Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

There is life and there is law. Sometimes the same but often not. Baldoni never had real legal claims. Lively may have done all of the things listed but there is nothing not legal. It is ok to be a jerk. It is ok to be tough and beat people up to your terms. Lively did nothing wrong from a legal perspective. NYT did nothing wrong and there was zero percent chance they would ever have been left in. Now Baldoni did a lot wrong from a legal perspective. Good chance he will lose this case. But it may never come to that. Lively may just dismiss at some point and end the case.

I agree with all of this. I think she will drop out only if they are not finding good evidence of a smear via discovery, besides what they already have (which honestly might be enough but would not make much of a splash in the press, which would be a reason to keep going).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

No one ever argued that The NY Times had no chance on its motion to dismiss. Didn’t happen.

lol, wrong again! In this very thread that you posted in, right above our comments, someone claimed "The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming." Dreaming! Seems like they thought NYT had no chance on its MTD, and yet those dreams came true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Yes, you’ve really shown these girls by growing up to be some weirdo who lives online.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Yes, you’ve really shown these girls by growing up to be some weirdo who lives online.

DP. You are replying to a post in this godawful thread at 11:09pm on a Sunday. Pot, kettle.

[Anonymous]

Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

Because she wants say she was right and every one else was very wrong. All one had to do is read the first few pages of these thread to see that the vast majority of posters here knew The NY Times motion was likely to be granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

At least it’s gone from “Nobody said” to “Not everyone said … but also the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

DP. More flooding as per Nick Shapiro style…

To Pp focused on the NYT, what do you think of Lively using Nick Shapiro for her PR team? Any thoughts on that?

I was the 20% NYT person if I recall, and I think almost the only poster who thought the MTD could survive (but be limited). I still think liman’s decision wasn’t quite right and there were aspects of the NYTs coverage that went beyond fair report, and Baldoni should have been permitted discovery to find out more… although liman did give freedman the chance to amend and he didn’t. Not sure if that was a huge mistake or not, and I’m not sure how focused wayfarer et al were on the lawsuit to begin with. Most people thought it was for PR and to get their side out, and well, it worked. They shifted the narrative.

I’m not sure why this obsessed poster above wants to find old posts from people (who she’s not necessarily responding to now, although that never seems to occur to her) to gloat. It’s juvenile and bizarre, especially for a law firm lawyer, as she claims. As a lawyer, she should be more mature and she should also know that litigation is a long road. And as a firm lawyer, I can’t imagine her billable hours aren’t totally blown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once again, I don't understand why the pro-BL side keeps claiming everyone thought the NYT lawsuit was going to succeed legally.

People think the NYT is wretched and *should* have been held accountable, which is very different from thinking they *will* be. I asked someone who seemingly had law experience here what were the chances were of Justin moving pass the motion to dismiss. They were one of the ones who actually thought it had a small chance, but still only put the odds at 20%.

NYT was never held accountable for publishing war mongering fake WMDs propaganda to put us into the Iraq War - hundreds of thousands of deaths and trillions of USD pissed away. Didn't some of them even win journalism awards for Russia-gate hoax? Have they returned those awards? Of course they weren't ever going to be held accountable for a fake SH hoax hit piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

Yeah, geez lady, lighten up and let us get back to bashing our favorite punching bag!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

So glad to see such riveting substantive commentary here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case.
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding."
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?

Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion. It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether. Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.

.

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted. In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.

Seriously why? You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?” Touching grass so overdue for you.

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong! It's like a John Hughes movie. I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol. Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag. But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else! *chef's kiss*

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.