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 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?
 
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