a great song itself. RIP to Prince Be and George.

Best use for one of his songs topping Chris Griffin's "Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go" and Deadpool's Wham! references. The dinner scene after this is hilarious...
 
Really? You said that the Death hoax was true all along. That they just delayed the announcement. But the hoax was days before he died. And when they announced his death, they said he died that day. So for the hoax to be true, they would have had to lie about the day of his death.


So, what was the date of the "hoax"?
[doublepost=1483021626][/doublepost]
Because this is about all you have been writing about on this thread.

Is there anything you might care to add about George Michael, the man, artist, songwriter, generous soul and courageous individual?


I am sorry? I beg your pardon? I made a valid, topical comment. I have the right to do that. If somebody else - yourself, for instance - wishes to wax lyrically about the person that is up to them. I think that if you look carefully at this thread you will see quite clearly that the majority of comments are not, as you say, eulogising Mr. Micheal. That is not to say that he does or does not deserve such treatment, of course, nor that I myself have any opinion either way on the matter. That being said, there is no denying that he was a fine artist and is admired by many. However there is also the personal side of him away from performing where we saw him commit gross indecency upon an off-duty policeman in a public lavatory whilst under the influence of drugs and extreme homosexual lust, where he crashed his car into a photography shop in a busy London high street, where he "fell" out of his own vehicle on a busy express road, where he suffered mentally and emotionally in coming to terms with his fame and changes in his public social life, etc., etc. So there is a balance necessary in the final analysis, and who are we, anyway, to make any valid analysis of a person's life? We may see some particular external features that either attract or repulse us, that we either admire or abhor. Who are we to say that he "deserved better" or "deserved more"? Each one enjoys and suffers according to the reactions to his own activity (this is termed 'karma', you can research it at will), and the laws of nature and in turn karma are far beyond our power to intervene, change, demand, order or question. If one understood these matters more deeply he would know that each one deserved/deserves exactly what they get, got and will get in the future, either in this life or the next.
 
Last edited:
So, what was the date of the "hoax"?


I am sorry? I beg your pardon? I made a valid, topical comment. I have the right to do that. If somebody else - yourself, for instance - wishes to wax lyrically about the person that is up to them. I think that if you look carefully at this thread you will see quite clearly that the majority of comments are not, as you say, eulogising Mr. Micheal. That is not to say that he does or does not deserve such treatment, of course, nor that I myself have any opinion either way on the matter.

That being said, there is no denying that he was a fine artist and is admired by many. However there is also the personal side of him away from performing where we saw him commit gross indecency upon an off-duty policeman in a public lavatory whilst under the influence of drugs and extreme homosexual lust, where he crashed his car into a photography shop in a busy London high street, where he "fell" out of his own vehicle on a busy express road, where he suffered mentally and emotionally in coming to terms with his fame and changes in his public social life, etc., etc. So there is a balance necessary in the final analysis, and who are we, anyway, to make any valid analysis of a person's life? We may see some particular external features that either attract or repulse us, that we either admire or abhor. Who are we to say that he "deserved better" or "deserved more"? Each one enjoys and suffers according to the reactions to his own activity (this is termed 'karma', you can research it at will), and the laws of nature and in turn karma are far beyond our power to intervene, change, demand, order or question. If one understood these matters more deeply he would know that each one deserved/deserves exactly what they get, got and will get in the future, either in this life or the next.

A full reply to this post would probably banish, or perhaps merely consign, this thread to the dark depths of PRSI.

That said, however, it does strike me that your post appears to give the impression that you may have what are quaintly termed "issues" with the open expression of gay sexual desire.
 
What an appalling and false thing to say! Where the hell did AIDS come from?
Apparently, Dr. Thewitt possesses the extraordinary power to determine cause of death remotely. He's been weighing in on the Carrie Fisher thread as well.

The only factually correct aspect of this despicable allegation is that HIV is a cardiac risk factor, due to both the infection itself as well as side effects of the antiretrovirals used to treat it. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Michael was HIV-positive, so to suggest that this had something to do with his untimely death is patently irresponsible. Downright slanderous, actually.
 
Last edited:
Apparently, Dr. Thewitt possesses the extraordinary power to determine cause of death remotely. He's been weighing in on the Carrie Fisher thread as well.

The only factually correct aspect of this despicable allegation is that HIV is a cardiac risk factor, due to both the infection itself as well as side effects of the antiretrovirals used to treat it. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Michael was HIV-positive, so to suggest that this had something to do with his untimely death is patently irresponsible. Downright slanderous, actually.

Not to mention HIV isn't AIDS but to that guy I'm sure it's all the same because of George's sexual orientation. It's very sad education is still lacking even though we are well out of the 1980's.
 
A full reply to this post would probably banish, or perhaps merely consign, this thread to the dark depths of PRSI.

That said, however, it does strike me that your post appears to give the impression that you may have what are quaintly termed "issues" with the open expression of gay sexual desire.

One thing is, I myself am not gay, so I am not going to speak in a pro-gay voice in the same way as a card-carrying gay person. That being said, I do try control myself and not to present phobic views. Whichever way up, all human beings should, in my humble opinion, do their best to control their sensual urges and to behave, at least in public, in a respectable manner that does not call for overt observation. Otherwise, one may draw unwanted attention to a more personal aspect of ones inner self that should not ordinarily attain public consideration. This consideration may in turn be tainted due to affective ties and more striking opinions both favourable and unfavourable could arise, those observers who are more positively inclined towards one tending to want to overlook the act whilst others may be alarmed at something quite out of the ordinary and even take offence. My personal stance is to try to present a balanced viewpoint not overtly condemning nor praising but just simply presenting facts of what has occurred for due consideration. I understand that a fan or supporter of a person who committed an attention-attracting act may not want to hear again of what may be considered a perhaps out-of-character slip but that does not change history and facts are facts, like it or not.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.