Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Woody Allen responds   (nytimes.com ) divider line 352
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11189 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 12:02 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



352 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-07 09:03:53 PM  
Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?
 
2014-02-07 09:55:31 PM  
accuser =/= victim

We have to stop jumping the gun and just saying "Guilty" because someone accused them of certain crimes. Imagine if she was accusing him of armed robbery instead of touching her. He broke into her room at night with a gun, held it to her head, and took all the money in her piggy bank. It would be equally hard to prove, and it's actually probably legal for a parent or guardian to confiscate children's physical possessions, but no one would be rushing to say "Oh yeah, he's guilty."

But you accuse the creepy old Jewish guy with farked up glasses of being a pedophile and it goes immediately from an accusation to the gospel truth. Hell, just looking at him, I believe it. I mean really, he's a farkin' creep in all his movies. It can't all be acting. But that's not how the law works. That's not how morality works. That's not how sustainable societies conduct themselves. There's many good reasons we adopted the burden of proof, trial by jury, and banned vigilante "justice".

There's also dozens of examples each year of stories like this that turn out to be lies perpetrated by the accuser or the media to cause controversy ahead of book deals or during slow news periods. You can't stop that. There will always be gormless parasites willing to engage in yellow journalism. What you can do, however, is not reward their efforts by drinking their Kool Aid down to the last poisonous drop. When you hear an accusation, remember the accuser is the accuser. Nothing more nothing less. Remember it's a legal system, not a justice system. Remember "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't refer to actual innocence or guilt, but is a legal framework to prevent lynchings. And most of all remember Giles Corey and all the young women executed in Salem before you buy into every accusation hook, line, and sinker.
 
2014-02-07 10:10:28 PM  
he dignified the coont's finger point with a response?

game on
 
2014-02-07 11:45:55 PM  
I have a gub?
 
2014-02-07 11:54:33 PM  
Well I don't have a dog in this fight but Woody comes off as a lot more credible than Mia Farrow. I don't blame the girl for having a screwed up childhood one way or the other though.
 
2014-02-07 11:56:34 PM  
I've taken a look at both sides and have reached a conclusion.

Allow me to summarize: man is unfairly accused of horrific act by bitter expartner who has no real evidence. But media celebrates story because it involves a well known actress and genius filmmaker. That's it. Now move on to an actual debate.
 
2014-02-08 12:00:57 AM  

nickdaisy: But media celebrates story because it involves a well known actress and genius filmmaker. That's it. Now move on to an actual debate.


This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.
 
2014-02-08 12:06:23 AM  
Don't really know who is telling the truth, but sure am glad my parents weren't either of these farked up people.
 
2014-02-08 12:06:44 AM  

Confabulat: This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.


Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.
 
2014-02-08 12:10:10 AM  

vudukungfu: he dignified the coont's finger point with a response?

game on


He had to. Taking an "I'm not going to dignify that with a response" approach works in a one-on-one argument. If he said nothing tons of people would interpret that as guilt.
 
2014-02-08 12:10:15 AM  

DamnYankees: Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.


Mia and her brother started in on Twitter when Woody got his Golden Globe.
 
2014-02-08 12:10:25 AM  
The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.
 
2014-02-08 12:10:52 AM  
Yeah but he married that retarded girl that he birthed himself like Schwarzenegger did in Junior
 
2014-02-08 12:11:34 AM  
TL;DR

He's guilty. He's a perv.
 
2014-02-08 12:11:34 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:12:21 AM  

DamnYankees: But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.


that's convincing to you?

that's nothing but a hit piece of half truths.
 
2014-02-08 12:13:21 AM  

bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.


Would not anything less than this be protesting not at all?
 
2014-02-08 12:13:51 AM  
I didn't do it.

simpsonswiki.com

Well that settles it then.
 
2014-02-08 12:14:37 AM  

bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.


yeah no shiat.

people who are falsely accused of child rape shouldn't deny it, cause if they do that means they are guilty.
 
2014-02-08 12:15:07 AM  
Yeah, Brian, you're doing the same thing that Mia Farrow did to that Oriental guy that Woody Allen brought home from the circus
 
2014-02-08 12:15:54 AM  
The hypothesis about why the story took place in the attic was the best part.

And fyi: Woody Allen is a filmmaker in New York City.
 
2014-02-08 12:16:15 AM  
I'm amused Woody brought up that his son looks a lot like Frank Sinatra.

And I'm amused he brought up that song.
 
2014-02-08 12:17:22 AM  
Keep farking that chicken Mia
www.craveonline.com
 
2014-02-08 12:18:06 AM  
He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.
 
2014-02-08 12:21:13 AM  

Confabulat: I'm amused Woody brought up that his son looks a lot like Frank Sinatra.

And I'm amused he brought up that song.


Mia Farrow has stated that it's possible the kid is Sinatra's.
 
2014-02-08 12:21:15 AM  
Meh, I doubted it was true anyway, but the Soon-Yi stuff makes it believable to a lot of people. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter is a little weird. Sure, she was (as far as is known) of age when the relationship began, but the age gap combined with the fact that he knew her when she was 8 is a bit odd.
 
2014-02-08 12:23:25 AM  
Well, I think we all can smell where this is heading.
fightingbroke.com
 
2014-02-08 12:23:56 AM  

log_jammin: bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.

yeah no shiat.

people who are falsely accused of child rape shouldn't deny it, cause if they do that means they are guilty.


Many times, in just the first two paragraphs, he insults the intelligence of anyone who would even entertain the possibility that he may be guilty. Of course I don't know that he's guilty, but his own rhetoric does him no favors.
 
2014-02-08 12:24:06 AM  
Referenced in the article.

Dory Previn - Beware Of Young Girls(about Mia)

Dory Previn - With My Daddy In The Attic

Good songs, both from the same album.

Can we skip the pics of the wrong girl and the erroneous idea that he raised his wife and just skip to "Well, he's creepy anyway" and the Polanski rage?
 
2014-02-08 12:24:16 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.


We already know he's a creepy hollywood perv, but he's not that creepy and perverted.
 
2014-02-08 12:25:49 AM  
The man says he didn't do it.

Those who don't do, teach.  Those who don't teach, teach gym.
 
2014-02-08 12:26:15 AM  

MBooda: Well, I think we all can smell where this is heading.
[fightingbroke.com image 500x442]


Actually, no. It's all way beyond that, time-wise. Unless Woody wants to go with a slander suit, which it seems clear he doesn't.
 
2014-02-08 12:27:10 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.


Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?
 
2014-02-08 12:27:27 AM  

nickdaisy: I've taken a look at both sides and have reached a conclusion.

Allow me to summarize: man is unfairly accused of horrific act by bitter expartner who has no real evidence. But media celebrates story because it involves a well known actress and genius filmmaker. That's it. Now move on to an actual debate.


It's cloud's illusions, I recall
 
2014-02-08 12:29:15 AM  
Two people saying what did and didn't happen. I don't know what to think. Luckily, there are professionals who looked into the case and said it was his biatch ex coaching the child to say terrible things. So I'll take their word for it because frankly, I've really got no other option.
 
2014-02-08 12:29:34 AM  

bentleypm: log_jammin: bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.

yeah no shiat.

people who are falsely accused of child rape shouldn't deny it, cause if they do that means they are guilty.

Many times, in just the first two paragraphs, he insults the intelligence of anyone who would even entertain the possibility that he may be guilty. Of course I don't know that he's guilty, but his own rhetoric does him no favors.


I read that as him describing his own naivete as to how the allegations would be handled.
 
2014-02-08 12:30:35 AM  
 
2014-02-08 12:31:59 AM  
if she was molested, it could have been mia's brother john, who happens to be in jail for molesting a bunch of children. or roman polanski, who is a dear friend of mia's to this day (though i doubt he's really a pedophile). both woody and mia are farking nutzo, and i really feel for that woman whether she was genuinely molested or just brainwashed into thinking it happened. i like some of woody's films and some of mia's performances (and some of polanski's work too, fwiw), but they both seem to be pretty troubled people at best. still, i find it really hard to believe that a guy in the midst of an acrimonious breakup and a heated custody battle would be unable to resist molesting a child in that setting and under that scrutiny. sad, sad, sad all around
 
2014-02-08 12:32:16 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:33:57 AM  
Must not have been rape rape?
 
2014-02-08 12:34:50 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Perps are clever and perp always: check offendees.


what the hell does this even mean?
 
2014-02-08 12:35:14 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:35:35 AM  
i1079.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-08 12:35:40 AM  

cold_war_relic: [img.fark.net image 750x570]


www.letoilemagazine.com
 
2014-02-08 12:36:17 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skip the pics of the wrong girl


What do you think Fark runs on?
 
2014-02-08 12:36:22 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Regardless, justice will be swift, for public offenders pay large...

In public.


what the hell does this even mean?
 
2014-02-08 12:36:52 AM  

NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?


There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.
 
2014-02-08 12:37:21 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.


Well, apparently she was boinking Frank Sinatra the whole time, so can we agree that they are all just horrible people?
 
2014-02-08 12:37:35 AM  

Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Perps are clever and perp always: check offendees.

what the hell does this even mean?


PACAPACO, bro!
 
2014-02-08 12:37:45 AM  
For justice perps and public be: offenders perp and perply tree.
 
2014-02-08 12:37:52 AM  

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.
 
2014-02-08 12:37:52 AM  
While I want to hope he didn't, it's widely accepted by investigators that coaching a child to make a realistic acccusation is almost impossible to be done without it coming out in interviews
 
2014-02-08 12:38:30 AM  

DamnYankees: Confabulat: This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.

Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.


I never heard of her before, now I do. Fame would be my guess at a motivation.

/was falsely accused of rape
//she never went to the police (huge amounts of evidence in my favor), just spread rumors that cost me friendships and I didn't know until years after the fact.
 
2014-02-08 12:39:18 AM  
He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.
 
2014-02-08 12:40:17 AM  

mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia


That's a big chicken.
 
2014-02-08 12:40:36 AM  
oh great, another terrible meowsaysthedog gimmick account

you're so clever
 
2014-02-08 12:40:46 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Referenced in the article.

Dory Previn - Beware Of Young Girls(about Mia)

Dory Previn - With My Daddy In The Attic

Good songs, both from the same album.

Can we skip the pics of the wrong girl and the erroneous idea that he raised his wife and just skip to "Well, he's creepy anyway" and the Polanski rage?


Some people just want to hate the guy. I don't particularly like too many of his movies (enjoyed Blue Jasmine, but that was more for Cate Blanchetts performance), so I'm not really a fan, but everything I've read and heard point's to Mia being a vengeful, damaged person who made the whole thing up.  Add to that her manipulation of her kids, and I think that crazy biatch needs some face some charges.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:29 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?


I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:37 AM  

AutumnWind: He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.


Soon-Yi was 21, not SEVEN. I think that's one hell of a stretch.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:38 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Referenced in the article.

Dory Previn - Beware Of Young Girls(about Mia)

Dory Previn - With My Daddy In The Attic

Good songs, both from the same album.

Can we skip the pics of the wrong girl and the erroneous idea that he raised his wife and just skip to "Well, he's creepy anyway" and the Polanski rage?


I made it all the way through the first one, which anybody who hasn't should listen to.

I made it halfway through the second one while checking her Wiki (had heard the name is really all I knew) and decided to shut it off.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:39 AM  

Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Regardless, justice will be swift, for public offenders pay large...

In public.

what the hell does this even mean?


Someone's been hittin' the perple drank.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:41 AM  

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


Reading every piece of evidence makes it pretty clear he didn't do shiat to her and that Mia is farking nuts.

Woody is kooky and a little strange but he's not a child molester.
 
2014-02-08 12:42:15 AM  

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


So I take it you're a huge fan of gossip...cause that's what your link contains.  I'm still looking over the facts but from what I read there could be multiple interpretations. I'm not rooting for one party or the other, I'm just interested.  SOMEONE is lying here, it's going to be fun to find out who.
 
2014-02-08 12:42:58 AM  

AutumnWind: He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.


Just because I want to have sex with a 19 year old doesn't mean I want to have sex with a 7 year old. Just FYI.

You like to have sex with people? That means you like to rape them too. What? You don't like my leap of conclusion? Then try and look at your own. He may be a child molester, but having a relationship with a 19 year old doesn't make one more or less likely to to molest a 7 year old. Just saying.
 
2014-02-08 12:44:17 AM  

steamingpile: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Reading every piece of evidence makes it pretty clear he didn't do shiat to her and that Mia is farking nuts.

Woody is kooky and a little strange but he's not a child molester.

Did you read this one: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts or Dylan's own account? These things aren't vague?
 
2014-02-08 12:44:22 AM  
Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?
 
2014-02-08 12:44:37 AM  
Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.
 
2014-02-08 12:44:51 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: roman polanski, who is a dear friend of mia's to this day (though i doubt he's really a pedophile).


Giving booze then drugs to a 13 year old does not make you a pedophile?
 
2014-02-08 12:45:05 AM  
Well said, Woody.
 
2014-02-08 12:45:12 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.


I have read the link. It's a lot of odd, circumstantial stuff but none of it really on point enough to convince me of anything to any degree of certainty. Some of the things in there are also misleading. For example, point #2 about him having inappropriate behavior is true in and of itself (from what I've read), but its also pretty vague, and the psychologist involved also said explicitely that this behavior was not sexual. So what exactly does that fact mean or prove?

Same thing with Woody resting his head on his daughter's stomach. Is that really that weird? That's the sort of thing that looks weird if you assume he's a pervert, but if you don't, it doesn't really seem that weird to me. I mean, its not something I'd do, but its also not something that in and of itself is perverse or creepy, as far as I can tell.

All of it is like this. It's just very murky.
 
2014-02-08 12:46:12 AM  

libranoelrose: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skip the pics of the wrong girl
What do you think Fark runs on?

Based on another thread, I'd say tits, beer and squirrels, but I have no idea in what order.

PhiloeBedoe: [i1079.photobucket.com image 720x405]

I am laughing way too hard at this.
 
2014-02-08 12:46:49 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?


They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.
 
2014-02-08 12:47:12 AM  

doglover: But you accuse the creepy old Jewish guy with farked up glasses of being a pedophile and it goes immediately from an accusation to the gospel truth.


Seriously?  You think this is about antiSemitism?
 
2014-02-08 12:47:45 AM  
Follow The Money™

/she wants
 
2014-02-08 12:48:04 AM  

sethen320: So I take it you're a huge fan of gossip...cause that's what your link contains.  I'm still looking over the facts but from what I read there could be multiple interpretations. I'm not rooting for one party or the other, I'm just interested.  SOMEONE is lying here, it's going to be fun to find out who.


Same here - the only sense in which I'm 'rooting' is that I'd rather not think of anyone as being a rapist of children. I'm not sure if that makes me biased, but that seems like a pretty straightforward presumption I lean towards.

Also, we're never going to find out the truth. There's no mechanism by which that would happen.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:16 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

Not when truth hurts, and whom are you defending sans presence?

Evidence stands.


Yes and there is no evidence showing he did it, her accusing someone even examining doctors said no molestation happened won't back up her claims. Seems pretty much like Mia is throwing further doubt on cases involving children so she can fark off.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:41 AM  

gund: AutumnWind: He married his son's sister ... Mia's daughter ... then says it's so obvious that any rational person could see Mia was just being hateful and her accusations aren't true.  Are you kidding me? It's not exactly a stretch to think he could go after a daughter when he already went after her other daughter. I doubt Ronan likes having a father for a brother in law. And I doubt he had to be coached into thinking that is messed up. If Woody was a rational person he'd realize that.

Also if I was falsely accused of something I'd still be freaking out. I wouldn't brush it off since it didn't happen then be shocked to find out I could be in trouble for something I didn't do.

Mia and Woody are both so insane.

Just because I want to have sex with a 19 year old doesn't mean I want to have sex with a 7 year old. Just FYI.

You like to have sex with people? That means you like to rape them too. What? You don't like my leap of conclusion? Then try and look at your own. He may be a child molester, but having a relationship with a 19 year old doesn't make one more or less likely to to molest a 7 year old. Just saying.


I don't care if his wife was 45 when they got together. She was Mia's daughter and his son's sister. There is an obvious weird spot in his mind when it comes to who he should be going after.
 
