Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I also noted many pages ago that it's fairly normal to include a proposed amended complaint with your opposition to a MTD, showing the judge how you would remedy the issues complained about in the MTD. Freedman could have done that, at least by the time he was filing his last opposition and -- haha -- had his roadmap of what needed to be fixed. But he was too lazy. He prefers talking to the press and appearing on TV over putting his back into the actual work (or more likely presiding effectively over his associates who do that work, but it's still work).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sarowitz is surely spending a fortune already but he might want to consider hiring better lawyers.

He’s in his 60s, has donated hundreds of millions of dollars and said he wants to give away most of his wealth before he dies. Seems he’s ok spending money on what he believes in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone bring up the new reporting from IF, yet? She’s been slowly and discretely scrubbing her social media of Blake and the press reported that a source close to IF said those close to her (remember she’s a Clooney) advised her to delete the photos. The source also said Blake wanted to drag IF into the lawsuit to back up her accusations but she couldn’t do that because she didn’t see any of this alleged harassment with her own eyes. She apparently feels “shafted” by Blake.

A couple of people did discuss her social media a few pages ago. Not too far back, but then, there's lots of ridiculous bickering to scroll through.

The second point is new to me. I think the idea though would be for Ferrer to testify to her own creepy or whatever interactions with Baldoni (no idea if she actually feels that way). That would establish his pattern of pushing boundaries or whatever. I think she's the one that Lively claimed Baldoni went up to and said that was hot, did you practice? I don't see that as SH but I guess Blake feels it fits the pattern. She'll need somebody to testify to that, if not Ferrer then someone from crew, but I'm sure she'd rather have it be the actress testifying she was uncomfortable. That's a difficult situation for a witness, even if she agrees with Blake she might not want to discuss that publicly, or if she does not agree with Blake, would not want to be seen as not supporting another woman. I can understand not wanting to get dragged into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least now people realized the NYT claim is idiotic... I remember in the early pages of this thread when the pro-Baldoni people were all "the NYT is going to settle, they screwed up so bad."

The only thing that is idiotic is your long winded obsessive attention on this thread, pretending to analyze legal claims when you clearly have no experience in these areas. You’re not a litigator, a defamation expert or a media lawyer or likely even a lawyer at all.

That was the first thing I'd posted in maybe 100 pages. Feel free to confirm with Jeff. Given that it was two sentences long, the long-winded thing is a bit of a stretch. Also, I am most definitely a lawyer with some experience in this area; I am not a media lawyer or defamation expert and nor have I ever remotely claimed to be (in fact, I've never even claimed to be a lawyer, although I am one).

This was a great comeback, btw. Kudos to this attorney for this easy but wholly appropriate response. 🫡

[Anonymous]

easy = sassy (sorry)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just watched a video of an influencer who had been tracking Isabella, the actress who played Young Lily‘s Instagram. She had taken a bunch of pictures. Isabella had three carousels on her Instagram with a bunch of pictures of her and Blake during the weeks they launched the film. All those have been wiped out. Looks like she is trying to distance herself.

Commentary like this is funny to me because the truth is none of us knows how any of these other parties -- Isabella, Brandon Sklenar, Jenny Slate, Colleen Hoover, the Sony execs, Taylor Swift -- actually feel about any of this. And all of the people I just mentioned, except the Sony execs, has publicists and a public reputation they have to protect, many have the other projects they are now promoting or may be up for other roles, and would have a very good reason to want to distance themselves from this whole mess that may have nothing at all to do with their personal feelings on any of it.

Also, all of those people are potential witnesses who may be called to testify, which means probably all or most of them have consulted a lawyer about all this. And one of the first things a lawyer is going to tell you in a situation like this is to make no public statements on the matter. Just "no comment" or change the subject. Taking down social media posts related to the subject of your possible testimony could be part of that. Just total disengagement on the subject publicly.

