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  
•       •       •

11182 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2014 at 12:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

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

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