2014-02-08 12:48:43 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.


Nope.
 
2014-02-08 12:50:33 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: ctrlshiftspace: Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?

Nope.

I am


Dude, learn to troll before you troll. You're embarrassing yourself.
 
2014-02-08 12:51:12 AM  

DamnYankees: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?

They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.


Vague?

"Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan. "

According to the judge's decision, Farrow told Allen, "You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan's lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch "staring vacantly in the direction of a television set." A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress.

All that, on top of, Dylan's explicit recounting in NYT is far beyond "vague".
 
2014-02-08 12:51:22 AM  
Here's the takeaway I've managed to get:

Woody Allen is certifiably a creepy bastard...and is likely to be (subject to change) the red herring in this situation.

Mia Farrow is B-A-T-S-H-I-A-T insane. Like, on a crazy scale of 1-10, she's full potato.

Dylan Farrow is farked, and sadly in more harmful ways than one. It is her family's fault for this.

Final conclusion: this business will get out of control. It will get out of control, and they will be lucky to live through it...and the scriptwriters for CSI and SVU are just licking their chops.
 
2014-02-08 12:51:36 AM  

Evi1Bo1weevi1: Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.

Well, apparently she was boinking Frank Sinatra the whole time, so can we agree that they are all just horrible people?


I agree.  Never did like Mia.

Fallout Boy: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.


I think that shaming people that make stuff up that could potentially ruin people's entire lives is OK.  I'm sure this girl is being used by Mia.  She seems to be a vidnictive biatch.  Of course, that is my opinion.  And yeah, Woodie is a weird motorscooter for sure.
 
2014-02-08 12:51:42 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?


For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?
 
2014-02-08 12:51:45 AM  

Fallout Boy: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.


Except for the examining doctor said she was never molested and the nanny's along with housekeepers that were in her house said he was never alone with the kid.

There is a lot more evidence pointing to his innocence and nothing except a story some therapists have said changed and from the beginning sounded made up.
 
2014-02-08 12:52:33 AM  

bentleypm: Many times, in just the first two paragraphs, he insults the intelligence of anyone who would even entertain the possibility that he may be guilty.


he does nothing of the sort.
 
2014-02-08 12:54:24 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Bonanza Jellybean: oh great, another terrible meowsaysthedog gimmick account

you're so clever

Nope, you are.

So clever and busted, perp.


Lars The Canadian Viking: Bonanza Jellybean: roman polanski, who is a dear friend of mia's to this day (though i doubt he's really a pedophile).

Giving booze then drugs to a 13 year old does not make you a pedophile?


Not necessarily. I won't defend Polanski since he cetainly did it and was found guilty of it. But AFAIK he's never been accused of such behavior otherwise. Maybe he's an ephebophile, maybe he was just crazy from drugs after Sharon Tate's murder, or whatever else. Drugging and raping an underage girl is horrible an inexcusable, don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure he's really a pedophile.
 
2014-02-08 12:54:49 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: ctrlshiftspace: Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?

Who the FARK are you?


Shouldn't you be doing your Geometry homework or something?

So boring.
 
2014-02-08 12:55:17 AM  

DrBenway: For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?


I think it's Mr. I'm Not Replying To Him And I Don't Know Why Anyone Else Would Either.
 
2014-02-08 12:55:18 AM  

steamingpile: Writerly Redoubt: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

Not when truth hurts, and whom are you defending sans presence?

Evidence stands.

Yes and there is no evidence showing he did it, her accusing someone even examining doctors said no molestation happened won't back up her claims. Seems pretty much like Mia is throwing further doubt on cases involving children so she can fark off.


What evidence do you want? A DNA sample? What if he just groped her and jizzed in his pants? I just find it hard to believe that this woman would continue to falsely make accusations years later. He's a creep.
 
2014-02-08 12:55:34 AM  

DamnYankees: Confabulat: This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.

Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.


I think the Child support money wagon dries up at some point.
 
2014-02-08 12:55:59 AM  
img.fark.net

Incest is best
 
2014-02-08 12:56:18 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Well said, Woody.

Too credit...


Welcome back.
 
2014-02-08 12:56:25 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: [img.fark.net image 630x346]

Incest WINcest is best

 
2014-02-08 12:56:41 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: steamingpile: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Reading every piece of evidence makes it pretty clear he didn't do shiat to her and that Mia is farking nuts.

Woody is kooky and a little strange but he's not a child molester.
Did you read this one: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts or Dylan's own account? These things aren't vague?


Except 5 of those facts are wrong, its a matter of record Mia had her examined, the doctor said she hasn't been molested, three different people said he wasn't left alone with her that day and he did take a polygraph test and passed. Other bullshiat is just made up and seems inflammatory to sell magazines or web hits.
 
2014-02-08 12:58:15 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Vague?


They are vague in the context of somehow proving Allen raped his daughter. Look at the allegations you list:

1) Farrow didn't trust Allen and thought he looked at her daughter sexually. What exactly does this prove, given that Mia Farrow already thinks Allen raped her daughter? It's rather circular. Am I missing some fact which says that Mia accused him of these perversions prior to the rape allegations? If so, please point it out to me.

2) Allen had his head on his daughter's lap as she watched TV. As I wrote above, taken in isolation is that really that weird? That's the sort of thing that looks weird if you assume he's a pervert, but if you don't, it doesn't really seem that weird to me. I mean, its not something I'd do, but its also not something that in and of itself is perverse or creepy, as far as I can tell.

3) His daughter wasn't wearing underwear. Ok. I don't have daughters, so I genuinely don't know, but is that such a big deal? Is that highly unusual, either in the context of children in general and the way Dylan acted normally? Again, I have no idea - all I can go off is the facts that I'm aware of. I also recall reading that this witness didn't think Allen did anything wrong (though I'd have to track down where I read this).

4) Dylan's account is of course not vague, but that's part of the he-said she-said. Allen's account is similarly not vague. I don't have an inclination to trust either one over the other.

It's just a whole bunch of isolated facts, some of which are nothing more than "Woody Allen is creepy", and other ones are more on point but also more contested. So, yes - vague.
 
2014-02-08 01:01:40 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: ctrlshiftspace: Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?

Nope.

I am

Dude, learn to troll before you troll. You're embarrassing yourself.

Way to construct.


Please speak English when trolling.
 
2014-02-08 01:01:41 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?

They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.

Vague?

"Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan. "

According to the judge's decision, Farrow told Allen, "You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan's lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch "staring vacantly in the direction of a television set." A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress.

All that, on top of, Dylan's explicit recounting in NYT is far beyond "vague".


Except those same babysitters have come out and denied that while saying he loved that child as a father, the judge was being pressured by the DA and the story of the dress is moronic since that is extremely vague and not in any police report and has zero chance to be proven.

I find it amazing anyone can conclude he did it on the basis of evidence out there, the least of which the very doctor she took her to said she hadn't been molested.

Done with this, some people are just determined to punish him for shiat he didn't do just because he looks odd.
 
2014-02-08 01:01:47 AM  

Bonanza Jellybean: Writerly Redoubt: Bonanza Jellybean: oh great, another terrible meowsaysthedog gimmick account

you're so clever

Nope, you are.

So clever and busted, perp.

Lars The Canadian Viking: Bonanza Jellybean: roman polanski, who is a dear friend of mia's to this day (though i doubt he's really a pedophile).

Giving booze then drugs to a 13 year old does not make you a pedophile?

Not necessarily. I won't defend Polanski since he cetainly did it and was found guilty of it. But AFAIK he's never been accused of such behavior otherwise. Maybe he's an ephebophile, maybe he was just crazy from drugs after Sharon Tate's murder, or whatever else. Drugging and raping an underage girl is horrible an inexcusable, don't get me wrong. I'm just not sure he's really a pedophile.


I honestly never looked into it beyond that specific case, but if there have been no previous or former accusations against him then, yeah, maybe it was just a one time thing brought on by drugs/emotional trauma form his wife's gristly death.
 
2014-02-08 01:02:15 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Well said, Woody.

Too credit...

Welcome back.

Gotcha?


No, really. I remember you. I just don't remember your other name
 
2014-02-08 01:02:48 AM  

DamnYankees: Confabulat: This story was not created by the media for a change. It was started by Dylan Farrow accusing her father in print of abusing her. Now he's responding in print back.

The media is more or less literally the medium in this case.

Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.


I dunno but I think Mia stirred something up when she said late last year that her son she had with Woody could possibly be Frank Sinatra's kid.
 
2014-02-08 01:03:22 AM  

Mark Ratner: steamingpile: Writerly Redoubt: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

Not when truth hurts, and whom are you defending sans presence?

Evidence stands.

Yes and there is no evidence showing he did it, her accusing someone even examining doctors said no molestation happened won't back up her claims. Seems pretty much like Mia is throwing further doubt on cases involving children so she can fark off.

What evidence do you want? A DNA sample? What if he just groped her and jizzed in his pants? I just find it hard to believe that this woman would continue to falsely make accusations years later. He's a creep.


I'm a creep, but I'm also not a child molester.

Also I bet 99% of the internet would fall under creepy behavior category at one time.
 
2014-02-08 01:03:32 AM  
Wow. Mia sounds like a real biatch.

/Still think it's kinda creepy he married an adopted daughter.
 
2014-02-08 01:03:36 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.


I read the link. it's just a hit piece.

I'll give you one example.

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

you know what that should say instead?

3. Allen passed a polygraph test. Mia never took one.

That is a "fact". what the writer wrote was innuendo.
 
2014-02-08 01:03:40 AM  
Woody Allen is one of the finest fiction writers in the world, which initially plays in his favor as you read this. But then when you remember that, it backfires against him.
 
2014-02-08 01:04:18 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.


Yep.
 
2014-02-08 01:04:23 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DrBenway: For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

I think it's Mr. I'm Not Replying To Him And I Don't Know Why Anyone Else Would Either.


Oh hell, I'm not even replying to him, but point taken. I really need to become more rigorous in the use of [redacted] when referencing nuisance comments.
 
2014-02-08 01:05:28 AM  

log_jammin: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.

I read the link. it's just a hit piece.

I'll give you one example.

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

you know what that should say instead?

3. Allen passed a polygraph test. Mia never took one.

That is a "fact". what the writer wrote was innuendo.


The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science. A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.
 
2014-02-08 01:05:34 AM  

That Guy Jeff: Two people saying what did and didn't happen. I don't know what to think. Luckily, there are professionals who looked into the case and said it was his biatch ex coaching the child to say terrible things. So I'll take their word for it because frankly, I've really got no other option.


I agree with you.  In a situation like this, expert opinion may be our best chance at knowing what really happened.
 
2014-02-08 01:07:26 AM  

i163.photobucket.com


 Cousin Vicki: I'm going steady, and I French kiss.


Audrey Griswold: So? Everybody does that.


Cousin Vicki: Yeah, but Daddy says I'm the best at it.

 
2014-02-08 01:07:27 AM  

Savage Belief: Wow. Mia sounds like a real biatch.

/Still think it's kinda creepy he married an adopted daughter.


Case closed.
 
2014-02-08 01:07:54 AM  
I've thought about it and this comes to mind:

If I hadn't met some seriously vindictive women in my time (luckily not mad at me) I could get behind the mother/daughter's story.  But unfortunately I've found that the slander and legal mayhem is more the rule than exception.  From what I've seen women are much more likely to use the child against the man, which is a crime in my opinion.  There's no reason a child should EVER be used to get back at an adult from a relationship.

I'm going with the guy on this one.  I normally give the victim the benefit of the doubt but this one doesn't add up.
 
2014-02-08 01:07:54 AM  

DrBenway: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DrBenway: For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

I think it's Mr. I'm Not Replying To Him And I Don't Know Why Anyone Else Would Either.

Oh hell, I'm not even replying to him, but point taken. I really need to become more rigorous in the use of [redacted] when referencing nuisance comments.


Fooled me. I always thought that kind of sass could come from the fairer sex.
 
2014-02-08 01:08:41 AM  

TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.


that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.


so could someone who is telling the truth.
 
2014-02-08 01:09:00 AM  

Savage Belief: Wow. Mia sounds like a real biatch.

/Still think it's kinda creepy he married an adopted daughter.


And those glasses.
 
2014-02-08 01:09:23 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.

Yep.


Soon-Yi Previn, who he is married to to this day, was Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter.  Not Allen's.
 
2014-02-08 01:10:02 AM  

doglover: Savage Belief: Wow. Mia sounds like a real biatch.

/Still think it's kinda creepy he married an adopted daughter.

And those glasses.


And those shoes! UGH.
 
2014-02-08 01:10:23 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: ctrlshiftspace: Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?

Nope.

I am

Dude, learn to troll before you troll. You're embarrassing yourself.

Way to construct.

Please speak English when trolling.

Please have a tail to grab when beavering...


You're speaking in non sequiturs. No one understands what the hell you're saying!!
 
2014-02-08 01:14:27 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.

Yep.

Soon-Yi Previn, who he is married to to this day, was Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter.  Not Allen's.


yep.


#1: Soon-Yi was Woody's daughter.  False.
#2:  Soon-Yi was Woody's step-daughter.  False.
#3:  Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia's adopted daughter.  False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.
#4:  Woody and Mia were married.  False.
#5:  Woody and Mia lived together.  False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia's apartment in 12 years.
#6:  Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage.  False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.
#7:  Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure.  False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother's boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.
#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations.  False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or '72.)
#9:  Soon-Yi was borderline retarded.  Ha! She's smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.
#10:  Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride.  Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia's own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody "had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi" so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly "had his eye on her" from the time she was a child.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-all eg ations-not-so-fast.html
 
2014-02-08 01:14:28 AM  
So how's Dory Previn doing on itunes/twitter?
 
2014-02-08 01:15:35 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.

Yep.

Soon-Yi Previn, who he is married to to this day, was Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter.  Not Allen's.


Allen and Farrow also kept separate households. It really just doesn't add up.
 
2014-02-08 01:15:35 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Well said, Woody.

Too credit...

Welcome back.

Gotcha?

No, really. I remember you. I just don't remember your other name

Two shiats...


Yeah, anyway, I was being sincere. I recall your ...poetic demeanor and style quite specifically from a few years back here in Farkland. It could be no one else, but the alt still eludes me. I read too much, too fast.
 
2014-02-08 01:16:39 AM  

Let's not bring up rapes from the early 90s!


www.allaccess.com

 
2014-02-08 01:18:49 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Bonanza Jellybean: oh great, another terrible meowsaysthedog gimmick account

you're so clever

Nope, you are.

So clever and busted, perp.



Account created:2014-01-2

k...
 
2014-02-08 01:19:02 AM  

log_jammin: TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.

that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.

so could someone who is telling the truth.


You're wasting your time with this one. The "married his adopted daughter" riff has been shot down more times than I can count and yet they still keep pushing it.

Ha! Listen to me, lecturing anyone about wasting time. But you know what I'm talking about.
 
2014-02-08 01:19:06 AM  
Woody Allen responds
www.theskullillusion.com
 
2014-02-08 01:20:16 AM  

DrBenway: You're wasting your time with this one. The "married his adopted daughter" riff has been shot down more times than I can count and yet they still keep pushing it.

Ha! Listen to me, lecturing anyone about wasting time. But you know what I'm talking about.


yeah I know. But I've been wasting my time here for over a decade now. It's just what I do.
 
2014-02-08 01:25:12 AM  
BTW. "Cousin Vickie" from Natnional Lampoon's vacation is looking mighty fine today
.
www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com
 
2014-02-08 01:25:32 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: steamingpile: Writerly Redoubt: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

Not when truth hurts, and whom are you defending sans presence?

Evidence stands.

Yes and there is no evidence showing he did it, her accusing someone even examining doctors said no molestation happened won't back up her claims. Seems pretty much like Mia is throwing further doubt on cases involving children so she can fark off.

Your handle handles all, no?

Perp.


No, but I agree with what he said. I believe Dylan Farrow is wrong and Mia Farrow lied. And lying about child molestation is far more horrible than any comment one could make in an internet thread.
 
2014-02-08 01:26:32 AM  
The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter and he expects people to believe he didn't make a run on the other child available to him...................Please.

And Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile either.

Yeah ... Sure.
 