It's entirely possible Isabella could have soured on Blake and might wish Blake would just settle and drop it so that Isabella could stop being associated with it. It's also possible Isabella supports Blake and is ready to testify, but has been advised by her agent, publicist, and lawyer to distance herself publicly from IEWU and Blake (and Baldoni for that matter) to try and turn the page in her career to other things.

I just think trying to read the tea leaves based on stuff like who follows who on Instagram, which photos with with people they are leaving up or taking down, their social media going private or public, etc., is futile. We don't know! We will not know what any of these people actually think of this matter unless/until we see depositions or testimony. At some point it may become worthwhile for some of them to make public statements, but right now if they were to come out in support of Blake, they really do risk a defamation suit from Baldoni/Wayfarer. It's possible his lawyers have already threatened one. Better to lay low, see how these early stages of litigation go, see if it just settles and goes away, and then decide in collaboration with professional advice whether or what to say publicly on the matter.

It sounds like the tea leaves are not saying what you want so you’re saying, we can’t read them. But we can. It’s been radio silent since December 21 when Blake first published her story, many people were on her side. Once we’ve heard from Justin, no one seems to be on her side.

We can speculate about Taylor, but it’s pretty clear what’s going on. I am sure that as the godmother of some of her kids she and Blake are still in touch and probably still friends. I am sure they hashed it out and Taylor said that she was hurt that she’s been dragged into this publicly and is not going to weigh in and Blake understands that. But the fact that she’s not even willing to be seen with her or Ryan does speak volumes. There’s no tea leaves. It is what it is. The guy who played Atlas was publicly supporting Blake, and now has walked that back and seems to be supporting Justin. There are no tea leaves! It just is what it is.

I seriously doubt a lawyer told Isabel to remove posts about Blake from six months ago. That seems really paranoid. I think she is trying to establish a career and she knows Blake is deadweight. It’s really not that hard. It’s not even speculation.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni supporter here. That will not change. I firmly believe in his innocence and that there was no SH.

But recently it occurred to me that Blake may become the victor here, but only if she can sway public opinion. And that’s what her team is working very hard to do.

Blake has played the victim/damsel in distress card to walk herself out of a bad situation. I sense it was an attraction to Baldoni, and Ryan found out. On one hand, he his ego thrives on the fact that other men think his wife is hot. By the same token, he doesn’t want her straying. He needs to keep her in check, but still loves the fact that he caught a real catch that other guys can’t even dream of.

Cue the Crucible…Blake knows the rules and so she created her scapegoat and her way out. She’s a damsel who was “looked at the wrong way by a moral!” Or something to that effect. She was attracted to him, teased him and an openness to something, but always saw him as beneath her. It could have been discrete and all would have proceeded with the movie. But Ryan saw the writing on the wall. Blake needed a way out. Every way that they punished Baldoni points to this fact. Ryan was unhinged.

Cue the Crucible. Blake the victim. Baldoni the really bad boy from the wrong side of town, who got her in trouble with her meal ticket. The bad boy has to suffer so that the princess can remain the princess. Cue the exaggerated truths and lies. Everyone will support the story because a whole lot of people gain $ if Blake remains the princess in this story. So the whole thing is being rigged for her to win to keep the order of the narrative. It keeps the money flowing!

*+++

Not a new story at all.
Hope that I am wrong, but this is a narrative that plays out all of the time. Hoping that Baldoni has a second act lined up because it’s really not about his innocence. It’s about keeping the princess/damsel narrative alive.

And it’s funny watching Blake take on these different personas to keep Ryan happy and to keep her narrative going.


Baldoni may lose, but he is so much better than this. He will have fans like me forever. Hard to beat the fairytale though. Just a bad break for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni supporter here. That will not change. I firmly believe in his innocence and that there was no SH.

But recently it occurred to me that Blake may become the victor here, but only if she can sway public opinion. And that’s what her team is working very hard to do.

