Why is Blake Lively so overrated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

lol you have a very rose colored view. Law firms will do anything for money.

Not exactly. Look, I’m not naive about the issue of fees, but I can say I don’t think they’d put forth a motion that was totally frivolous. There is an argument here that there was a hostile environment and retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a lawyer and agree with the PPs that the NYT essentially republished the complaint as an article without trying to get Baldoni's side (at least, that's how I'm interpreting those posts). No doubt that this was because Lively's PR people came to them with the story, but (a) I don't think Baldoni has a claim for defamation because NYT is not required to be unbiased and it does not appear they published the story with malice or reckless disregard for the truth and (b) I tend to think NYT went for it more because of their left-leaning politics and that this represented another MeToo type storyline rather than any fealty to Lively or Reynolds. Basically I think if any well known actress came to them with a complaint that had as much detail and documentation backing it as Lively's, they would have published a similar story in search of starting another MeToo conversation. But then, I am more interested in the legal angle here and not that familiar with Lively and Reynolds and their Hollywood connections.

Lawyer here again, I’m not sure if I agree. It’s totally sloppy journalism and I can’t figure out why they’d run for a cheap story like this.

There is a defense to a defamation claim called Fair report privilege, which does give the Times some leeway to present info from a litigation (which if from one party’s papers is always going to be totally one sided) without further context, but there are limitations to that defense, and their piece went somewhat far beyond that, especially with its salacious headline.

As far as which standard applies, reckless versus negligence, the issue of which one applies is a decision for the judge. The issue of whether the standard was violated is a factual issue for a jury. It’s way too early to make either of those calls, but my bet is that Baldoni will easily survive the Times’ early stage motion to dismiss.

Let’s be honest, the quality of journalism at the Times has been on the decline for a few decades. Multiple cases of writers just making things up or not really investigating what they are told by “unnamed sources,” i.e. weapons of mass destruction and erroneously reporting that FBI investigation of Trump was closed before 2016 election. I imagine standards are even lower in the Arts and Entertainment section. This part of the whole mess is the most interesting to me, and I think it will be really embarrassing for the Times, deservedly.

I think the quality of the NY times is generally very very high. Investigative journalism is hard and expensive and they get a lot right. It’s notable that your two examples are from years ago. There are very few other publication in the US who do what the NYT does every day.

But yeah, this piece seemed weak to me. I don’t understand how it snuck through like this. Even if it’s not defamation at the end of the day (fair report may protect them), it was remarkably one sided and not up to their typical journalistic standards.

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Those were two pretty big errors that had a substantial impact on public opinion and subsequent elections, which was why I mentioned them. But the Times has hired a number of journalists from places like Politico who only know how to practice access journalism, Maggie Haberman being the most prominent example. They also published a lot of baseless political coverage this past cycle. Their sloppiness appears to have caught up to them, and I am looking forward to watching this lawsuit play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

they were slammed because of the stupid assertion that the fact that Lively’s complaint states a claim and she has a big-name law firm suggests anything at all about the underlying merits …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

I am the person who criticized her and I am a litigator. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to pull out the lawyer card if we are opining about something that is outside our area of practice. Clearly she claimed to be a lawyer to give more clout to her post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also a lawyer and agree with the PPs that the NYT essentially republished the complaint as an article without trying to get Baldoni's side (at least, that's how I'm interpreting those posts). No doubt that this was because Lively's PR people came to them with the story, but (a) I don't think Baldoni has a claim for defamation because NYT is not required to be unbiased and it does not appear they published the story with malice or reckless disregard for the truth and (b) I tend to think NYT went for it more because of their left-leaning politics and that this represented another MeToo type storyline rather than any fealty to Lively or Reynolds. Basically I think if any well known actress came to them with a complaint that had as much detail and documentation backing it as Lively's, they would have published a similar story in search of starting another MeToo conversation. But then, I am more interested in the legal angle here and not that familiar with Lively and Reynolds and their Hollywood connections.