2014-02-08 01:27:02 AM  

Mark Ratner: What evidence do you want? A DNA sample? What if he just groped her and jizzed in his pants? I just find it hard to believe that this woman would continue to falsely make accusations years later. He's a creep.


If not for all the familial and public trauma, she might have got over which was a fairly minor alleged transgression of her person. Everyone has some sort of crappy event in their life, and you don't get over it by reliving it in a public fashion. I have no clue what happened in her life, but these people are messed up, and playing the victim in public for personal gain.
 
2014-02-08 01:27:20 AM  
163 posts down to 108 posts.
 
2014-02-08 01:27:28 AM  
Pff, Woody Allen doesn't molest children; he marries them.
 
2014-02-08 01:27:51 AM  
Having been married briefly to a crazy redhead I can believe him. It's out of his personal character I can see an abused man easier that an abusive man.
 
2014-02-08 01:28:42 AM  

chiett: The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter


from my post earlier

#1: Soon-Yi was Woody's daughter.   False.
#2:  Soon-Yi was Woody's step-daughter.   False.
#3:  Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia's adopted daughter.   False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.
 
2014-02-08 01:31:07 AM  

chiett: The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter and he expects people to believe he didn't make a run on the other child available to him...................Please.

And Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile either.

Yeah ... Sure.


At what point in the last 50 years has marrying a 10-year-old been legal?  Please, tell me what state would allow that.
 
2014-02-08 01:31:31 AM  

That Guy Jeff: wo people saying what did and didn't happen. I don't know what to think. Luckily, there are professionals who looked into the case and said it was his biatch ex coaching the child to say terrible things. So I'll take their word for it because frankly, I've really got no other option.


'Please clean out your desk and hand your badge to the guard on the way out'

Seriously how can a rational person claim to know diddly squat about this. Only thing in his favor is, often once the first accusation is made and taken seriously, other victims come forward. So far, thirty years later, it's been tweeting birds/
 
2014-02-08 01:37:20 AM  
Well anyway I think we all agree that Woody Allen molested, raped, and killed many, many people's daughters, including his own, and that he's still out there tonight looking for your children,  prowling, ever prowling....
 
2014-02-08 01:38:51 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 01:39:19 AM  
Classic case of "The accusation is the evidence."

Honestly, I don't know if he did or didn't, and neither did any of you.

And if any of you say he did without a doubt in your mind, then the only truth is you were there with him when he was molesting/raping/whatever, which makes you an accomplice, a victim, or negligent to attempt to stop a crime in progress.

Otherwise, it's another he-said-she-said incident. I wish it wasn't, but thanks to enough people doing these smear jobs against prolific Hollywood types that have no merit, now everyone gets a skeptical look at their accusation. Surprise, people lie to get money/fame/attention and they don't care how they do it.

Being skeptical of this case does not mean you support pedophilia, it makes you reasonable. So there's no need to feel guilty.
 
2014-02-08 01:40:47 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: BTW. "Cousin Vickie" from Natnional Lampoon's vacation is looking mighty fine today
.
[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 283x400]


Have you never seen "30 Rock"?
 
2014-02-08 01:40:57 AM  

log_jammin: #1: Soon-Yi was Woody's daughter. False.
#2: Soon-Yi was Woody's step-daughter. False.
#3: Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia's adopted daughter. False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.


So that's all cool then...he and dated his former girl friend of 10 years adopted daughter..and eventually married the girl friends daughter A girl friend that had sexual relations with and a child with...but said he never stayed the night at her house...Really, you believe that?

Does that make it any better to show the guy has some boundary issues? Farking your former girl friend 'daughter' at any age? Oh yeah...that's pretty normal.

I also find it difficult to accept that Woody and Mia never met at her house in their relationship which produced a biological child and that the other children where just orbiting around for 10 years without any contact with Woody. Does that sound rational to you?

The Dude has boundry issues. That's pretty obvious...the jump is how much those and how deep those issues extend.
 
2014-02-08 01:41:07 AM  

gibbon1: That Guy Jeff: wo people saying what did and didn't happen. I don't know what to think. Luckily, there are professionals who looked into the case and said it was his biatch ex coaching the child to say terrible things. So I'll take their word for it because frankly, I've really got no other option.

'Please clean out your desk and hand your badge to the guard on the way out'

Seriously how can a rational person claim to know diddly squat about this. Only thing in his favor is, often once the first accusation is made and taken seriously, other victims come forward. So far, thirty years later, it's been tweeting birds/


I'd also like to know how he and Soon Yi were allowed to adopt two children of their own if there was any serious consideration given any of this. If someone has evidence of payoffs or black market connections or what have you, I would be thrilled to hear about it. I'm guessing not, though I'm sure there are some absolutely fascinating theories someone will be happy to share.
 
2014-02-08 01:42:24 AM  

doglover: We have to stop jumping the gun and just saying "Guilty" because someone accused them of certain crimes.


I don't think you understand how the internet works.
 
2014-02-08 01:45:03 AM  
I was always swayed by the idea that Mia was making this stuff up against Woody because she was furious about the Soon-Yi thing. Then again, the old "woman scorned" furphy is just that: a furphy. Men often use it against women, along with the stereotype of women being irrational and emotional, and therefore less intelligent.

However, there is no real evidence that Woody ever molested his daughter except the word of one troubled seven-year-old, so he is innocent in my mind.

That doesn't mean that he is not an appalling human being, so self-absorbed that he has turned his own fury at Mia into continual diatribes against her. His mention of child support is a case in point. He attacks her for allegedly having the odd bonk with her former husband while he was seducing an 18-year-old girl, who just happened to be his girlfriend's daughter.

The judge's opinion in the original custody suit lays it all out. Mia was a good mother who mainly did the right thing, Woody was a complete shiate, but it is unlikely he poked his daughter.

http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit. pd f
 
2014-02-08 01:46:05 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: I see you.

You don't see me.

Welcome to FARK.

;)


I see you. Are you drunk or off your meds? Or both? Cheers.
 
2014-02-08 01:47:27 AM  
You know, his 70s movies were frickin' hysterical. Once he got serious all the fun went out of his flicks.

I never get tired of Gene Wilder and his sheep wife.
 
2014-02-08 01:48:13 AM  

steerforth: furphy


www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-02-08 01:48:18 AM  

NobleHam: Meh, I doubted it was true anyway, but the Soon-Yi stuff makes it believable to a lot of people. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter is a little weird. Sure, she was (as far as is known) of age when the relationship began, but the age gap combined with the fact that he knew her when she was 8 is a bit odd.


Specifically, it establishes a precedent of him violating the stepparent/stepchild relationship.
 
2014-02-08 01:48:54 AM  

optikeye: but said he never stayed the night at her house...Really, you believe that?


It doesn't matter if that is true or not since the alleged incident happened after they were broke up and in a custody dispute. so whether he stayed the night or not, before then is irrelevant.


optikeye: I also find it difficult to accept that Woody and Mia never met at her house in their relationship which produced a biological child and that the other children where just orbiting around for 10 years without any contact with Woody. Does that sound rational to you?


rational? no. it sounds made up to me.

no one said they never met at her house, or that he had no contact with the other children. the article said he never stayed the night at her house, not that he never "meet" her there. it also said he didn't spend much time and wasn't very close to the other kids, not that he never had contact with them.
 
2014-02-08 01:49:33 AM  
I did not rape that sweet, succulent 7 year old ass.
 
2014-02-08 01:49:34 AM  

log_jammin: TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.

that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.

so could someone who is telling the truth.


So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!
 
2014-02-08 01:50:19 AM  

flondrix: stepparent/stepchild relationship.


he was never her stepparent and she was never his stepchild.
 
2014-02-08 01:50:48 AM  
He's not a paedophile, but he's still creety
 
2014-02-08 01:51:20 AM  

TV's Vinnie: So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


I believed the victims in the Sandusky situation because there was a ton of evidence.

I do not believe the victim in this case because there is none, and it's a stretch of logic to have the story make sense.

This is called using your mind.
 
2014-02-08 01:54:00 AM  

TV's Vinnie: So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?


well since it was investigated, and no charges were ever brought, and he's been allowed to adopt other children in the 20 years since the alligation was first made...wellI'd say the burden of proof is on the supposed victim.

TV's Vinnie: I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


It's almost like there was letters, voice messages, and eye witnesses in his case, and none of that exists here.
 
2014-02-08 01:54:40 AM  

foo monkey: He's not a paedophile, but he's still creety


VERY creety
 
2014-02-08 01:54:57 AM  

TV's Vinnie: log_jammin: TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.

that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.

so could someone who is telling the truth.

So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


That's not how crime works. It's not based on what a person could do or could have done, it's based on what they actually do. If, for whatever reason, more victims come forward, especially more recent victims, then they will have their stories investigated and have dates/times compared to what Woody Allen was doing during those dates and times.

If they match up or seem at least somewhat feasible, then maybe there will be a point and some actual teeth to the rumor he's a pedo. But until that happens? It's just a rumor based on a court of opinion.
 
2014-02-08 01:55:08 AM  

Evi1Bo1weevi1: Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.

Well, apparently she was boinking Frank Sinatra the whole time, so can we agree that they are all just horrible people?


This so much all over.

Here's a sad fact about your idols: many of them are terrible assholes. I lobe jazz, but I doubt I would have liked to work with Mingus or Benny Goodman. I have a very beautiful piano album by Al Haig, who definitely beat his wives and very likely murdered one of them.

I feel sorry for Dylan, for growing up around these people that are such successes as artists but failures as decent human beings.

Really, people can be such shiat.
 
2014-02-08 01:55:22 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Typical Republican political ploy: lying is a crime?


Okay, well based on your erratic writing style I'm starting to think you're actually an insane person (or just a really bad writer), but yeah. Lying in the accusation of another is indeed a crime if made in court or in police reports, and if not it can still be defamation. It's called bearing false witness. It's not only a crime under the law, one of the 10 commandments tells you not to do it.

Most cases of accusations of child molestation are accurate. However, a fair number are not, and those tend to arise in cases of bitter break-ups. I'm not a member of a jury or a judge, I haven't heard all the evidence, but it sounds like bullshiat to me, and if it is, Mia Farrow's a contemptible person. Not as contemptible as a child molester, but still awful.
 
2014-02-08 01:57:10 AM  
Mia Farrows brother John Charles Villiers was arrested for child sex abuse


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/15/mia-farrows-brother-john-ch ar les-villiers-farrow-child-sex-abuse_n_2139583.html

How much contact did John have with Mia's kids?
 
2014-02-08 01:58:50 AM  

TV's Vinnie: log_jammin: TV's Vinnie: The Polygraph is a load of hokum and quack science.

that may be. but the "fact" is that he took one, and passed it, and she didn't.

TV's Vinnie: A sociopath could ace one of those tests and convince you that he's a Saint.

so could someone who is telling the truth.

So, Woody can now be as much of a Pedobear as he wants and no one will ever, ever beleive the victims?

I bet a certain guy named Sandusky wishes he had that kind o mojo!


I think it's the opposite problem.

We all want to believe Woody Allen is a sex criminal because he's simultaneous way creepier and wildly more successful than anyone here. Two strikes. But there's really not enough proof to condemn him of anything but being creepy. Everything else is hearsay, and in the age of yellow journalism we live in, that's equivalent to nothing.
 
2014-02-08 01:59:09 AM  

flondrix: NobleHam: Meh, I doubted it was true anyway, but the Soon-Yi stuff makes it believable to a lot of people. Marrying your girlfriend's adopted daughter is a little weird. Sure, she was (as far as is known) of age when the relationship began, but the age gap combined with the fact that he knew her when she was 8 is a bit odd.

Specifically, it establishes a precedent of him violating the stepparent/stepchild relationship.


She wasn't a stepchild. He was never married to her adoptive mother. He was close enough, perhaps, but not her stepfather. Whereas Dylan Farrow was his actual daughter, albeit by adoption.
 
2014-02-08 01:59:39 AM  

DamnYankees: Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.


Because when you have suffered abuse, the ghosts of the trauma never leave you?
 
2014-02-08 02:05:23 AM  

doglover: We all want to believe Woody Allen is a sex criminal because he's simultaneous way creepier and wildly more successful than anyone here. Two strikes. But there's really not enough proof to condemn him of anything but being creepy. Everything else is hearsay, and in the age of yellow journalism we live in, that's equivalent to nothing.


That's a good point. I really doubt there's a ton of hardcore Woody Allen fans on Fark. I haven't seen one of his movies since probably like 1995 or something and I probably hated it. I know he's a talented filmmaker and I love his early work but I'd hardly describe myself as a Woody Allen fan. And he is creepy and weird and Mia Farrow has every damn right to be pissed right the hell off when he dumped her for her daughter, that's brutal.

But I think not a lot of us here have any emotional investment either way. I don't. But you know how like we all figured OJ was guilty? We'd do the same here if there was a lick of evidence to condemn the guy for being a pedophile. That's a pretty terrible charge to levy at a guy. His story makes more sense than hers does. And her own brother says Mia was a brainwashing mind-controlling psycho, and he's a therapist.

I gotta go with Woody on this one. Still not going to watch Blue Jasmine even though they say it's sooo good.
 
2014-02-08 02:10:53 AM  

chiett: The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter and he expects people to believe he didn't make a run on the other child available to him...................Please.


Here's a thought: If you don't know the specifics of a story, such as the age of a person, and it's a story that has had several articles about it writte, maybe you should try looking up the pertinent details before showing off your ignorance.

You might try, say, a Wikipedia article.
 
2014-02-08 02:11:35 AM  

Confabulat: doglover: We all want to believe Woody Allen is a sex criminal because he's simultaneous way creepier and wildly more successful than anyone here. Two strikes. But there's really not enough proof to condemn him of anything but being creepy. Everything else is hearsay, and in the age of yellow journalism we live in, that's equivalent to nothing.

That's a good point. I really doubt there's a ton of hardcore Woody Allen fans on Fark. I haven't seen one of his movies since probably like 1995 or something and I probably hated it. I know he's a talented filmmaker and I love his early work but I'd hardly describe myself as a Woody Allen fan. And he is creepy and weird and Mia Farrow has every damn right to be pissed right the hell off when he dumped her for her daughter, that's brutal.

But I think not a lot of us here have any emotional investment either way. I don't. But you know how like we all figured OJ was guilty? We'd do the same here if there was a lick of evidence to condemn the guy for being a pedophile. That's a pretty terrible charge to levy at a guy. His story makes more sense than hers does. And her own brother says Mia was a brainwashing mind-controlling psycho, and he's a therapist.

I gotta go with Woody on this one. Still not going to watch Blue Jasmine even though they say it's sooo good.


Drink some Jasmine tea, call it even.
 
2014-02-08 02:12:22 AM  

the_peddler: Bigdogdaddy: BTW. "Cousin Vickie" from Natnional Lampoon's vacation is looking mighty fine today
.
[www.howmuchdotheyweigh.com image 283x400]

Have you never seen "30 Rock"?


No, but I might now.  She's seriously hot.
 
2014-02-08 02:12:49 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: I see you.

You don't see me.

Welcome to FARK.

;)


The dog eats green cheese.
 
2014-02-08 02:15:56 AM  
I won't have a opinion till I see the movie
 
2014-02-08 02:16:00 AM  
Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".
 
2014-02-08 02:20:05 AM  

schubie: Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".


Ha and you can't find one of those photos online. Well your story sounds realistic.
 
2014-02-08 02:20:15 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: I see you.

You don't see me.

Welcome to FARK.

;)

The dog eats green cheese.

Nope.

BUT, the dog will eat you in time...;)


Nope. Dogs do not.
 
2014-02-08 02:21:17 AM  
I'm glad I don't have to make a call here - because I really don't have much faith in either side, and think they are both lying. Fortunately for me, I don't have to take a position here - so I won't.
 
2014-02-08 02:21:25 AM  

schubie: Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".


good post Mia.
 
2014-02-08 02:21:32 AM  
And Woody Allen being in counseling was part of his comedy shtick way before he was hanging out with Mia Farrow.
 
2014-02-08 02:21:53 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that?


Internet Tough Guy detected.
 
2014-02-08 02:25:50 AM  

schubie: Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".