Blake has played the victim/damsel in distress card to walk herself out of a bad situation. I sense it was an attraction to Baldoni, and Ryan found out. On one hand, he his ego thrives on the fact that other men think his wife is hot. By the same token, he doesn’t want her straying. He needs to keep her in check, but still loves the fact that he caught a real catch that other guys can’t even dream of.

Cue the Crucible…Blake knows the rules and so she created her scapegoat and her way out. She’s a damsel who was “looked at the wrong way by a moral!” Or something to that effect. She was attracted to him, teased him and an openness to something, but always saw him as beneath her. It could have been discrete and all would have proceeded with the movie. But Ryan saw the writing on the wall. Blake needed a way out. Every way that they punished Baldoni points to this fact. Ryan was unhinged.

Cue the Crucible. Blake the victim. Baldoni the really bad boy from the wrong side of town, who got her in trouble with her meal ticket. The bad boy has to suffer so that the princess can remain the princess. Cue the exaggerated truths and lies. Everyone will support the story because a whole lot of people gain $ if Blake remains the princess in this story. So the whole thing is being rigged for her to win to keep the order of the narrative. It keeps the money flowing!

*+++

Not a new story at all.
Hope that I am wrong, but this is a narrative that plays out all of the time. Hoping that Baldoni has a second act lined up because it’s really not about his innocence. It’s about keeping the princess/damsel narrative alive.

And it’s funny watching Blake take on these different personas to keep Ryan happy and to keep her narrative going.


Baldoni may lose, but he is so much better than this. He will have fans like me forever. Hard to beat the fairytale though. Just a bad break for him.

Except Ryan and Blake are not sympathetic characters. It’s not like Blake was ever America’s sweetheart. Some people enjoyed her on gossip girl, but her career never really took off.

Ryan was beloved for a while, but everyone’s time in the sun fades. I think people had started to get sick of him anyway, and now that we’ve had a peek under the covers, he just comes off as super controlling.

I don’t see their reputation recovering from this. I’ve said it before on this thread, they will likely not be banished from Hollywood and I don’t think they will lose a big part of their fortune…. It won’t be that dramatic… But they lost a lot of goodwill and people will case less about their movies and brands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but also thought the judge was being strict here and wondering if this portends the judge will dismiss some claims without leave to amend.

Didn’t give Lively an unopposed request for extension so seems he wants to move things along. That’s usually the sign of a judge that wants a settlement,

Just laughing at this reading of the tea leaves from Team Balboni that, of course, the judge's actions here portends a settlement! Everything that happens portends a settlement to you guys! Lively requesting more time to file an amended complaint portended a settlement! The MTDs portended a settlement! Lively et al opposing Freedman's extension requests portened a settlement! The judge denying said extension portends a settlement! And yet, there is still no settlement, aw. Maybe the judge dismissing a bunch of Baldoni's claims also will portend a settlement? I bet it will!

I really enjoyed Reynolds letter opposing the Baldoni's motion to extend time. Its reasoning and case support is great, it notes that -- inexplicably! -- Baldoni doesn't even mention the proper standard for showing good cause for an extension (which, amusingly, is based on Liman's prior case called Furry Puppet Studio -- that is fantastic!). But, specifically, the tone of the letter is great, I love it. It isn't demeaning to Baldoni (as Freedman's letters often are), but it clearly states how Freedman's past "strategic" decisions in the case (which probably were made more for the PR side than the legal side) properly lead to rejection of Baldoni's extension request here. If Freedman thought they couldn't meet their discovery deadlines, they could have agreed to Sloane's motion to stay discovery two weeks ago. Nope. Alternatively, Freedman could have preserved their opportunity to amend their complaint as of right for the first time. Nope, they didn't do that either, and instead filed their first amended complaint and its crazy appendix with no notice to either party claiming they wanted to move the case forward. And the paragraph on there being no right to have MTD rulings before you amend your complaint is *chef's kiss*:

