Story by Muhammed

Since I knew Michael Jackson,I fell in love with his music,his dance and of course in him. In fact,I knew him since I was 13 years old,and now I’m 23 years old . I think he was the greatest entertainer to live. Such a wonderful man!! I’ve learned from him loving people from all races and of course helping others. I miss the world who was when The King Of Pop was still alive, his music will live forever. He had power and energy that no one can possess because he was such a gift from God to us. He continues to be a legend even if he is gone from this world and billions of people continue to admire his legacy and love him even if he passed away! I love you, The king of pop ♡ You’re missed.

26 thoughts on “Story by Muhammed

  1. Whoever this person whose name is “Anonymous”, you who always comment hateful stuffs inside the story of Muhammed, considering that you have entered a story of a MJ fan and then make fun/hate Muhammed’s idol. Why do this? Did Muhammed and other MJ fans who have commented here hate your idol? If you love other artist than MJ, then do not hate MJ or his fans. Please respect others okay, everybody wants to be respected. I am a MJ fan and upon reading all the comments you’ve made ( e.g. “I loathe him forever!”, “puke”) , honestly, I was saddened, I was hurt because MJ and his music is a great big part of my life. I actually consider MJ as a part of my family because I love him truly. If you don’t like MJ, just respect him, please, please please. Thank you Anonymous 🙂

    • Forestry shareholder mniteeg? Huh? You know I can actually feel for both sides in a mess like that, but what on earth does that have to do anything?One of the rules of actually getting closer to truth is not to keep changing the subject A reasonable topic is how seriously to take Lomborg. Is he wrong mostly because his assumptions are wrong, or is he wrong more because his discipline is confused, or is he just wrong because he is having fun? Or some combination?That is interesting. How to get people to understand that he is wrong is even more interesting. Could he be right? Er, no, not likely. How much stridency to apply in discussing such matters is just a matter of style, and a trivial matter considering what is at stake. Try to concentrate on the content if you want to understand what we are thinking over here. God knows the style on the other side of the fence is pretty damned exasperating, primo, secundo and tertio.

    • that is really true and what I love on this website are the strories that everybody can share but what I hate are…haters…and they are sadly too dumb to understand what we told them :'(

      • What actually haepenpd to Lomborg after SE was published is objectively significantly greater than any bureaucratic constraints, if any, that have ever been put on Hansen. MT acknowledged the strident tone suggesting that it was in defense of truth, no vice. Perception is a funny thing.I have no problem with progressives who demonstrate a willingness to do that which they want others to do no pot bangers or hypocrites. Most bloggers on this subject are smart enough to make a personal difference. If you see alternative energy as a viable alternative pursue it, make it work and/or invest in it, e.g., wind farms are in desperate need of all kinds of engineers and riggers, there are few folks in the NE who are pushing geothermal. Reduce your carbon footprint buy some land and plant some trees. At least Dano is apparently out there improving energy efficiency.

    • needless to say, I make no pretense of redinag Lomborg’s mind, but I’d urge anyone to:a) Read Julian Simon’s The Ultimate Resource 2 .Read Julian Simon Wikipedia entry.b) Then start on TSE, including the first page after the copyright and the Preface, which establish the connection. Assess how much if TSE’s view is derived from Simon’s.c) It is well worth picking a few areas in TSE where one knows the turf, and then really chasing down the references. [When I did a neutral Amazon review of TSE years ago, I’d only just started.]If someone writes generally, with few references, they easily make mistakes. When someone writes with exhaustive references, but somehow misses anything that disagrees with their theses, one must wonder.I’ll just pick a few, as most of TSE has been exhaustively analyzed elsewhere.Chapter 11 EnergyP.120: Uses famous quote of Yamani about stone age & oil age.This of course is nonsense, given that oil has great volumetric energy density and very high EROI.p.122: “it is expected that the oil price will once again decline from $29 to the low $20s until 2020.”Anyway, if you read that whole chapter, you find that there is no near-term Peak Oil&Gas issue, and no worry about energy whereas a whole lot of people who really do this think we have very hard work ahead to replace our fossil energy structure [even without worrying about coal-burning]. This includes two of my friends who were Vice-Chairman or above at two of the largest oil companies and at least one Nobel physicist I’ve met, and a bunch of others.None of these are pessimists, and all are working on the problem, but they are all scared whereas Lomborg isn’t. p.144 Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium[I missed the following on first read, caught it later]:”Nitrogen is absolutely essential for food production ” correct”But today nitrogen is almost exclusively synthesized from air, and since air contains about 78 percent nitrogen there are no limits to consumption.”Ahh, big relief. Food is inexhaustible.=====This old farmboy asks:is there anything at all misleading about that?=====Hints: Haber-Bosch? natural gas? Electrolyis of water? hydrogen? energy requirements?