So where are the photo's of Woody "pawing at her panties"?  If the existed they would have been posted her as much as the photo of Woody and his daughter with Soon Yi cropped out. So yeah you're either lying or just stupid.
 
2014-02-08 02:26:07 AM  

log_jammin: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: TV's Vinnie: Fact still remains that he married his own adopted azn daughter. That's skeevy enough.

Nope.

Yep.

Soon-Yi Previn, who he is married to to this day, was Mia and Andre Previn's adopted daughter.  Not Allen's.

yep.


#1: Soon-Yi was Woody's daughter.  False.
#2:  Soon-Yi was Woody's step-daughter.  False.
#3:  Soon-Yi was Woody and Mia's adopted daughter.  False. Soon-Yi was the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow and André Previn. Her full name was Soon-Yi Farrow Previn.
#4:  Woody and Mia were married.  False.
#5:  Woody and Mia lived together.  False. Woody lived in his apartment on Fifth Ave. Mia and her kids lived on Central Park West. In fact, Woody never once stayed over night at Mia's apartment in 12 years.
#6:  Woody and Mia had a common-law marriage.  False. New York State does not recognize common law marriage. Even in states that do, a couple has to cohabitate for a certain number of years.
#7:  Soon-Yi viewed Woody as a father figure.  False. Soon-Yi saw Woody as her mother's boyfriend. Her father figure was her adoptive father, André Previn.
#8: Soon-Yi was underage when she and Woody started having relations.  False. She was either 19 or 21. (Her year of birth in Korea was undocumented, but believed to be either 1970 or '72.)
#9:  Soon-Yi was borderline retarded.  Ha! She's smart as a whip, has a degree from Columbia University and speaks more languages than you.
#10:  Woody was grooming Soon-Yi from an early age to be his child bride.  Oh, come on! According to court documents and Mia's own memoir, until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody "had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi" so Mia encouraged him to spend more time with her. Woody started taking her to basketball games, and the rest is tabloid history. So he hardly "had his eye on her" from the time she was a child.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen- ...


Couple of thoughts about that list...

#2  It is technically inaccurate (the worst kind of inaccurate) to call a man's long-term partner's daughter who is also his son's half-sister his "stepdaughter." It is also, IMO, a far simpler way of conveying the gist of the relationship when discussing it so you don't have to keep spelling all that out.

#7  is plausible, but still just an assertion of someone else's long-past state of mind (also, a person can have more than one father or authority figure in her life).

#8  I don't see how her age "when she and Woody started having relations" can be determined, given that the sexual relationship began in secret.

#10 I sympathise with the argument from incredulity, but having his eye on her in that sense is virtually independent of appearing to have much to do with her.

And in general (not just this list),  I call bullshiat on the suggestion that a family with complicated relationships or unorthodox living arrangements somehow isn't a "real" family, or that long-term partners who haven't legally wed must somehow be less of a couple. Woody wasn't some "boyfriend" these kids' mom brought home a couple of times; their lives were heavily intertwined for years. This is true LEAST of Soon-Yi, and it's fair to point that out, but factlets like "Woody never once stayed over night at Mia's apartment in 12 years"seem designed to give a misleading impression of the relationship (which saw Mia and kids staying overnight at Woody's place, Woody staying at Mia's country house, travelling together, etc). Again, the term "married" is technically inaccurate but arguably conveys the gist of the relationship beneath all their quirky neurotic eccentric bullshiat.

Personally, I don't think any of the quibbles matter much. The guy crossed the icky-and-creepy line way back in the undisputed facts (and even if there were anything beyond icky, it would be impossible to prove).  If you're answering a charge that amounts to Creepy with Aggravated Ickiness and you start in with something to the effect of "well, technically..." then you've probably already lost.

As  Lilo & Stitch put it: "Ohana means family. Family means no one gets left behind - or farked."
 
2014-02-08 02:27:35 AM  

Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that?

Internet Tough Guy detected.


More like Internet Surrealist Guy. The squeep is strong in this one.
Trombone.
 
2014-02-08 02:30:08 AM  

schubie: Except Mia's stupid enabling ass saw a bit of light and made Woody go to counseling due to his creepy fixation with little Dylan and her crotch. BEFORE Soon-Yi left her nude pictures lying around the house.

Also before the Soon-Yi thing The New Post used to print weekly paparazzi photos of Woody dragging a 5 and 6 year old Dylan around town. Always dressed in tiny girl dresses and patent maryjanes. Always with Woody taking her out way past her bedtime and pawing at her panties as her dress rode up. They'd present them without an upfront agenda but the implication was clearly get a load of this perv. The Post probably has hundreds of these shots and I'm beyond shocked that they haven't just covered the Internet with them.

Yeah, I get the concern, you don't want a lynch mob but Jesus, he's a farking perv and beyond shiatty to his crew. I truly hope he keeps his paws off his latest set of daughters. They have that unkempt look accompanied by inappropriate clothes that sort of screams "abused".



i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-02-08 02:30:23 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: I write well


I'll never know if Woody is guilty or not, but I'll always know this statement is patently false.
 
2014-02-08 02:33:17 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: And in general (not just this list),  I call bullshiat on the suggestion that a family with complicated relationships or unorthodox living arrangements somehow isn't a "real" family, or that long-term partners who haven't legally wed must somehow be less of a couple. Woody wasn't some "boyfriend" these kids' mom brought home a couple of times; their lives were heavily intertwined for years.


no one said they weren't a "real" family, or they were less of a couple. and yes, he was some "boyfriend". lives were heavily intertwined or not. it's just what he was.
 
2014-02-08 02:34:35 AM  
Monkeyfark Ridiculous:

Couple of thoughts about that list...

#2  It is technically inaccurate (the worst kind of inaccurate) to call a man's long-term partner's daughter who is also his son's half-sister his "stepdaughter." It is also, IMO, a far simpler way of conveying the gist of the relationship when discussing it so you don't have to keep spelling all that out.

#7  is plausible, but still just an assertion of someone else's long-past state of mind (also, a person can have more than one father or authority figure in her life).

#8  I don't see how her age "when she and Woody started having relations" can be determined, given that the sexual relationship began in secret.

#10 I sympathise with the argument from incredulity, but having his eye on her in that sense is virtually independent of appearing to have much to do with her.

And in general (not just this list),  I call bullshiat on the suggestion that a family with complicated relationships or unorthodox living arrangements somehow isn't a "real" family, or that long-term partners who haven't legally wed must somehow be less of a couple. Woody wasn't some "boyfriend" these kids' mom brought home a couple of times; their lives were heavily intertwined for years. This is true LEAST of Soon-Yi, and it's fair to point that out, but factlets like "Woody never once stayed over night at Mia's apartment in 12 years"seem designed to give a misleading impression of the relationship (which saw Mia and kids staying overnight at Woody's place, Woody staying at Mia's country house, travelling together, etc). Again, the term "married" is technically inaccurate but arguably conveys the gist of the relationship beneath all their quirky neurotic eccentric bullshiat.

Personally, I don't think any of the quibbles matter much. The guy crossed the icky-and-creepy line way back in the undisputed facts (and even if there were anything beyond icky, it would be impossible to prove).  If you're answering a charge that amounts to Creepy with Aggravated Ickiness and you start in with something to the effect of "well, technically..." then you've probably already lost.

As  Lilo & Stitch put it: "Ohana means family. Family means no one gets left behind - or farked."

 Soon Yi Previn lived with her father not Mia. Allen had nothing to do with Soon Yi when she was a child.
 
2014-02-08 02:35:04 AM  
Moses Farrow says Mia abused him (and all the other kids) by hitting them, berating them, locking them in closets, and emotionally abusing them, and people don't seem to care.

Dylan Farrow says Woody stuck his finger in her once, in an attic, on a visitation day in the middle of a custody battle, with nannies and a dozen kids (included Moses) all bearing witness and not seeing anything of the sort, and a whole bunch of people believe her no matter what evidence is presented to disprove her account.

I think her older brother has the right of it: He was old enough to see what Mia was doing, and he was able to figure out that Mia was using her kids as weapons to harm Woody. He also happens to have grown up to become a professional in the field of psychology. That, plus his first-hand account of the day in question, makes it pretty clear that Dylan IS the victim of abuse... And the abuser was Mia Farrow.
 
2014-02-08 02:35:54 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: jso2897: Beaver Knievel: Writerly Redoubt: P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that?

Internet Tough Guy detected.

More like Internet Surrealist Guy. The squeep is strong in this one.
Trombone.

Meep meep.

*pulls metal tubes along metal tube highways*


The chair is against the door. Carlos has a long mustache.
 
2014-02-08 02:36:55 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: I write well


No seriously, you sound like Jared Loughner.
 
2014-02-08 02:42:09 AM  
If I only look at Woody Allen without considering what might or might not have happened with Dylan, he skeeves me out. He initiated a relationship with the daughter of an ex-girlfriend, having seen the young girl grow up from a relatively young age. It's just damn weird that he had no feelings of a paternal nature that would preclude a sexual relationship. My way of thinking, having caring responsible adult feelings towards a child should make /HIM/ feel skeeved out if he's getting a boner around that kid when she's older, especially when he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing. He appears to be lacking something in his emotional development that I would want any boyfriend of mine to have before interacting with my hypothetical girl child.

Add in persistant allegations from Dylan, the alleged victim, and it's NOPE NOPE NOPE from me.

Makes me feel glad I saw the Sleeper before I heard all this crap about him, I could just watch and enjoy it. Now, I see his work, and his weird pervy behavior colors the films and sort of makes me feel gross watching.
 
2014-02-08 02:43:14 AM  

NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: I write well

No seriously, you sound like Jared Loughner.


wow, i was thinking the same thing, couldn't think of the guys name....
 
2014-02-08 02:45:04 AM  

Revmachine21: he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing


Appears? Where?
 
2014-02-08 02:50:25 AM  
Why is this any of our business?  It does not appear to be, at least to me.  I enjoy Woody's movies.  I'll continue to watch them.
 
2014-02-08 02:54:49 AM  

MorrisBird: Why is this any of our business?  It does not appear to be, at least to me.  I enjoy Woody's movies.  I'll continue to watch them.


Well first, it's being fought in the court of public opinion on both sides. We're the public.

And secondly, since when haven't we talked about the weird sex lives of celebrities?
 
2014-02-08 02:55:41 AM  

MorrisBird: Why is this any of our business?  It does not appear to be, at least to me.  I enjoy Woody's movies.  I'll continue to watch them.


How dare you, Alec Baldwin! This is an outrage! #ShowbizTot
 
2014-02-08 02:57:57 AM  

Revmachine21: Add in persistant allegations from Dylan, the alleged victim


persistent? you mean twice. once 20 years ago during the custody dispute, and this "letter" she sent to media outlets.
 
2014-02-08 03:00:17 AM  

Confabulat: Well first, it's being fought in the court of public opinion on both sides.


Yep.  I still can't care.  Apt natural.
 
2014-02-08 03:01:35 AM  
This is all going to make for a great Broadway musical.
 
2014-02-08 03:04:42 AM  
Weird letter. The issue of Woody Allen being a pedophile or not is probably not going to be settled until after he's dead and his new kids are old enough to sell tell-all books. What I took away from his response is how much hate he has for Mia & Co.

Casting aspersions on Ronan's parentage, attacking Mia instead of defending himself, being pissy about the multiple allegations in Vanity Fair, whining about the public giving him shiat for Soon-Yi, dragging another family member (Moses) onto his side, carrying a grudge for a judge 20 years ago and claiming he never really was close with the kids to begin with. It's somehow a disproportionate response to even being unjustifiably labeled a child molester. Woody might not be a pedophile but we've got concrete proof that he's an asshole.

I'm content to let this story die and give him the Michael Jackson treatment. This is my stop.
 
2014-02-08 03:05:41 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: This is all going to make for a great Broadway musical.


"The Wood"
 
2014-02-08 03:10:02 AM  
I don't care. His films suck.
 
2014-02-08 03:10:25 AM  

Darth Macho: Casting aspersions on Ronan's parentage


Mia did that. As does anyone who looks at the guy.

Darth Macho: dragging another family member (Moses) onto his side


Moses did that. There was even a Fark link from him a few days ago.

If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat. I loved that he mentioned the song from the ex-wife of the guy Mia was fooling around with.

You better believe there is some bitterness there, and I can't blame either side for that one.
 
2014-02-08 03:13:28 AM  

bentleypm: The Woody doth pretest too much, methinks.


 One single one-page statement over the entirety of the more than two decades this accusation has been constantly and very publicly directed at him, and that counts as "too much"?
 Seriously?

/I think now we know who Mia Farrow's alt is here.
 
2014-02-08 03:14:40 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Revmachine21: he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing

Appears? Where?


I count the following pic as having a hand in rearing. Maybe a light, sometimes-hand in the rearing, but rearing none-the-less. Admittedly this pic is not of his current wife, rather Dylan, however I think that he's doing something like this with any of the kids in that family shows that he was taking on an adult paternalistic role within Mia's family. And that should extend to any child in the family unit, not just the one in his lap.

resources1.news.com.au

And here him at least being around Soon Yi when she was youngish and in clearly a family oriented setting. And clearly with the mom in a boyfriend role.

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2014-02-08 03:16:11 AM  

log_jammin: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: And in general (not just this list),  I call bullshiat on the suggestion that a family with complicated relationships or unorthodox living arrangements somehow isn't a "real" family, or that long-term partners who haven't legally wed must somehow be less of a couple. Woody wasn't some "boyfriend" these kids' mom brought home a couple of times; their lives were heavily intertwined for years.

no one said they weren't a "real" family, or they were less of a couple. and yes, he was some "boyfriend". lives were heavily intertwined or not. it's just what he was.



"Boyfriend" covers a lot of territory, and that ambiguity and the fact that Woody and Mia weren't legally married is being used to obscure the situation that, in the words of the 1991 NYT article, "Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does. He is there before they wake up in the morning, he sees them during the day and he helps put them to bed at night." (This is presumably talking about the younger kids, not Soon-Yi, of course.)

It is a meaningless pedantic quibble to point out that he and Mia were not married de jure, when the question of creepiness hangs on their de facto relationship.
 
2014-02-08 03:17:58 AM  

log_jammin: Lenny_da_Hog: This is all going to make for a great Broadway musical.

"The Wood"


Not a musical, but weirdly appropriate, perhaps. Given the title and subject matter.
 
2014-02-08 03:18:19 AM  

Revmachine21: I count the following pic as having a hand in rearing.


apparently you don't have kids, but I'll let you in on a secret... posing for a picture is not the same as raising a child.
 
2014-02-08 03:20:47 AM  
I dunno.  Initially, I'm kind of inclined with the logic of "why would you believe the allegations of an ex during a breakup..."


But pretty much anyone that spends so much time insisting that a lie-detector test proves them right and their accusers wrong is definitively lying their ass off about something, since that shiat is the wooiest of pseudoscientific woo and pretty much everyone knows it.  So he's trying to cover for  something, though it may not be the abuse accusation.  Probably the underaged girlfriend thing.
 
2014-02-08 03:21:26 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Revmachine21: he appears to have had a sometimes-hand in the rearing

Appears? Where?


And again, in the boyfriend role with the larger family on what appears to be a fun family holiday:

img.spokeo.com
 
2014-02-08 03:21:56 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: He is still all time creepy for leaving the mother for her adopted daughter (even though she was of age at the time).  That's a special kind of asshole right there.


Underlyingly this.  No matter what happens, what comes out and how....it's still this weasel justifying his actions with "the heart wants what it wants."

Molester?  Maybe, maybe not.

Creepy?  Hells yes.

So, go make movies to serve as a counter-point to what is justification of perhaps one of the creepiest things he could have done.  Keep making them and maybe everyone will forget.

Or maybe admit you were just being creepy, and probably still are.
 
2014-02-08 03:22:53 AM  

DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?


Except one side stood the rigors of a police investigation, a polygraph exam, annd the other side is Mia Farrow.
 
2014-02-08 03:23:35 AM  

Revmachine21: Admittedly


Dylan was Allen's adopted daughter. Soon-Yi was Andre Previn's adopted daughter, whom she stayed with.

Anything you divine from that second pic is in your head.
 
