Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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.

You are literally whining right now and demanding people on this thread remove themselves and stop talking about what they want to talk about because it annoys you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

[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.

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.

You are literally whining right now and demanding people on this thread remove themselves and stop talking about what they want to talk about because it annoys you.

Dp, she isn’t whining, you are.

[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.

Totally agree, and she is trying to pretend there are multiple people saying the same incredibly stupid shit. Again, delusional.

[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.

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.

You are literally whining right now and demanding people on this thread remove themselves and stop talking about what they want to talk about because it annoys you.

I was responding to people complaining about not liking the quality of discussion in this thread. Very different from me telling people to leave just because I disagree with them.

Also, I didn’t demand anything because the people didn’t agree to leave the thread. You can only demand or offer or request something if the other person agreed to it, according to the logic used by the pro-Lively supporters here, remember?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree, and she is trying to pretend there are multiple people saying the same incredibly stupid shit. Again, delusional.

On a real moderated board, this nonsense would go and if the poster kept it up they’d be banned. Oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

The WF attorney did agree to the postponement, they all agreed. After the call they met and conferred and the results was a two week postponement. They decided this without the judge, which is how most discovery decisions are made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

The WF attorney did agree to the postponement, they all agreed. After the call they met and conferred and the results was a two week postponement. They decided this without the judge, which is how most discovery decisions are made.

Jesus, you are hopeless. The question was what did each of them do at the hearing. And your constant deflection of basic points is why no one is interested in having a discussion with you. Including me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

Gottlieb didn’t want to postpone the dep, but he wanted to allow two lively deps less maybe, and Fritz and Wallace could not yield to keep it to one day (in part because Fritz didn’t really want Wallace participating since he’d get more time).

In the end, unless you’re saying Hudson lied when wrote her letter to the judge yesterday representing that “the parties met and conferred and mutually agreed” to postpone the dep, literally all the parties mutually agreed to move the dep lol.

[Anonymous]

Literally no one wants to take a cross country flight, with the state of air travel these days, for no reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Literally no one wants to take a cross country flight, with the state of air travel these days, for no reason.

I'm sorry, are you asking me to feel sorry for the lawyers, including poor, poor Bryan Freedman? Because they took a plane ride?

Btw, Amber Heard was only deposed for 7 hours. Didn't need more than one dep day for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

The WF attorney did agree to the postponement, they all agreed. After the call they met and conferred and the results was a two week postponement. They decided this without the judge, which is how most discovery decisions are made.

Jesus, you are hopeless. The question was what did each of them do at the hearing. And your constant deflection of basic points is why no one is interested in having a discussion with you. Including me.

And me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and “facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”

Gottlieb agreed to a two week extension of the depo at the hearing, yes or no? And the WF attorney did not because of its effect on subsequent discovery, correct?

The WF attorney did agree to the postponement, they all agreed. After the call they met and conferred and the results was a two week postponement. They decided this without the judge, which is how most discovery decisions are made.

So much time on this one topic on DCUM to be a practicing attorney that just knows so much about practicing law. Were you disbarred or something? Just hard to believe you are an attorney with an actual job where you live and die by the billable hour. Perhaps you are billing your client Blake for all of your time spent here? Something is very off with you.