Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I wish r/ItEndsWithCourts was better but the problem is that in order to keep the focus just on legal developments and free from all the biased arguing, it's extremely dry and there isn't much discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

Either one's man reputation is being ruined for falsely being accused of sexual harassment, or a sexual harassment victim is fighting for justice. Both are terrible scenarios, so of course it's impossible to be neutral in a case like this. And honestly, who cares?

I could be wrong about you, but I've noticed that the "I want things to be neutral" crowd tends to be pro-Lively for some reason. That's not a compliment, because it's not really "I want things to be neutral." It's more, "I disagree with JBers opinions and I wish they'd tone it down."

Your whining is dumb. If you hate it here so much, go find some lawyer friends you can talk to, post about this case on r/Lawyers or r/legaltalk, make a Facebook group of only lawyers, or go back to r/ItEndsWithCourts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

Yeah, I feel the same way. I wish r/ItEndsWithCourts was better but the problem is that in order to keep the focus just on legal developments and free from all the biased arguing, it's extremely dry and there isn't much discussion.

You can't have it both ways. The dry discussion is the consequence of only talking about the legal developments related to the case. You can't extricate them from each other. It sounds like you two want to only discuss this case with other people who are exactly like you, in which case may I recommend you take this offline and find a way to directly message one another? As a pro-JBer I have to suck it up and deal with morons on my side who consult ChatGPT, believe Candace Owens and listen to some guy named Popcorn Planet, but I'm not going to whine and force people to behave the way I want them to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Weren't you going to start a lawyers-only website? Please leave already since you dislike it here so much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting. No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts. It’s called being detached from reality.

[Anonymous]

I fully believe that Liman had never heard of Lively or Baldoni before this case. I think people who are obsessed with the case have no objectivity on this. I knew who Lively was but had never seen one of her movies, could not have told you who she was married to, certainly knew nothing about her other business ventures. And I'm a woman in her target demographic.

My husband might have recognized her name but could not have told you literally anything about her.

So I buy that a 64 year old federal judge would be like "who are these people." I think that's highly realistic.

[Anonymous]

Helpful as always lol. Thanks to Responder #1 anyway. Will also accept 19:06 for the humor plus the schadenfreude I feel reading it.

I don't mind snark, but the inability to shut up the person insisting every Lively supporter is just multiple sock puppets paid by PR etc is something I wouldn't have to deal with on a moderated board.

But the overarching problem for me is that a lot of the discussion is stupid. Entrenched people repeating the same talking points, with not a lot of original thought. Maybe it's better here than on Lawsuits because lawyers? But here it's just the same 6 people over and over again. Anyway, I know, leave the site etc etc. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed no bias at the hearing yesterday and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting. No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts. It’s called being detached from reality.

You call any opinion that differs from yours "gaslighting." That's not gaslighting.

Once my husband accused me of gaslighting because we went to a movie together and he thought part of the screen had a greenish tint but I could not see what he was talking about. He said I was "gaslighting" him because I didn't agree with him that something was wrong with the screen. But the screen just looked fine to me. That's not gaslighting -- we just didn't see it the same way (literally).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Helpful as always lol. Thanks to Responder #1 anyway. Will also accept 19:06 for the humor plus the schadenfreude I feel reading it.

I don't mind snark, but the inability to shut up the person insisting every Lively supporter is just multiple sock puppets paid by PR etc is something I wouldn't have to deal with on a moderated board.

But the overarching problem for me is that a lot of the discussion is stupid. Entrenched people repeating the same talking points, with not a lot of original thought. Maybe it's better here than on Lawsuits because lawyers? But here it's just the same 6 people over and over again. Anyway, I know, leave the site etc etc. Thanks.

Your "self-awareness" shouldn't exempt you from making the same comment over and over again. So yes, you must be told again to leave the site. Although I guess I'm not really asking you to leave the site if you don't agree to it, right?

[Anonymous]

Genuinely think the pro-Lively supporter here is melting down right now and ranting about how much they hate this thread because they were called out for the stupidity of their Liman comment. Finding it really funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely think the pro-Lively supporter here is melting down right now and ranting about how much they hate this thread because they were called out for the stupidity of their Liman comment. Finding it really funny.

You are talking about at least two and I think three different people. I am one of the three people you are referring to but I'm not the others. And I'm not melting down, even if your rhetorical approach is certainly designed to exasperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuinely think the pro-Lively supporter here is melting down right now and ranting about how much they hate this thread because they were called out for the stupidity of their Liman comment. Finding it really funny.

lolol that wasn’t me but this only confirms my Groundhog Day experience of this thread!

I think I will stay just to annoy you tbh, since you are so very wrong so very much.