2014-02-08 03:24:24 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "Boyfriend" covers a lot of territory, and that ambiguity and the fact that Woody and Mia weren't legally married is being used to obscure the situation


It covers no more territory, and is no more ambiguous than the word "husband".

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "Few married couples seem more married. They are constantly in touch with each other, and not many fathers spend as much time with their children as Allen does. He is there before they wake up in the morning, he sees them during the day and he helps put them to bed at night."


whoever wrote that must have a limited experience in relationships.

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: It is a meaningless pedantic quibble to point out that he and Mia were not married de jure, when the question of creepiness hangs on their de facto relationship.


it's not a quibble. it's just a fact.
 
2014-02-08 03:25:20 AM  

Revmachine21: And again, in the boyfriend role with the larger family on what appears to be a fun family holiday:


what point do you think you're making?
 
2014-02-08 03:25:49 AM  
Huh.
 
2014-02-08 03:29:11 AM  
Mia Farrow believers are one step lower than 9/11 Truthers
 
2014-02-08 03:33:23 AM  

Confabulat: If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat.


You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery and used his moment to leap into the mud pit and slur the opposition like his frankly irrationally angry contingent of online defenders? If anything, I'm disappointed he's shown such a venal and self-serving character.
 
2014-02-08 03:33:56 AM  

log_jammin: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: "
Monkeyfark Ridiculous: It is a meaningless pedantic quibble to point out that he and Mia were not married de jure, when the question of creepiness hangs on their de facto relationship.

it's not a quibble. it's just a fact.



It is a fact, and pointing it out in response to someone saying that he married his stepdaughter is a meaningless pedantic quibble.
 
2014-02-08 03:35:53 AM  
I'm a bastard.  Dylan's a bastard.  You're a bastard.  We're all bastards.  Wouldn't you like to be a bastard too?  Bastard is a word and an insult whose time has passed.
 
2014-02-08 03:36:39 AM  

Darth Macho: Confabulat: If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat.

You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery and used his moment to leap into the mud pit and slur the opposition like his frankly irrationally angry contingent of online defenders? If anything, I'm disappointed he's shown such a venal and self-serving character.


Well Mia called him that, Woody was responding to it.
 
2014-02-08 03:37:39 AM  

cretinbob: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Except one side stood the rigors of a police investigation, a polygraph exam, annd the other side is Mia Farrow.


No. Why do people keep repeating this lie? The prosecutor Frank Maco maintains, (as a result of the police investigation you're referring to) to this day, he thought he had enough evidence to go to trial. He believed her, still does. He also still maintains that Dylan was too "fragile" (his words) to be put through anymore exams, probing questions, and psychological agony. You know, the kind of thing that happens when a child is not only abused, but disbelieved as well.

Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20782501,00.html

Oh, and Woody Allen did his best to destroy the guy professionally, and failed to show (and upheld despite two appeals by Allene) that there had been any prosecutorial misconduct. Look it up.
 
2014-02-08 03:39:19 AM  

Confabulat: Darth Macho: Confabulat: If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat.

You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery and used his moment to leap into the mud pit and slur the opposition like his frankly irrationally angry contingent of online defenders? If anything, I'm disappointed he's shown such a venal and self-serving character.

Well Mia called him that, Woody was responding to it.


Yeah but he didn't have to repeat it. Jumping into the mud pit after your opponent isn't a mark of good character.
 
2014-02-08 03:39:30 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Revmachine21: Admittedly

Anything you divine from that second pic is in your head.


log_jammin: Revmachine21: And again, in the boyfriend role with the larger family on what appears to be a fun family holiday:

what point do you think you're making?



I'm making the point that he skeeves me out because he started up with a girlfriend/ex-girlfriend's adopted kid after having been invited into the family unit in the role of "mom's boyfriend". There are a ton of photos of him holding her kids, in posed and unposed settings (I've found enough already, you can check Google images on your own without my help), in NYC and overseas. I don't care that he wasn't married to Mia. I don't care that he hadn't adopted Soon Yi. Even after excluding all the rumors, it's skeevey. Slimy. Gross.

Yes, it's in my head. And in a lot of other peoples' too and it colors his art and will cloud his legacy.

He clearly shiat the nest when he decided to bang Soon Yi. Don't want a messy life? Don't do messy things... simple.
 
2014-02-08 03:39:49 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: It is a fact, and pointing it out in response to someone saying that he married his stepdaughter is a meaningless pedantic quibble.


whatever.
 
2014-02-08 03:43:11 AM  

Revmachine21: I'm making the point that he skeeves me out because he started up with a girlfriend/ex-girlfriend's adopted kid after having been invited into the family unit in the role of "mom's boyfriend".


no one cares if it "skeeves you out", and everyone already knows he's married to his ex girlfriend's adopted kid.

so again...what do you think those pictures prove?
 
2014-02-08 03:43:20 AM  

Jim_Callahan: I dunno.  Initially, I'm kind of inclined with the logic of "why would you believe the allegations of an ex during a breakup..."


But pretty much anyone that spends so much time insisting that a lie-detector test proves them right and their accusers wrong is definitively lying their ass off about something, since that shiat is the wooiest of pseudoscientific woo and pretty much everyone knows it.  So he's trying to cover for  something, though it may not be the abuse accusation.  Probably the underaged girlfriend thing.


Especially when he states that he "took a lie detector test", but conveniently omits that he refused testing by the State Police, and had the test run by his own hired people. That sort of "true lie", smacks to me of calculation - and casts doubt on everything he says. I don't know what he's lying about - but i know he intends to deceive - about something.
 
2014-02-08 03:44:14 AM  

abfab: cretinbob: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Except one side stood the rigors of a police investigation, a polygraph exam, annd the other side is Mia Farrow.

No. Why do people keep repeating this lie? The prosecutor Frank Maco maintains, (as a result of the police investigation you're referring to) to this day, he thought he had enough evidence to go to trial. He believed her, still does. He also still maintains that Dylan was too "fragile" (his words) to be put through anymore exams, probing questions, and psychological agony. You know, the kind of thing that happens when a child is not only abused, but disbelieved as well.

Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20782501,00.html

Oh, and Woody Allen did his best to destroy the guy professionally, and failed to show (and upheld despite two appeals by Allene) that there had been any prosecutorial misconduct. Look it up.


Watch "The Hunted."  It's on NetFlix.  Good movie.
 
2014-02-08 03:46:37 AM  

ctrlshiftspace: Is Writerly Redoubt trying to be Meow Said the Dog?


That was my thought as well. Doing a profoundly lame job at it, I might add.
 
2014-02-08 03:47:43 AM  

abfab: cretinbob: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 1 0-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Except one side stood the rigors of a police investigation, a polygraph exam, annd the other side is Mia Farrow.

No. Why do people keep repeating this lie? The prosecutor Frank Maco maintains, (as a result of the police investigation you're referring to) to this day, he thought he had enough evidence to go to trial. He believed her, still does. He also still maintains that Dylan was too "fragile" (his words) to be put through anymore exams, probing questions, and psychological agony. You know, the kind of thing that happens when a child is not only abused, but disbelieved as well.

Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20782501,00.html

Oh, and Woody Allen did his best to destroy the guy professionally, and failed to show (and upheld despite two appeals by Allene) that there had been any prosecutorial misconduct. Look it up.


what lie?

he was investigated and never charged with a crime.

"well I could have charged him..." does not make it a lie that Allen was investigated and the prosecutor refused to file charges.
 
2014-02-08 03:51:23 AM  
Woody's been married to Soon-Yi Previn for nearly 20 years. She certainly hasn't seemed to play the part of a victim.
 
2014-02-08 03:54:48 AM  

Confabulat: Woody's been married to Soon-Yi Previn for nearly 20 years. She certainly hasn't seemed to play the part of a victim.


Stockholm Syndrome!
 
2014-02-08 03:55:58 AM  

Darth Macho: Confabulat: Darth Macho: Confabulat: If anything, I'm glad Woody put out all the crazy shiat.

You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery and used his moment to leap into the mud pit and slur the opposition like his frankly irrationally angry contingent of online defenders? If anything, I'm disappointed he's shown such a venal and self-serving character.

Well Mia called him that, Woody was responding to it.

Yeah but he didn't have to repeat it. Jumping into the mud pit after your opponent isn't a mark of good character.


Given that she brought it out in the open, and having seen pictures of him, it seems rather like acknowledging the obvious. Does he look remotely as though Allen is his biological father to you? If you want to be offended by him mentioning it, carry on, but it seems a bit graspy.
 
2014-02-08 03:56:22 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Confabulat: Woody's been married to Soon-Yi Previn for nearly 20 years. She certainly hasn't seemed to play the part of a victim.

Stockholm Syndrome!


ha why not. Since we're all just making up shiat about these people anyway. None of us really have a clue.
 
2014-02-08 03:58:13 AM  

Confabulat: Lenny_da_Hog: Confabulat: Woody's been married to Soon-Yi Previn for nearly 20 years. She certainly hasn't seemed to play the part of a victim.

Stockholm Syndrome!

ha why not. Since we're all just making up shiat about these people anyway. None of us really have a clue.


None of them strike me as believable.
 
2014-02-08 03:58:50 AM  
what's the statute of limitations on child molesting?

If the prosecutor didn't want to harm the child with a court case, why can't they just file now?
 
2014-02-08 03:59:31 AM  
I have a clue!  It's wheat.  Fields and fields of wheat.
 
2014-02-08 04:00:51 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Mark Ratner: Writerly Redoubt: I see you.

You don't see me.

Welcome to FARK.

;)

I see you. Are you drunk or off your meds? Or both? Cheers.

Neither, you?

Dog gnaws?

P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that? I am. Ready?


Indubitably?
 
2014-02-08 04:01:17 AM  

jso2897: Especially when he states that he "took a lie detector test", but conveniently omits that he refused testing by the State Police, and had the test run by his own hired people. That sort of "true lie", smacks to me of calculation - and casts doubt on everything he says. I don't know what he's lying about - but i know he intends to deceive - about something.


 is there evidence that his test was rigged or something? I don't see the issue.
 
2014-02-08 04:01:18 AM  

log_jammin: what's the statute of limitations on child molesting?

If the prosecutor didn't want to harm the child with a court case, why can't they just file now?


Statute of limitations has done come and gone.  But, other than that, if it's true, they really blew it.
 
2014-02-08 04:01:24 AM  

log_jammin: Revmachine21: I'm making the point that he skeeves me out because he started up with a girlfriend/ex-girlfriend's adopted kid after having been invited into the family unit in the role of "mom's boyfriend".

no one cares if it "skeeves you out", and everyone already knows he's married to his ex girlfriend's adopted kid.

so again...what do you think those pictures prove?



I do not require anybody's validation of my assessment on Woody Allen's character. If nobody cares that Woody Allen skeeves me out, I am totally fine with that. Even if "everybody already knows he's married to his ex-girlfriend's adopted kid" that doesn't mean that everybody agrees it was acceptable behavior or that it should be emulated by others. By my measurement, he is deficient in character.

Those pictures prove that he was personally involved in Mia's family. He held her kids' hands, carried them around town, and he visited places with them. I don't just think this; he was there and the pictures show it.


Those poor siblings... first he banged their mom; then he banged their sister. What a mess.
 
2014-02-08 04:02:23 AM  

MorrisBird: I have a clue!  It's wheat.  Fields and fields of wheat.


heh
 
2014-02-08 04:03:53 AM  

MorrisBird: Statute of limitations has done come and gone.  But, other than that, if it's true, they really blew it.


I thought it was long time for child molestation. i shouldn't be surprised that it's not.
 
2014-02-08 04:04:53 AM  

DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?


Reminds me of that Indubitably guy that used to say weird stuff and post all the time and then just disappeared.
 
2014-02-08 04:08:11 AM  

log_jammin: MorrisBird: Statute of limitations has done come and gone.  But, other than that, if it's true, they really blew it.

I thought it was long time for child molestation. i shouldn't be surprised that it's not.


You should not have eaten the salmon mousse, my friend.
 
2014-02-08 04:08:34 AM  

Revmachine21: Even if "everybody already knows he's married to his ex-girlfriend's adopted kid" that doesn't mean that everybody agrees it was acceptable behavior or that it should be emulated by others.


who said it was acceptable behavior or that it should be emulated by others.

Revmachine21: Those pictures prove that he was personally involved in Mia's family.


no one said he was never involved with mia's family.

what was said was....until 1990 (when Soon-Yi was 18 or 20), Woody "had little to do with any of the Previn children, (but) had the least to do with Soon-Yi"

Know who said that? Mia.
 
2014-02-08 04:10:27 AM  

ransack.: DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

Reminds me of that Indubitably guy that used to say weird stuff and post all the time and then just disappeared.


I'd bet on it. The cadence of the posts is the same, among other things.

;)
 
2014-02-08 04:34:05 AM  
THIS is why you don't stick your dick in crazy. Not even once.
 
2014-02-08 04:41:35 AM  
cbskroq2.files.wordpress.com

Approves
 
2014-02-08 04:46:18 AM  
He's innocent! That's not my opinion but the opinion of the fine, upstanding fellows Polanski, Townsend, Glitter, Garrido and Fritzl.
 
2014-02-08 04:49:10 AM  

Yes this is dog: ransack.: DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

Reminds me of that Indubitably guy that used to say weird stuff and post all the time and then just disappeared.

I'd bet on it. The cadence of the posts is the same, among other things.

;)


The mods hired him to annoy people who get OCD about what goes on on "their" forum.
 
2014-02-08 04:55:16 AM  
Rape rape rape rape rape rape rape.

/genius
 
2014-02-08 04:58:36 AM  

suicide: Rape rape rape rape rape rape rape.

/genius


You said "rape" seven times.
You can't explain that.
 
2014-02-08 04:59:28 AM  

jso2897: suicide: Rape rape rape rape rape rape rape.

/genius

You said "rape" seven times.
You can't explain that.


Give me 20 years.
 
2014-02-08 05:01:59 AM  

Gobobo: He's innocent! That's not my opinion but the opinion of the fine, upstanding fellows Polanski, Townsend, Glitter, Garrido and Fritzl.


Fun fact: Mia thinks Polanski is innocent and has testified in his defense.
 
2014-02-08 05:14:47 AM  
I've never thought that any of Mia's kids look particularly happy.  I understand she thought she was doing something nice by adopting so many kids, but 13 kids is a lot for a mostly single mom (with perplexingly broken relationships with all the men in her life).  She could have helped other people with less money, who don't have kids but want to adopt, to adopt a couple of kids each.

It's hard to be adopted and not from the same ethnic background as your mom and dad (at least it was for me, though I've gotten over it and love them to pieces, there are parts of it that are strange).  I can't imagine feeling secure in that motley crue Mia created (read any biography of her for more details).

Woody has always been a neurotic mess and was clearly blindsided by these accusations.  I always thought he looked uncomfortable around the kids in the manner of a man who didn't really like kids.  That's not to say he couldn't sexualize a child, but the kinds of patterns usually seen in men who do that kind of thing...well, Woody likes 17 year old girls, surely, but....7  year olds?  And the fact that Mia's brother is a convicted child molester is peculiar.   Wouldn't be the first time a sexualized child implicated an innocent person in an accusation based on vague memories.  Terribly sad for Dylan, and this whole new "I had sex with Frank Sinatra and passed the kid off as Woody's" is just another of Mia's revenge moves.  She cannot let it go.

Mia needs to stop stirring the pot.
 
2014-02-08 05:30:37 AM  

suicide: jso2897: suicide: Rape rape rape rape rape rape rape.

/genius

You said "rape" seven times.
You can't explain that.

Give me 20 years.


Hey, I'm no judge! :D
 
2014-02-08 05:33:17 AM  

Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Well said, Woody.

Too credit...

Welcome back.

Gotcha?

No, really. I remember you. I just don't remember your other name

Two shiats...

Yeah, anyway, I was being sincere. I recall your ...poetic demeanor and style quite specifically from a few years back here in Farkland. It could be no one else, but the alt still eludes me. I read too much, too fast.


It's definitely Indubitably, I remember him as well
 
2014-02-08 05:36:29 AM  

Mad_Radhu: THIS is why you don't stick your dick in crazy. Not even once.


They are all crazy when the relationship ends.
 
2014-02-08 05:48:20 AM  

Writerly Redoubt: Mark Ratner: Writerly Redoubt: I see you.