  2. i’m always love michael people’s says he is dead nooo never he’s not dead i believe he’s alive in our hearts and my heart always and forever en ever and i’m always with you michael all darkest hours ,all darkest minutes ,all darkest seconds i’m always with you my sweet michael ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥

    • Thanks for your concern, guest. I bieelve I have been careful to avoid saying all economists in my complaints.I am getting more and more convinced that the mainstream of economics is not a science; that we attend to their advice, especially on long-term decisions, at great peril. Still, I’m sure there are peopleoutside the mainstream who have thought about this stuff independently and have useful ideas, which is why I am reading James Case’s Competition. By the way, I think Paul Krugman is a smart and decent person, and I’d love to have an opportunity to talk to him about this stuff, but I don’t know that he has come up with or aligned with an alternative formulation of economic thought. Nor have I heard him question the growth imperative, which economists take as axiomatic, and which seems to me, and to practically every physical or biological scientist I’ve ever heard voice an opinion about it, to be highly dubious.I would greatly welcome participation on this blog of anyone who has a strong background in conventional economics who manages to have a capacity for discussion with those who don’t. I have been talking about risk-weighting the high-impact scenarios forever, myself, and I find it ironic that the delayers choose to attack the integrity of climate science, where in fact they should logically be defending it.As for Weitzman, our little corner of the blogosphere has not been unaware of him. James Annan, to whom I defer on matters of statistical reasoning without hesitation, found the details ill-formed. I still hold that the basic principle is sound, and that given that principle, attacks on the validity of climate science consequently argue for stronger rather than weaker action.

    • Yeah, he would try to weasel out of it, woudln’t he? Ha.On the other hand, your resources are severely limited, and his are not, so it is this very question that was partly responsible for why I stopped believing in God. I literally concluded that it was more respectful to not believe in an omnipotent being who’s okay with his creatures being miserable than it is to believe in one.

  3. Since I knew michael Jackson , I fell on lo’ve with his music his dance moves ,and his way .I knew him since I was 3 years and now I am 12 yr .I love his way , his face and his smile , his so shy like his mother but his the greatest entertainer in the world . He have fans from whole world I am sri Lankan girl I know about sri Lanka he have many fans in sri Lanka , he died in June 25th 2009 . But still his the king of pop . And he will always . And I am still worried about his death. I love him forever and forever in my life

  4. Since I heard elvises voice it was like I just escaped out of a locked castle Elvis had the voice charisma the looks Elvis also made it too his comeback something Lennon Jackson and alot of others never did there is a reason why Elvis Is the best noone will ever compare

    • Bernie, I hate to get all Goldwateresque on you, but it seems to me that stridency in deefsne of truth is no vice. If you have gripes, you should take it up over there. Leebert is also interesting, as is this alternative SciBlog site.I presume you are referring to Things Break’s excellent takedown of Lomborg. I have tried to take Lomborg seriously, myself, but this argument has definitely caused me to reconsider. Lomborg is an economist after all, and hence not really trained in scientific skepticism of the actual, real, productive sort. The question is whether Lomborg starts with a conclusion and works backwards. Perhaps he didn’t start off that way, but now he has painted himself into a corner he will have a hard time walking out of. He’s younger than McIntyre, so he is more likely to live to have to eat his words some day.

Leave a Reply