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 353
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

11150 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 12:02 AM (23 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 353 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report