Lawyer here again, I’m not sure if I agree. It’s totally sloppy journalism and I can’t figure out why they’d run for a cheap story like this.

There is a defense to a defamation claim called Fair report privilege, which does give the Times some leeway to present info from a litigation (which if from one party’s papers is always going to be totally one sided) without further context, but there are limitations to that defense, and their piece went somewhat far beyond that, especially with its salacious headline.

As far as which standard applies, reckless versus negligence, the issue of which one applies is a decision for the judge. The issue of whether the standard was violated is a factual issue for a jury. It’s way too early to make either of those calls, but my bet is that Baldoni will easily survive the Times’ early stage motion to dismiss.

Let’s be honest, the quality of journalism at the Times has been on the decline for a few decades. Multiple cases of writers just making things up or not really investigating what they are told by “unnamed sources,” i.e. weapons of mass destruction and erroneously reporting that FBI investigation of Trump was closed before 2016 election. I imagine standards are even lower in the Arts and Entertainment section. This part of the whole mess is the most interesting to me, and I think it will be really embarrassing for the Times, deservedly.

I think the quality of the NY times is generally very very high. Investigative journalism is hard and expensive and they get a lot right. It’s notable that your two examples are from years ago. There are very few other publication in the US who do what the NYT does every day.

But yeah, this piece seemed weak to me. I don’t understand how it snuck through like this. Even if it’s not defamation at the end of the day (fair report may protect them), it was remarkably one sided and not up to their typical journalistic standards.

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree. Those were two pretty big errors that had a substantial impact on public opinion and subsequent elections, which was why I mentioned them. But the Times has hired a number of journalists from places like Politico who only know how to practice access journalism, Maggie Haberman being the most prominent example. They also published a lot of baseless political coverage this past cycle. Their sloppiness appears to have caught up to them, and I am looking forward to watching this lawsuit play out.

Ditto, the defamation claim is very interesting to me. I suspect Blake and Jason will soon settle, but I’m not sure what the times will do. They tend to fight most defamation claims, so it will be interesting to see what they do here. Whatever happens, it’s a bad look for them, especially if the European journalist sues too, which personally I hope she will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

I am the person who criticized her and I am a litigator. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to pull out the lawyer card if we are opining about something that is outside our area of practice. Clearly she claimed to be a lawyer to give more clout to her post.

My point was that he/she likely wasn’t a litigator. You didn’t need to insult him/her. That was lame and weird

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

none of those things you list are harassment though. Even in the light most favorable to Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

they were slammed because of the stupid assertion that the fact that Lively’s complaint states a claim and she has a big-name law firm suggests anything at all about the underlying merits …

Settle down. We know you’re a very smart and great litigator and know more than others. We got it.

/s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

I am the person who criticized her and I am a litigator. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so quick to pull out the lawyer card if we are opining about something that is outside our area of practice. Clearly she claimed to be a lawyer to give more clout to her post.

My point was that he/she likely wasn’t a litigator. You didn’t need to insult him/her. That was lame and weird

What a strange thing to post. Are you new here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

lol. As if law firms never file complaints full of puffery and the facts in the light most favorable to their client? Baldoni has a pretty great lawyer too.

NYT lawyer here again… well, yeah, that’s what they’re supposed to do. Advocate. But that doesn’t mean her complaint wasn’t compelling. I can only assume that was the point this poster was making, and noticing it had good lawyers behind it who we can only assume wouldn’t take a totally ridiculous or frivolous case.

So as a lawyer, I disagree. I can see a firm taking Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds at their word, especially if shown a handful of texts that supported what they were saying. I doubt they asked her to produce every text because they thought she was being honest. That’s the underlying problem with the whole case, the power that Lively and more important oh Reynolds has gives them a presumption of credibility that appears to be very undeserved.

We are not disagreeing here. My point is that’s what they’re supposed to do, and I think that was the original posters point- for which she was slammed and called not a very good lawyer. I suspect that op is not a litigator fwiw. Admittedly I’m not either but my job has been to oversee litigation, including HR claims and defamation claims…

they were slammed because of the stupid assertion that the fact that Lively’s complaint states a claim and she has a big-name law firm suggests anything at all about the underlying merits …

Settle down. We know you’re a very smart and great litigator and know more than others. We got it.