You don't see me.

Welcome to FARK.

;)

I see you. Are you drunk or off your meds? Or both? Cheers.

Neither, you?

Dog gnaws?

P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that? I am. Ready?


Yeah Indubitably did lots of P.S. too. I know it is you.
 
2014-02-08 06:10:06 AM  

Atypical Person Reading Fark: I've never thought that any of Mia's kids look particularly happy.  I understand she thought she was doing something nice by adopting so many kids, but 13 kids is a lot for a mostly single mom (with perplexingly broken relationships with all the men in her life).  She could have helped other people with less money, who don't have kids but want to adopt, to adopt a couple of kids each.

It's hard to be adopted and not from the same ethnic background as your mom and dad (at least it was for me, though I've gotten over it and love them to pieces, there are parts of it that are strange).  I can't imagine feeling secure in that motley crue Mia created (read any biography of her for more details).

Woody has always been a neurotic mess and was clearly blindsided by these accusations.  I always thought he looked uncomfortable around the kids in the manner of a man who didn't really like kids.  That's not to say he couldn't sexualize a child, but the kinds of patterns usually seen in men who do that kind of thing...well, Woody likes 17 year old girls, surely, but....7  year olds?  And the fact that Mia's brother is a convicted child molester is peculiar.   Wouldn't be the first time a sexualized child implicated an innocent person in an accusation based on vague memories.  Terribly sad for Dylan, and this whole new "I had sex with Frank Sinatra and passed the kid off as Woody's" is just another of Mia's revenge moves.  She cannot let it go.

Mia needs to stop stirring the pot.


I don't think any of the kids really look abnormally unhappy except for Dylan. Most kids are semi-freaked out by little known relatives snapping shots of them, so I imagine paparazzi are going to make them uncomfortable too unless they see them all the time like the Goslin kids. But, while I have no idea if he molested her or not, in private family non-paparazzi pictures you can see that Dylan is very unhappy whenever Woody is holding her. If he didn't molest her, I think he still must have made her uncomfortable.
 
2014-02-08 06:10:38 AM  

ransack.: Writerly Redoubt: Mark Ratner: Writerly Redoubt: I see you.

You don't see me.

Welcome to FARK.

;)

I see you. Are you drunk or off your meds? Or both? Cheers.

Neither, you?

Dog gnaws?

P.S. Shall I bite you? Are you ready for my teeth? For I will tear your flesh, rend you, and leave you bereft of blood: are you ready for that? I am. Ready?

Yeah Indubitably did lots of P.S. too. I know it is you.


I wonder how long before Writerly starts replying to himself like 5 times in a row.
 
2014-02-08 06:37:28 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: DrBenway: For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

I think it's Mr. I'm Not Replying To Him And I Don't Know Why Anyone Else Would Either.


Heh, I had him farkied as "Wanna Prose Troll"
 
2014-02-08 07:11:58 AM  
Of course we'll never know,  but I'm going with Woody here.  He has no prior or since allegations. The fact that Mia refused the lie detector test and that everyone involved who wasn't of a single digit in age says she was openly and viscously manipulative speaks volumes to me. If my instinct is right, It's a terrible thing that she did...
 
2014-02-08 07:13:29 AM  

DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?


Pretty clearly the same person who operated the Indubitably account. By the time that one finally petered out, almost nobody ever responded to it (except for itself). Maybe this one will go the same way, and quickly.
 
2014-02-08 07:20:31 AM  
The PR team that wrote this farked up. Right after quoting the magical report, they failed to resume first person vioce:

"Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow."

That typo cost them all credibility. If Woody Allen personally wrote this, I'll eat my hat.

This is nothing less than a powerful, evil old man using thugs to caricature his victims as hysterical, unreliable, irrational females out to get him. Despicable.
 
2014-02-08 07:23:12 AM  

willfullyobscure: The PR team that wrote this farked up


Woody Allen writes and directs a movie a year, and has done so since I was a kid.

You think he can't write a page?
 
2014-02-08 07:25:10 AM  

willfullyobscure: The PR team that wrote this farked up. Right after quoting the magical report, they failed to resume first person vioce:

"Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow."

That typo cost them all credibility. If Woody Allen personally wrote this, I'll eat my hat.

This is nothing less than a powerful, evil old man using thugs to caricature his victims as hysterical, unreliable, irrational females out to get him. Despicable.


It's continuing in the same voice the investigators were using in the paragraph above, and alluding to those findings. That's very common.

"Mr. Allen... Mr. Allen... Mr. Allen..." Can it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan, that's what they're saying.
 
2014-02-08 07:29:33 AM  

willfullyobscure: The PR team that wrote this farked up. Right after quoting the magical report, they failed to resume first person vioce:

"Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow."

That typo cost them all credibility. If Woody Allen personally wrote this, I'll eat my hat.

This is nothing less than a powerful, evil old man using thugs to caricature his victims as hysterical, unreliable, irrational females out to get him. Despicable.


hilarious!
 
2014-02-08 07:42:00 AM  

jonnya: Of course we'll never know,  but I'm going with Woody here.  He has no prior or since allegations. The fact that Mia refused the lie detector test and that everyone involved who wasn't of a single digit in age says she was openly and viscously manipulative speaks volumes to me. If my instinct is right, It's a terrible thing that she did...


THIS

I scanned through the comments after reading Allen's response and noticed that it seemed to attract only perverts and non-readers. And there are probably a few furries here as well. Glad to finally read your post.

There is a certain type of woman who flips a switch when approaching the back nine. Any child present when that switch goes off becomes an immediate tool of pain and destruction. I think Mia is one of those women.
 
2014-02-08 08:08:19 AM  

Fallout Boy: NobleHam: Writerly Redoubt: mrlewish: Keep farking that chicken Mia
[www.craveonline.com image 658x370]

Keep minimizing sexualization of children, perp.

Isn't making false accusations of sexual molestation of children a bit more harmful to the cause?

There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are false. There isnt any evidence so far that the accusations are true either, but the point here is that the ridiculing and shaming of people speaking up really needs to stop.


There's actually plenty of evidence that the accusations are false:

1) No medical proof of any molestation.
2) Independent finding by expert psychologists employed by the court that the story Dylan told was false/coached.
3) Testimony by Mia's nanny's that Woody was never alone with Dylan, or out of their sight long enough to do anything to her.

Look, I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt when they say they have been sexually assaulted. The court certainly did. They did everything in their power to verify the claims and gather evidence for the prosecution. At the end of the day however, there was nothing to collaborate Dylan's story. The only logical conclusion is that no molestation actually occurred.

Occam's Razor people.
 
2014-02-08 08:09:50 AM  

chiett: The guy marries his what 10 year old adopted daughter and he expects people to believe he didn't make a run on the other child available to him...................Please.

And Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile either.

Yeah ... Sure.


Now at least I know who's keeping Nancy Grace on TV.
 
2014-02-08 08:10:36 AM  
Dylan's the big loser in this. If it happened or not, her parents are still Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.
 
2014-02-08 08:12:55 AM  

abfab: Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.


What even your source states is that the girl's testimony was his only piece of evidence.

Excerpt from your link:

Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.

None.  Zero other evidence which any other expert could testify about with any confidence.  Not even a psychologist that believed the girl's story was true.

When the accuser is the only thing you can put on the stand, you do not have a case, period.  No matter how much you believe her, or how much she believes herself, it's still a he/she said with zero tangible evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty after all, not innocent until accused, then get out the torches and pitchforks and learn how to tie a noose.

/managed the whole thread up to this bullshiat
//that kind of misinformation doesn't convince anyone, it just cries out to be shut down
 
2014-02-08 08:13:35 AM  

Enigmamf: DamnYankees: Does anyone actually know why Dylan Farrow wrote that article? What was it apropos of? Seems like a pretty random thing to just bring up 20 years after the fact. Not saying she was wrong to do it, I'm just wondering what motivated it.

Because when you have suffered abuse, the ghosts of the trauma overbearing, psychotic, abusive mother never leaves you?


Quite possibly fixed.
 
2014-02-08 08:23:40 AM  
Writerly Redoubt:
Nice, but the preponderance of evidence supercedes your libelous bullshiatly, so perp, then?

P.S. I write well, regardless of your over-educated thievery; if I suck so much, why do you steal my words?


Shut the fark up, dumbass. It's not all about you, and you're not the least bit clever. You don't write well, either. You're just in love with the sound of your voice.

Here's your participation trophy -- now, f*ck off.
 
2014-02-08 08:39:16 AM  

omeganuepsilon: abfab: Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

What even your source states is that the girl's testimony was his only piece of evidence.

Excerpt from your link:

Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.

None.  Zero other evidence which any other expert could testify about with any confidence.  Not even a psychologist that believed the girl's story was true.

When the accuser is the only thing you can put on the stand, you do not have a case, period.  No matter how much you believe her, or how much she believes herself, it's still a he/she said with zero tangible evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty after all, not innocent until accused, then get out the torches and pitchforks and learn how to tie a noose.

/managed the whole thread up to this bullshiat
//that kind of misinformation doesn't convince anyone, it just cries out to be shut down


I think dylan was probably molested by Mia's brother. It is pretty clear from the evidence that Woody didn't do anything in the time frame given; however, Mia's brother was a kiddie diddler and Dylan is pretty screwed up. Maybe Mia cooked the whole thing up to explain the damage to Dylan after Dylan's uncle abused her.
 
2014-02-08 08:39:48 AM  

jso2897: Jim_Callahan: I dunno.  Initially, I'm kind of inclined with the logic of "why would you believe the allegations of an ex during a breakup..."


But pretty much anyone that spends so much time insisting that a lie-detector test proves them right and their accusers wrong is definitively lying their ass off about something, since that shiat is the wooiest of pseudoscientific woo and pretty much everyone knows it.  So he's trying to cover for  something, though it may not be the abuse accusation.  Probably the underaged girlfriend thing.

Especially when he states that he "took a lie detector test", but conveniently omits that he refused testing by the State Police, and had the test run by his own hired people. That sort of "true lie", smacks to me of calculation - and casts doubt on everything he says. I don't know what he's lying about - but i know he intends to deceive - about something.


You are both operating on some rather grand assumptions and non-sequiturs.

1. Not everyone know's about them, especially not 20 years ago. A lot of people are not that well informed or are not so intelligent as to figure it out for themselves. Nice that you have dreams that humanity is that evenly and absolutely informed, but that is all it is, a fantasy.

Either he's
A) Ignorant of that the same as a great many people are; or
B) A very conniving liar smoothly manipulating the system, a mindset that doesn't mesh with his known awkwardness
/apply Occam


2. So he's bad for refusing a lie detector from the police. In an age where we're told to never speak to police, but only to our lawyers. You never discuss things directly with the police, even if they seem like innocent conversations. They are out to get you. That's not paranoia, that is their job. If they think you did it, they will attempt to prove it. Thankfully, we don't convict on hunches very much.(though we still do and it's disturbing each and every time)
/and yes, that was applicable 20 years ago. Given Woody's well known insecurities, it makes sense to find a trusted party to administer a test, no cool calculation needed.

3. If it's so easy to fake one, Mia rejected the idea completely, correct? See, the argument fails because you can't argue both sides of the fence.

Fact is, lie detectors can be manipulated two ways, by the people administering and the testee. It's much easier for someone to force someone to fail than it is to force yourself to pass. It's the nature of many things, the more experience you have with a thing, the easier it is to manipulate. Most average people don't have the practice, police do. That is why they're viewed in such poor light.

Of course, claiming that everyone know's everything about them means you do too, so you knew that, right?
desertpeace.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-08 08:50:15 AM  

ChrisDe: Dylan's the big loser in this. If it happened or not, her parents are still Woody Allen and Mia Farrow.


The sad part is, the one person I think is being most honest is Dylan. Now, I don't know what actually happened, but I believe that she truly remembers being molested. Whether that memory has been 'implanted' by Mia or not, I don't know. But I do believe Dylan believes, and has had to carry that burden through her life.
 
2014-02-08 08:51:46 AM  

zeroman987: Maybe Mia cooked the whole thing up to explain the damage to Dylan after Dylan's uncle abused her.


Possibly. I really don't know either way, the only thing the evidence convinces me of is that Mia is a bunny boiler.

Her history for crazed relationships, Dory Previn's convenient song(that came out 20 years prior to any accusations against Allen) about Daddy in the attic(and the karma/ironic one about Mia stealing a husband...really Soon Yi was her mothers daughter in that regard), The Valentine's day card.  The timing of everything(accusation months after the breakup are prime time for vengeful untruths, seeing Woody happy later in life).  It smacks of not justice, but furious vengeance.

I'm fairly convinced that Woody never spent time alone with Dylan in the attic.

Witnesses that say it never happened, his known claustrophobia, chief among the reasons.

Yeah, he's weird or kooky, but not "creepy".  He's awkward, nervous, neurotic, and shy, not smooth and conniving and calculating.  At a rough glance he's a good target for false accusations(to the ignorant and prejudice), but when you look at the details, he doesn't really fit the descriptions necessary to believe the grander tale.

Occam wins this one, imo.
 
2014-02-08 08:54:31 AM  

omeganuepsilon: jso2897: Jim_Callahan: I dunno.  Initially, I'm kind of inclined with the logic of "why would you believe the allegations of an ex during a breakup..."


But pretty much anyone that spends so much time insisting that a lie-detector test proves them right and their accusers wrong is definitively lying their ass off about something, since that shiat is the wooiest of pseudoscientific woo and pretty much everyone knows it.  So he's trying to cover for  something, though it may not be the abuse accusation.  Probably the underaged girlfriend thing.

Especially when he states that he "took a lie detector test", but conveniently omits that he refused testing by the State Police, and had the test run by his own hired people. That sort of "true lie", smacks to me of calculation - and casts doubt on everything he says. I don't know what he's lying about - but i know he intends to deceive - about something.

You are both operating on some rather grand assumptions and non-sequiturs.

1. Not everyone know's about them, especially not 20 years ago. A lot of people are not that well informed or are not so intelligent as to figure it out for themselves. Nice that you have dreams that humanity is that evenly and absolutely informed, but that is all it is, a fantasy.

Either he's
A) Ignorant of that the same as a great many people are; or
B) A very conniving liar smoothly manipulating the system, a mindset that doesn't mesh with his known awkwardness
/apply Occam


2. So he's bad for refusing a lie detector from the police. In an age where we're told to never speak to police, but only to our lawyers. You never discuss things directly with the police, even if they seem like innocent conversations. They are out to get you. That's not paranoia, that is their job. If they think you did it, they will attempt to prove it. Thankfully, we don't convict on hunches very much.(though we still do and it's disturbing each and every time)
/and yes, that was applicable 20 years ago. Give ...


I don't know what you think is going on here - Cambridge debating society, maybe?
We are just some assholes on Fark amusing ourselves with conjecture, and I , at least, have no axe to grind or opinion about this beyond finding none of the parties involved trustworthy. You, yourself, are just such another asshole on Fark - like me. Your conjecture is worth precisely the same amount per pound that mine is. Which ain't much.
Don't give yourself airs - you've nothing to feel superior about.
 
2014-02-08 09:03:26 AM  

jso2897: I don't know what you think is going on here - Cambridge debating society, maybe?
We are just some assholes on Fark amusing ourselves with conjecture, and I , at least, have no axe to grind or opinion about this beyond finding none of the parties involved trustworthy. You, yourself, are just such another asshole on Fark - like me. Your conjecture is worth precisely the same amount per pound that mine is. Which ain't much.
Don't give yourself airs - you've nothing to feel superior about.


Lemme guess, I pissed in your wheaties in some other thread and you're going all Mia on me?

Because, I find it odd that you'd project that I care more than you do, that i feel superior, even as you call me out as if you're superior.  Hypocrisy, plain as day.
 
2014-02-08 09:04:44 AM  

ransack.: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Writerly Redoubt: Hector Remarkable: Well said, Woody.

Too credit...

Welcome back.

Gotcha?

No, really. I remember you. I just don't remember your other name

Two shiats...

Yeah, anyway, I was being sincere. I recall your ...poetic demeanor and style quite specifically from a few years back here in Farkland. It could be no one else, but the alt still eludes me. I read too much, too fast.