/s

You are conflating posts by two different people. I am the person who said I am a litigator but the post you are quoting was written by someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

You go girl!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do we think the Blake publicist who writes multiple posts here at a time gets paid by the hour, or the post?

So only pro Baldoni posts are allowed? Why is that, Melissa Nathan?

Nope, it’s just that you are so strangely ardent and seem to be the only person interpreting the facts
In a particular way. And the number of posts by you is a bit odd.

You think there is only one other person here who has a different opinion? Maybe you'd be more comfortable in the TT echo chamber.

There is only one ardent Blake supporter who posts in bursts, has a certain writing style and interpreters everything only in her favor.

DP, you are probably talking about me, I’ve posted a bunch of stuff since August. But I am definitely not the only one. There are multiple posters who are interested in looking at both sides of this.

Haha I am a DP and I was sure they were talking about me because I tend to post longer posts (like multi-paragraph) and have what is likely a distinctive style. I don't think my posts are all pro-Lively but yes I do give credence to her complaint which is quite thorough.

Also I am one of the lawyer posters and one of the reasons the complaint swayed me is that I am familiar with the attorneys and firms representing Lively (not personally, just by reputation and other work) and therefore am confident that what she's filed in court has been very well-researched and that any specific claims are based on more than just Lively saying something happened. In particular I am persuaded by the fact that the complaint references complaints by other members of the cast and crew -- they would not have included those claims if they couldn't be substantiated in some way.

I am sure it's a complex case and I doubt Lively acted blamelessly (almost no one ever does in situations like this). But her case is compelling from a legal standpoint.

I'm also one of the people who thinks the NYTs screwed up with the way they reported on the case and that their original article was incredibly slanted and failed to properly leave room for what would inevitably be Baldoni's defense. I was pretty baffled as to why that piece was so... yellow, and I think it undermined Lively's case in the end. I suspect there is some coziness between people at the Times and Lively/Reynolds or their reps and that's how you wind up with bad journalism in a complex situation like this. I hope there is some accountability there.

I’m a lawyer and you don’t sound like a very good one. Any half way decent firm can right a strong sounding complaint but you can’t call it strong without reading the other side’s (counterclaim not even filed yet), and they are always limited by how truthful their client is.

PP here and at least I'm a good enough lawyer to know the difference between right and write.

But in any case, you misunderstood my post. I'm not basing my assessment on how "strong sounding" the complaint is. I'm basing it on the fact that the complaint appears to be well grounded, not in their client's memory or opinion of events, but in a series of documented, easy to prove facts. And not merely documented via text messages or other communications, but via production records and contracts. For instance, much of the complaint hinges on how the production and Baldoni handled several scenes that were scripted in the shooting script to not be intimate or nude scenes. And the allegations include the failure of the production to engage the intimacy coordinator on these scenes, and to get a nudity rider in place for those scenes. None of that has anything to do with Lively's memory or perception of events. Either the script specified Lively would be nude in the birth scene or it didn't. Either there was a signed nudity rider in place or not. Either the intimacy coordinator was consulted for that scene and was present for the shoot or not. And having familiarity with the firms who filed that complaint, I am confident they have done due diligence to ascertain whether those claims are true before asserting them.

The complaint relies far more heavily on these sorts of easily proven procedural facts than on what Lively remembers or how she felt in the moment. Sure, it also has that stuff -- that's de rigour in a harassment/hostile work environment claim. But the case doesn't hinge on it. They've done a good job of showing the ways in which the production failed to follow typical industry standards with regards to on-screen intimacy and treatment of actors engaged in intimate and nude scenes. And that makes it a much stronger case than most harassment claims which do easily devolve into he said/she said debates.

Not sure why you are saying this, a lot of what she described is belied by the texts he released. It’s correct to say it isn’t a he said/ she said but only because he has documentary proof that makes that inquiry moot.