It's definitely Indubitably, I remember him as well


It's either Indubitably, or we found Bjork's Fark handle.
 
2014-02-08 09:19:21 AM  
 
2014-02-08 09:24:07 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: 10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation


log_jammin: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.

I read the link. it's just a hit piece.

I'll give you one example.

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

you know what that should say instead?

3. Allen passed a polygraph test. Mia never took one.

That is a "fact". what the writer wrote was innuendo.

 
2014-02-08 09:36:56 AM  

log_jammin: Dusk-You-n-Me: 10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation

log_jammin: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: Blech. Classic he-said she-said. To me, this op-ed is pretty convincing. But then, when I read an op-ed from someone on Farrow's side (like this one:  http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/02/woody-allen-sex-abuse- 10-facts), that's pretty convincing to.

The one thing which does confuse me the most is just the basic implausibility that Allen would do this one time, at age 58, and has never done it before or since. As far as I'm aware, no one's ever accused him of doing this before or after. Maybe I don't know enough, but isnt that bizarre for someone who's supposedly a pedophile?

Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.

I read the link. it's just a hit piece.

I'll give you one example.

3.   Allen refused to take a polygraph administered by the Connecticut state police.Instead, he took one from someone hired by his legal team. The Connecticut state police refused to accept the test as evidence. The state attorney, Frank Maco, says that Mia was never asked to take a lie-detector test during the investigation.

you know what that should say instead?

3. Allen passed a polygraph test. Mia never took one.

That is a "fact". what the writer wrote was innuendo.


The primary issue I have with it is that it doesn't address the fact that there was no physical evidence and it tries to discredit the social workers that interviewed Dylan, simply it seems, because they didn't come up with the answer that supports the abuse allegation (Was there any improprieties in the way they did their job? Was there any question of them performing their duties adequately? No & No).

If there was evidence, then there would have been a trial. I don't much care for Woody Allen, but I do agree that the statements of the Judge and Prosecutor involved in this investigation were highly irresponsible. You can't refuse to prosecute a man for such a serious crime and then leave open the issue of his guilt or innocence.
 
2014-02-08 09:37:06 AM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-02-08 09:38:16 AM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-02-08 09:40:32 AM  

DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?


Mia Farrow?
 
2014-02-08 09:42:35 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 599x179]


Now do OJ
 
2014-02-08 09:43:14 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [pbs.twimg.com image 599x398]


Funny how people can take the word "inappropriate". In the context of the testimony, it doesn't sound nearly as nefarious as Maureen Orth would lead most of her readers to believe.
 
2014-02-08 10:24:18 AM  
Assuming that he is in fact innocent, the best course of action for Allen appears to be a defamation lawsuit that leaves Mia Farrow penniless, and then donate the proceeds to a charity that helps abused kids.
 
2014-02-08 10:24:51 AM  
If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.
 
2014-02-08 10:30:52 AM  

adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.


I haven't seen a single person in here blame Dylan, if anything people who don't want to believe the charges due to the evidence in the case feel that she was unjustly used by her mother as part of a divorce hearing. That certainly makes her a victim in this entire mess.
 
2014-02-08 10:31:38 AM  

adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.


It's Men's Rights Activists celebrating the Rape Culture of the White Patriarchal Society!

/ © Reddit Feminists
 
2014-02-08 10:37:27 AM  

TwistedFark: adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.

I haven't seen a single person in here blame Dylan, if anything people who don't want to believe the charges due to the evidence in the case feel that she was unjustly used by her mother as part of a divorce hearing. That certainly makes her a victim in this entire mess.


Someone called her a "coont" on the first page and then there are several accusations of doing all this for the money. I'd say that's "blaming Dylan".
 
2014-02-08 10:39:04 AM  

adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.


Nice try but you're full of horseshiat.
 
2014-02-08 10:55:39 AM  

willfullyobscure: The PR team that wrote this farked up. Right after quoting the magical report, they failed to resume first person vioce:

"Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow."

That typo cost them all credibility. If Woody Allen personally wrote this, I'll eat my hat.

This is nothing less than a powerful, evil old man using thugs to caricature his victims as hysterical, unreliable, irrational females out to get him. Despicable.


Woody Allen has 72 writing credits on IMDB, about 3 dozen movies and more than 10 awards for best writing. I don't think he needs to farm out a 500 word op-ed to his PR team.
 
2014-02-08 11:02:34 AM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: Please, Woody defenders, read this damn link. There is A LOT of corroboration in there.


I have no personal investment in his guilt or evidence but the article is full of hearsay and people agree with my position so therefore I'm right logic.

Parents in divorces have been known to groom witnesses. Farrow cautioning maids to never leave Allan alone with the kids could be interpreted as such. Secondly, there's a benevolent sexism in divorce courts that may be summed up as "moms are better parents because they're nurturing caring people who would never, ever do anything bad."

Why is it that the judge's statements against Allan count against him but that the police's statements that the child seems to have been coached by the mother to claim abuse don't count.

Polygraphs are nonsense and anyone who claims that one way or another they prove anything is an imbecile. Moreover, if what's good for the gander is good for the goose, both parents refused refused to take police administered polygraphs. However, only Allan's refusal seems to count against him. Sorry, that's just not fair.

It may sound like I'm coming down in favour of Allan, I'm not because frankly I don't care but saying he's guilty merely because someone who hated him accused him is not an evidence-based decision, and we need to go by evidence as much as possible.
 
2014-02-08 11:05:04 AM  

AndreMA: Assuming that he is in fact innocent, the best course of action for Allen appears to be a defamation lawsuit that leaves Mia Farrow penniless, and then donate the proceeds to a charity that helps abused kids.


All that would do is give credence to the claim that a kid was abused. A better way to dispose of the proceeds would be for Woody to just keep the money as hard-earned income.

 
2014-02-08 11:09:22 AM  

adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.


Well if the man was investigated and not charged, passed a lie sector test, showed no sign of such indecency before or after, and his ex-GF/accuser were bat shiat dodgy at best, and had his career tarnished for 20+ years because of it, sure I'd defend him. Wouldn't you?

Next....
 
2014-02-08 11:15:29 AM  

jonnya: adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.

Well if the man was investigated and not charged, passed a lie sector test, showed no sign of such indecency before or after, and his ex-GF/accuser were bat shiat dodgy at best, and had his career tarnished for 20+ years because of it, sure I'd defend him. Wouldn't you?

Next....


And why dont we hear about that same process with any of the other stories of child abuse? Hell, there have been a few threads in the last two days on the subject and not one of those men got lie detector tests, had the burden of proof depend on whether the parents of the victims were "sketchy," or had thier career used as a means of pity and justification. So yeah, you folk are only interested in pulling out pitchforks when it isnt a famous person being accused.
 
2014-02-08 11:21:37 AM  

adamgreeney: jonnya: adamgreeney: If this was a story about a father and daughter in bumfark MN, no one would be defending him. But since he's famous, people default to blaming the victim and sticking up for the guy. What a disgusting commentary on us as a country.

Well if the man was investigated and not charged, passed a lie sector test, showed no sign of such indecency before or after, and his ex-GF/accuser were bat shiat dodgy at best, and had his career tarnished for 20+ years because of it, sure I'd defend him. Wouldn't you?

Next....

And why dont we hear about that same process with any of the other stories of child abuse? Hell, there have been a few threads in the last two days on the subject and not one of those men got lie Becausedetector tests, had the burden of proof depend on whether the parents of the victims were "sketchy," or had thier career used as a means of pity and justification. So yeah, you folk are only interested in pulling out pitchforks when it isnt a famous person being accused.


I heard of this case because Woody Allen is famous. Famous people tend to attract attention. Hence the fame. If I happened across a FARK thread/news article/story about a non-famous person in the same situation, I would feel the same way. OK?
 
2014-02-08 11:42:05 AM  

Darth Macho: You're glad that Woody called his alleged biological son a bastard of adultery.....


I guess you didn't notice that it was MIA who first did that, some 3-4 months back.

Allen's point is that if what Mia was strongly hinting at is true (that Ronan is in Fact Sinatra's physical offspring and not Allen) then Mia lied to the court, in asking for child support for a child which was not Allens; that Mia has been lying to the public about her son's paternity; that Mia has been lying to her own children (all 14 of them) about the parentage of their "brother";  and that Mia has been lying directly to Allen's face as well.

I understand Mia being upset about Allen leaving her for Soon Yi, I get it, it's pretty creepy. But it's also damned creepy thing to do to a guy to lie about the fact that he is your baby's father, hook him for all the cost of raising that kid (let's not forget, Mia took him to court to force Allen to pay child support in an amount well above what was offered) and then some 20 yrs later give out an interview where you kind of point and laugh at him suggesting he's not even the kid's "real" dad.

If Mia Farrow has zero qualms about lying of something of such significance to a court, to her family and to the public, why can't we use that fact in helping us form some sort of opinion about her credibility?

If you look at Ronan and think it's more likely that Woody produced a child that looks like that, rather than Frank produced a child who looks like that, you had better go see you optometrist pronto.

A few questions, I've been thinking about for a time now and they all relate to the very suspicious and odd timing of Mia, Ronan and Dylan dragging all of this out in the public eye some 20 yrs after the fact.

1.  Four months or so ago, Mia Farrow (who hasn't been in a movie in years and whose fame had lapsed significantly) all of a sudden gets a lot of press by invoking Sinatra's name in a "sex scandal" by claiming she had continued boinking the old boy until his death. (Even though Sinatra had remarried)  To take it a step further, she all but confirms that her son Ronan, who she had been telling the world for years was Allen's was in fact Sinatra's and she had known about it for quite some time.

2.  Mia finds out that Allen is going to be honored by the Golden Globes.  While simultaneously believing (or at least publicly claiming such) she says she's so upset with the Golden Globes for honoring a child molester in Allen that she will not participate and refuses to sign the consent agreements allowing for work to be used as the video montage that is at the centerpiece of the ceremony.  Sorry, check that, she grants them all rights to do and signs off on the consent agreements.

So she's a willing participant to said event, but gets Ronan to work as a proxy and then follows up the next day raising a stink about the Golden Globes.  I guess she's too egotistical to bypass something where her performances and work would be highlighted and get some pub, but which she could also take as an opportunity to bash her ex once again.

3.  On the heels of 1 & 2 above, then Dylan (and Mia) reach out to Mia's friend N Kristoff and get him to use the bully pulpit of his column in the NY Times for Dylan to write a scathing letter attacking Allen and once again bring up allegations of things which were dismissed as being untrue by law enforcement some 20 years earlier.

This whole thing reads to me like a very well crafted PR campaign, in that you use a very well known and beloved super-star celebrity in Sinatra to get your name and story in the media.  (A media that has pretty much stopped acknowledging your celebrity long ago, because you haven't done any work as an actress in years and years.)   You tease out that story in drips and drabs over the course of a few months, keeping the subject and your name in the public spotlight and then when you've got enough attention on you, you drop the bomb.  (The bomb that everyone thought had been defused some 20 yrs earlier.)

Is this all the product of Mia realizing that her career will never be resurrected, that Allen has been able to continue his unabated and is being honored for his career (an honor for which she will never likely receive) and it's actually a huge case of "jealousy" on Mia's part which drove her to start up the new war chant against Allen?
 
2014-02-08 11:43:19 AM  
MY BOYFRIEND IS A CHILD MOLESTER BUT WE ARE TOGETHER SO MOLESTATION IS NOT BAD AND I HAVE
NOTHING TO SAY TO ANYONE......


MY BOYFRIEND DUMPED ME SO NOW MOLESTATION IS BAD AND I AM GOING TO TELL EVERYONE!!


MAKES SENSE TO ME.
 
2014-02-08 11:52:49 AM  

DoctorCal: DrBenway: Writerly Redoubt: Confabulat: Writerly Redoubt: Do you struggle with other things too, other than words?

I'm good with English. I'm not sure what sort of bizarro language you're using, though.

Mastered, asshat, you?

For serious, any idea whose 10-day-old dickwad account this is? Anybody?

Pretty clearly the same person who operated the Indubitably account. By the time that one finally petered out, almost nobody ever responded to it (except for itself). Maybe this one will go the same way, and quickly.


It's being purged as we speak!
 
2014-02-08 11:56:04 AM  

ZeroCorpse: Moses Farrow says Mia abused him (and all the other kids) by hitting them, berating them, locking them in closets, and emotionally abusing them, and people don't seem to care.

Dylan Farrow says Woody stuck his finger in her once, in an attic, on a visitation day in the middle of a custody battle, with nannies and a dozen kids (included Moses) all bearing witness and not seeing anything of the sort, and a whole bunch of people believe her no matter what evidence is presented to disprove her account.

I think her older brother has the right of it: He was old enough to see what Mia was doing, and he was able to figure out that Mia was using her kids as weapons to harm Woody. He also happens to have grown up to become a professional in the field of psychology. That, plus his first-hand account of the day in question, makes it pretty clear that Dylan IS the victim of abuse... And the abuser was Mia Farrow.


This.  Sadly this is playing out in public.
 
2014-02-08 12:01:17 PM  

omeganuepsilon: abfab: Simple terms: the only reason Allen wasn't prosecuted is because the kid was an emotional basket case from the whole ordeal. Not because there wasn't enough evidence.

What even your source states is that the girl's testimony was his only piece of evidence.

Excerpt from your link:

Dylan was "traumatized to the extent that I did not have a confident witness to testify in any court setting, whether that's a closed courtroom or an open courtroom," Maco recalled to PEOPLE last fall after Dylan spoke out to Vanity Fair about the alleged molestation.

None.  Zero other evidence which any other expert could testify about with any confidence.  Not even a psychologist that believed the girl's story was true.

When the accuser is the only thing you can put on the stand, you do not have a case, period.  No matter how much you believe her, or how much she believes herself, it's still a he/she said with zero tangible evidence.

Innocent until proven guilty after all, not innocent until accused, then get out the torches and pitchforks and learn how to tie a noose.

/managed the whole thread up to this bullshiat
//that kind of misinformation doesn't convince anyone, it just cries out to be shut down


What evidence do you expect from digital penetration? I'm afraid you're the one propagating misinformation here. This ain't CSI. "Child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. (emphasis mine) The first indicators of sexual abuse may not be physical, but rather behavioral changes or abnormalities." http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html

Maco never said Dylan was the only evidence he would bring. But as the accuser, she would have been the crucial piece.

/Ask a cop how much 'evidence' molestation/fondling leaves. GTFO
 
2014-02-08 12:05:14 PM  
lolbot.net
 
2014-02-08 12:10:33 PM  
Meh...

I don't like his movies anyway.


Tried watching, can't sit through it for long.
 
2014-02-08 12:16:58 PM  
Seems clear to me she was molested but I suspect it was Mia's brother. Dylan's memory was manipulated, hence the "coaching" the cops suspected. Mia is the despicable human here... Her and her brother
 
2014-02-08 12:20:25 PM  

letrole: All that would do is give credence to the claim that a kid was abused.


I think it's pretty obvious that the kid was abused. We're just arguing about whether it was Woody, Mia, or both.
 
2014-02-08 12:21:21 PM  
Husband and wife.
www.bluelightlady.com

Nope. Not creepy at all.
 
2014-02-08 12:28:52 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


I guess it depends on what we read into these type of photos....

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-08 12:32:52 PM  

jonnya: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

I guess it depends on what we read into these type of photos....


Mr. T looks very uncomfortable. I pity him.
 
2014-02-08 12:36:37 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


While I admit the whole Soon-Yi thing farking creeps me out, that's not her. I believe that's their daughter Bechet.
 
2014-02-08 12:41:07 PM  
Feminazism  at its finest
 
2014-02-08 12:46:45 PM  

TwistedFark: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

While I admit the whole Soon-Yi thing farking creeps me out, that's not her. I believe that's their daughter Bechet.


I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.
 
2014-02-08 12:51:52 PM  

abfab: What evidence do you expect from digital penetration? I'm afraid you're the one propagating misinformation here. This ain't CSI. "Child sexual abuse cases can be very difficult to prove largely because cases where definitive, objective evidence exists are the exception rather than the rule. (emphasis mine) The first indicators of sexual abuse may not be physical, but rather behavioral changes or abnormalities." http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html

Maco never said Dylan was the only evidence he would bring. But as the accuser, she would have been the crucial piece.

/Ask a cop how much 'evidence' molestation/fondling leaves. GTFO


Can the cognitive dissonance get any thicker in here?

All they had was accusation.  What part of "Innocent until proven guilty" do you really not understand?  It's 4 words, not rocket surgery.  They had nothing to go on, whether she had testified or not.

Go crucify yourself somewhere else.
 
2014-02-08 12:53:00 PM  

ransack.: I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.


It's not Soon-yi. Seriously look at Allen's face. How old do you think he is in that picture? When Soon-yi was that young, Allen was in his 40s. That's not a man in his 40s.

Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.
 
2014-02-08 12:54:12 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg
 
2014-02-08 12:58:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.


This.  These people must either be blind, have issues with processing facial recognition, or absolute racists, or a combination thereof.
 
2014-02-08 12:59:25 PM  
Let's see:

Mia is a nut.
There's a bitter child-custody dispute.
There's also an implausible opportunity to molest the child.
A panel of sex-abuse experts concludes Allen didn't do it. Not just gives him the "reasonable doubt" pass, but the "we believe he didn't do it" conclusion.

The guy is certainly eccentric even on the edge of creepy, but the simplest and far most likely explanation is that he didn't molest the kid.

That's not to say the kid (now an adult) doesn't believe what they're saying, but that kid is probably the victim of Mia's lies instead.
 
2014-02-08 01:00:00 PM  

DamnYankees: ransack.: I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.

It's not Soon-yi. Seriously look at Allen's face. How old do you think he is in that picture? When Soon-yi was that young, Allen was in his 40s. That's not a man in his 40s.

Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.



Wait. Are people really thinking that that's Sun-Yi in the photo? It's their adopted daughter. I thought it was one of those 'That's the joke' posts. It has to be. Please tell me it is....
 
2014-02-08 01:02:48 PM  

omeganuepsilon: DamnYankees: Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.

This.  These people must either be blind, have issues with processing facial recognition, or absolute racists, or a combination thereof.


Meh, I can cut some people a little slack as this is actually a thing : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-race_effect

It's not really racist when it affects pretty much everyone equally. That being said, yes, if you know what Soon-Yi looks like, that girl is clearly not her.
 
2014-02-08 01:05:31 PM  

jonnya: DamnYankees: ransack.: I did a reverse GIS on it and it seems to actually be Soon-Yi. another use

Also, it doesn't really look like Soon-Yi. The nose and lip are different.

It's not Soon-yi. Seriously look at Allen's face. How old do you think he is in that picture? When Soon-yi was that young, Allen was in his 40s. That's not a man in his 40s.

Also, that woman is clearly not Soon-yi; the only reason to think so is if you think all Asians look alike.


Wait. Are people really thinking that that's Sun-Yi in the photo? It's their adopted daughter. I thought it was one of those 'That's the joke' posts. It has to be. Please tell me it is....


Nope, some of them are completely serious.

Maybe a troll pretending to be one of those schlubs on occasion, but plenty of people actually believe exactly that.

It's a derivitave of Poe's Law.  You can't tell a sufficient troll from the real article, and that necessitates responding to them as if they're the real article(if you respond at all), because plenty of people do think that way.
 
2014-02-08 01:14:16 PM  

jonnya: Are people really thinking that that's Sun-Yi in the photo?


The exact same photo shows up in most of these threads. It's a good indicator of the quality of the anti-Allen arguments presented.
 
2014-02-08 01:14:57 PM  

lawboy87: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg


Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".
 
2014-02-08 01:17:21 PM  

Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".


It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?
 
2014-02-08 01:28:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?


Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?
 
2014-02-08 01:38:12 PM  

jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?


Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?
 
2014-02-08 01:47:17 PM  

Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.


Father and daughter.
Not creepy at all.

Here's another pic:
cdn03.cdn.justjared.com
 
2014-02-08 01:47:24 PM  

Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.


Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.
 
2014-02-08 01:58:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.


She also lived with her mother, and she was 8 years old when Woody Allen also moved in with her mother.
 
2014-02-08 02:01:06 PM  

Joe Peanut: jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?

Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?


"To think that Woody was in any way a father or stepfather to me is laughable. My parents are Andre Previn and Mia, but obviously they're not even my real parents,"    - Sun Yi Previn

If you're taking Dylan's words at face value, why not take Sun-Yi's as well?
There's anotherquote out there where Mia says pretty much the same thing.

And .....wait for it......this is about accusing him of molesting Dylan, not Sun-Yi. Let's stay on topic.
 
2014-02-08 02:01:46 PM  

Joe Peanut: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.

She also lived with her mother, and she was 8 years old when Woody Allen also moved in with her mother.


Again, Allen never moved in with Mia.
 
2014-02-08 02:17:51 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Joe Peanut: They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Again, Soon-Yi Previn lived with her father, Andre Previn.

She also lived with her mother, and she was 8 years old when Woody Allen also moved in with her mother.

Again, Allen never moved in with Mia.


Desperate "buts" for desperate 'nuts.
 
2014-02-08 02:29:33 PM  
I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.
 
2014-02-08 02:39:20 PM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-02-08 02:47:10 PM  

Joe Peanut: jonnya: DamnYankees: Joe Peanut: Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".

It's amazing the amount of anger people have towards other people if they somehow violate the accusers sexual norms. How is it any of your business, and why do you give a shiat? Would you mind disclosing to us every piece of porn you've ever jacked off to, so we can mock you for it and cast judgment on your sexual proclivities?

Never mind the fact that it's been pointed a million times that he's not Sun-Yi's dad.

Factually erroneous + manufactured outrage x willfully posting misinformation = tea party?

Yes, technically speaking he wasn't her dad. But he was her father figure.  He was the man of the house while she was still a child.  They lived as a family with her as the daughter and he as the father.

Seriously.  You guys don't see anything wrong with that?


Neither Woody or Soon Yi lived with Mia, Soon Yi lived with her father and Woody lived at his own place.  Woody and Soon Yi had very little contact until she was 17/18.
 
2014-02-08 04:07:32 PM  

DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.


i249.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-08 04:43:19 PM  

symptomoftheuniverse: Don't really know who is telling the truth, but sure am glad my parents weren't either of these farked up people.



They fark you up, your mum and dad.
    They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
    And add some extra, just for you.
But they were farked up in their turn
    By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
    And half at one another's throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
    It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
    And don't have any kids yourself.
 
2014-02-08 06:04:18 PM  

DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.


I don't know if he was a child molester, but this is not a difficult question to answer even if you think he was.

I doubt that "seeming creepy" absent aconviction or a civil judgment or anything would be sufficient legal basis for denying an adoption (even if we assume that it somehow comes up).

Even if I am wrong about that, he's still Woody Allen (in NYC no less); if you don't think huge wealth and fame can go a long way in terms offavourable legal judgment calls, you simply aren't paying attention. (And ifyou think a family court judge is going to spontaneously turn a simple adoption proceeding into a three-ring shiatstorm in his courtroom, you have probably never met a judge.)

But here's the crux of all this stuff about what did or didn't happen in court: the standards of proof for "convicting of a crime" and "awarding civil damages" and "talking shiat on Fark" are and should be different. (also, "denying an adoption.")

Being found not guilty in court (let alone merely not being charged in the first place) is NOT the same thing as actually being innocent, and there's nothing wrong with people saying things along the lines of "looks like OJ just got away with murder." It isn't even that the court necessarily did anything wrong, it may just be that the "obvious" truth of the matter wasn't proven under X rules to Y standard.

In this case I WOULDN'T SAY WOODY DID IT, just to clarify. But it isn't somehow irrational, just because the legal system hasn't acted on it, to say that you think he did.
 
2014-02-08 08:24:26 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.

I don't know if he was a child molester, but this is not a difficult question to answer even if you think he was.

I doubt that "seeming creepy" absent aconviction or a civil judgment or anything would be sufficient legal basis for denying an adoption (even if we assume that it somehow comes up).

Even if I am wrong about that, he's still Woody Allen (in NYC no less); if you don't think huge wealth and fame can go a long way in terms offavourable legal judgment calls, you simply aren't paying attention. (And ifyou think a family court judge is going to spontaneously turn a simple adoption proceeding into a three-ring shiatstorm in his courtroom, you have probably never met a judge.)

But here's the crux of all this stuff about what did or didn't happen in court: the standards of proof for "convicting of a crime" and "awarding civil damages" and "talking shiat on Fark" are and should be different. (also, "denying an adoption.")

Being found not guilty in court (let alone merely not being charged in the first place) is NOT the same thing as actually being innocent, and there's nothing wrong with people saying things along the lines of "looks like OJ just got away with murder." It isn't even that the court necessarily did anything wrong, it may just be that the "obvious" truth of the matter wasn't proven under X rules to Y standard.

In this case I WOULDN'T SAY WOODY DID IT, just to clarify. But it isn't somehow irrational, just because the legal system hasn't acted on it, to say that you think he did.



Exactly. $$$$$$$$$ goes a long, long way in the adoption process. (Also in getting away with criminal behavior.) Fame and power don't hurt, either.

And child molestation cases are notoriously difficult to "prove" because they usually happen in private (for obvious reasons) fondling doesn't leave physical evidence, and children tend to lack the vocabulary to describe what happened to them. The link I posted earlier said that behavioral changes in the child are often all the police have.


http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html
 
2014-02-08 08:50:21 PM  

abfab: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: I see that not a single person has addressed the "if he's such an obviously evil-and-creepy child molester, how was he allowed to adopt two children with Soon Yi?" question.

I don't know if he was a child molester, but this is not a difficult question to answer even if you think he was.

I doubt that "seeming creepy" absent aconviction or a civil judgment or anything would be sufficient legal basis for denying an adoption (even if we assume that it somehow comes up).

Even if I am wrong about that, he's still Woody Allen (in NYC no less); if you don't think huge wealth and fame can go a long way in terms offavourable legal judgment calls, you simply aren't paying attention. (And ifyou think a family court judge is going to spontaneously turn a simple adoption proceeding into a three-ring shiatstorm in his courtroom, you have probably never met a judge.)

But here's the crux of all this stuff about what did or didn't happen in court: the standards of proof for "convicting of a crime" and "awarding civil damages" and "talking shiat on Fark" are and should be different. (also, "denying an adoption.")

Being found not guilty in court (let alone merely not being charged in the first place) is NOT the same thing as actually being innocent, and there's nothing wrong with people saying things along the lines of "looks like OJ just got away with murder." It isn't even that the court necessarily did anything wrong, it may just be that the "obvious" truth of the matter wasn't proven under X rules to Y standard.

In this case I WOULDN'T SAY WOODY DID IT, just to clarify. But it isn't somehow irrational, just because the legal system hasn't acted on it, to say that you think he did.


Exactly. $$$$$$$$$ goes a long, long way in the adoption process. (Also in getting away with criminal behavior.) Fame and power don't hurt, either.

And child molestation cases are notoriously difficult to "prove" because they usually happen in private (for obvious ...


This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.
 
2014-02-08 09:23:09 PM  

DamnYankees: Dylan Farrow has already responded:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/dylan-farrow-responds-woody-al le n-678552


I'm sure she actually believes she was molested. I'm sure she does, indeed, carry such memories.

But memories can be created wholly from repeated lies.

/So, we're left with he said, she said.
//And the "evidence" - examined by the authorities - showed that no molestation ever took place.
///So, of course, the default assumption must be innocence.
 
2014-02-08 09:34:33 PM  

ThatGuyFromTheInternet: DamnYankees: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: These things aren't vague?

They are extremely vague. Literally none of those 10 facts are conclusive of anything at all. See my post above.

Vague?

"Mia Farrow had instructed her babysitters that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan. "

According to the judge's decision, Farrow told Allen, "You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan's lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch "staring vacantly in the direction of a television set." A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress.

All that, on top of, Dylan's explicit recounting in NYT is far beyond "vague".


The best way to spot coached testimony is its consistency.

Really, no joke. Real memories are flawed as hell. You literally rewrite your memories every time you access them.

Perfectly consistent testimony with a complete lack of physical evidence? I'd say that's at least 80/20 odds on it being coached/not coached.
 
2014-02-08 09:53:18 PM  

abfab: Exactly. $$$$$$$$$ goes a long, long way in the adoption process. (Also in getting away with criminal behavior.) Fame and power don't hurt, either.

And child molestation cases are notoriously difficult to "prove" because they usually happen in private (for obvious reasons) fondling doesn't leave physical evidence, and children tend to lack the vocabulary to describe what happened to them. The link I posted earlier said that behavioral changes in the child are often all the police have.


http://www.americanhumane.org/children/stop-child-abuse/fact-sheets/ ch ild-sexual-abuse.html


So, because it's difficult to prove, we should punish everyone who's accused just in case?

fark off.
 
2014-02-08 10:55:18 PM  

DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.



I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.
 
2014-02-09 12:18:57 AM  
What is with people who need to have or adopt kids with every single person they have a relationship with?
 
2014-02-09 12:24:13 AM  
Why doesnt allen sue mia and dylan for slander?
 
2014-02-09 12:56:34 AM  

Joe Peanut: lawboy87: Joe Peanut: Husband and wife.
[www.bluelightlady.com image 399x336]

Nope. Not creepy at all.

How many FARKING times does it have to be pointed out that the picture you posted is NOT Soon Yi, but Soon Yi's and Allen's daughter Brechet?

This a pic from the same game, Soon Yi was sitting to his other side.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ElAsN1bbDdg/Tta-mnhOEGI/AAAAAAAARUo/9WJv30 n6 imo/s320/woody%2Ballen%2Band%2Badopted%2Bchild-wife.jpg

Sorry Mr. Allen.  It won't happen again.  Try not to burst a vein or something.  And enjoy farking the girl who used to call you "daddy".


you get proven completely wrong and end up looking like a fool, and your only response is "u mad".

amazing
 
2014-02-09 01:14:55 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.


I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.


No, what's irrelevant is a bunch of general "oh rich people can get away with anyway if they want to" conjecture which does not in any way speak to the specifics of this particular case. If you have some inside knowledge of strings being pulled to facilitate these adoptions, do share them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Or if I'm wrong that in a typical case, similar charges would not set off any alarms if even if they were thought to have substance, then please set me straight.
 
2014-02-09 02:29:39 AM  

DrBenway: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: DrBenway: This is all well and good anecdotally, both of you, but how about some specifics regarding this particular case? How did the process work (or not work) in him being able to adopt not once, but twice, with Soon Yi, given his supposed history and notoriety? Were there investigations or angry demonstrations? Was there expert testimony brought to bear? Were pay-offs made? Or was it all pretty straightforward and on the up-and-up? Because that, as much as anything, would speak significantly to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of the charges brought against him as far as I'm concerned.


I was responding to your implication that he would not have been allowed to adopt if he were in fact a creepy evil child molester. The fact that he successfully adopted does not speak to his guilt/creepiness, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

If you believe there is nonetheless some *particular* fact about those adoption proceedings that somehow does speak to the legitimacy of the accusations, you're free to specify what it is. So far as I know, the adoption proceedings are wholly irrelevant to the truth of the abuse allegations.

No, what's irrelevant is a bunch of general "oh rich people can get away with anyway if they want to" conjecture which does not in any way speak to the specifics of this particular case. If you have some inside knowledge of strings being pulled to facilitate these adoptions, do share them. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Or if I'm wrong that in a typical case, similar charges would not set off any alarms if even if they were thought to have substance, then please set me straight.



I've already set you straight.  You are trying this red herring of "if he were a creepy child molester that would keep him from adopting; therefore since he did adopt he must not be one."  What I have given you is an explanation of why your premise is ludicrous on its face, but your more fundamental problem is that you have not even begun to try to support it in any way.
 
2014-02-09 03:10:10 AM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I've already set you straight.  You are trying this red herring of "if he were a creepy child molester that would keep him from adopting; therefore since he did adopt he must not be one."  What I have given you is an explanation of why your premise is ludicrous on its face, but your more fundamental problem is that you have not even ...


I have to admit.... you're pretty good at dismissing things that are inconvenient to your argument.
 
2014-02-09 09:05:36 AM  
www.911sharethetruth.com
 
Displayed 352 of 352 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report