"The premise of the Wayfarer Parties’ request—that they should be entitled to read the Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss before seeking leave to amend—is unsupported. Rule 15 permits a party to amend once as of right within 21 days of an opponent’s responsive pleading (provided the party has not already burned that chance, as the Wayfarer Parties did), and Rule 16 requires that an amendment deadline be fixed in a scheduling order entered near the outset of the case. Nothing in the rules guarantees a party the right to lose a motion to dismiss before alleging all of the facts that support their claims (much less to continue receiving discovery while they wait). Moreover, the Wayfarer Parties have already sought leave to amend in each of their oppositions to each motion to dismiss, but did not identify in any of the oppositions how they would amend their pleading to cure any defects, much less attach a proposed further amended complaint. See L.R. 15. Nor do they do so now, even as they ask the Court to grant this “exceptional” relief. At best, the “information supporting the [Wayfarer Parties’] proposed amendment . . . was available to [them] even before [they] filed suit,” defeating a request for more time to amend. Parker, 204 F.3d at 341."

The letter is great, and I love that it's full of reasonable arguments that rightly point out the mistakes that Freedman made up until this point, but keeps the tone perfectly straightforward and not petulant and insulting, as Freedman's letters often are.

That's more than I can do here, as I note that no one on Team Baldoni is admitting they were completely wrong on this motion. Just as with the PO! I almost expect that someone will try to position this as a win for Baldoni, actually. (Like, someone already is saying it means the judge wants settlement, lol!) You guys are so quick to insult the lawyers who defend Lively's legal arguments, and yet here we are again, somehow, with you having been so fantastically and completely wrong. WRONG. WRONG. Will anyone on Team Baldoni admit they were wrong here? Not holding my breath lol. Maybe we are better lawyers than you think, though. Or maybe you are less great than you think you are.

Jesus. I can’t wait for this thread to be locked at 500 pages. I’m glad you’re into it though. Did not intricately follow all that…

That’s my reaction to the gossipy Taylor posts, above. Can’t digest them. I think most people here are 50 year old moms, but somebody is regressing.

[Anonymous]

At least the legal posts are based in the reality of documents the lawyers have actually filed, and not completely made up in people’s wild imaginations.

The people above have manufactured this whole other vivid narrative in their heads about events they think are going on. I can’t even follow it, but it doesn’t seem quite healthy honestly. You are super invested in a guy who is kind of a weirdo. Don’t make him your identity. He’s really not that great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but also thought the judge was being strict here and wondering if this portends the judge will dismiss some claims without leave to amend.

Didn’t give Lively an unopposed request for extension so seems he wants to move things along. That’s usually the sign of a judge that wants a settlement,

Just laughing at this reading of the tea leaves from Team Balboni that, of course, the judge's actions here portends a settlement! Everything that happens portends a settlement to you guys! Lively requesting more time to file an amended complaint portended a settlement! The MTDs portended a settlement! Lively et al opposing Freedman's extension requests portened a settlement! The judge denying said extension portends a settlement! And yet, there is still no settlement, aw. Maybe the judge dismissing a bunch of Baldoni's claims also will portend a settlement? I bet it will!

I really enjoyed Reynolds letter opposing the Baldoni's motion to extend time. Its reasoning and case support is great, it notes that -- inexplicably! -- Baldoni doesn't even mention the proper standard for showing good cause for an extension (which, amusingly, is based on Liman's prior case called Furry Puppet Studio -- that is fantastic!). But, specifically, the tone of the letter is great, I love it. It isn't demeaning to Baldoni (as Freedman's letters often are), but it clearly states how Freedman's past "strategic" decisions in the case (which probably were made more for the PR side than the legal side) properly lead to rejection of Baldoni's extension request here. If Freedman thought they couldn't meet their discovery deadlines, they could have agreed to Sloane's motion to stay discovery two weeks ago. Nope. Alternatively, Freedman could have preserved their opportunity to amend their complaint as of right for the first time. Nope, they didn't do that either, and instead filed their first amended complaint and its crazy appendix with no notice to either party claiming they wanted to move the case forward. And the paragraph on there being no right to have MTD rulings before you amend your complaint is *chef's kiss*:

"The premise of the Wayfarer Parties’ request—that they should be entitled to read the Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss before seeking leave to amend—is unsupported. Rule 15 permits a party to amend once as of right within 21 days of an opponent’s responsive pleading (provided the party has not already burned that chance, as the Wayfarer Parties did), and Rule 16 requires that an amendment deadline be fixed in a scheduling order entered near the outset of the case. Nothing in the rules guarantees a party the right to lose a motion to dismiss before alleging all of the facts that support their claims (much less to continue receiving discovery while they wait). Moreover, the Wayfarer Parties have already sought leave to amend in each of their oppositions to each motion to dismiss, but did not identify in any of the oppositions how they would amend their pleading to cure any defects, much less attach a proposed further amended complaint. See L.R. 15. Nor do they do so now, even as they ask the Court to grant this “exceptional” relief. At best, the “information supporting the [Wayfarer Parties’] proposed amendment . . . was available to [them] even before [they] filed suit,” defeating a request for more time to amend. Parker, 204 F.3d at 341."

The letter is great, and I love that it's full of reasonable arguments that rightly point out the mistakes that Freedman made up until this point, but keeps the tone perfectly straightforward and not petulant and insulting, as Freedman's letters often are.

That's more than I can do here, as I note that no one on Team Baldoni is admitting they were completely wrong on this motion. Just as with the PO! I almost expect that someone will try to position this as a win for Baldoni, actually. (Like, someone already is saying it means the judge wants settlement, lol!) You guys are so quick to insult the lawyers who defend Lively's legal arguments, and yet here we are again, somehow, with you having been so fantastically and completely wrong. WRONG. WRONG. Will anyone on Team Baldoni admit they were wrong here? Not holding my breath lol. Maybe we are better lawyers than you think, though. Or maybe you are less great than you think you are.

Jesus. I can’t wait for this thread to be locked at 500 pages. I’m glad you’re into it though. Did not intricately follow all that…

That’s my reaction to the gossipy Taylor posts, above. Can’t digest them. I think most people here are 50 year old moms, but somebody is regressing.

Yeah, the posts where people assume they know what any of these people are thinking or how they feel or what they are doing and saying behind closed doors are so weird to me. I am interested in this conflict because of the legal aspects but am not normally a celebrity gossip person, so when people are like "well obviously Taylor Swift was angry with Blake for dragging her reputation into something like this because of something I read on Page Six that was anonymous but everyone knows that's actually Taylor's PR people but now they've reconciled because Blake and Ryan posted an Instagram post where they reference her and everyone knows they wouldn't do that without Taylor's okay" -- I'm just like wtf this sounds like astrology. Just something a person with a very vivid imagination made up to entertain themselves.

Maybe it's true, I don't know, I just don't get how people think they can know what is going on with these people behind closed doors. Especially when everyone involved is saying almost nothing, except occasionally Blake and Baldoni through lawyers. Almost everyone else has been totally silent. I really don't know what they think! Some of them will be deposed and I assume we'll find out then, but for me at least, it will be a surprise. I truly have no idea why Slate or Sklenar or Ferrer think of any of this, if they are on one side or the other or if their allegiance has changed or maybe they have a take no one has even though of and don't agree with either Blake or Baldoni. I'm curious to find out but will wait to actually hear from them and not try to "read the tea leaves" which just sounds like a good way to get attached to a narrative only to have it proven totally wrong later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At least the legal posts are based in the reality of documents the lawyers have actually filed, and not completely made up in people’s wild imaginations.

The people above have manufactured this whole other vivid narrative in their heads about events they think are going on. I can’t even follow it, but it doesn’t seem quite healthy honestly. You are super invested in a guy who is kind of a weirdo. Don’t make him your identity. He’s really not that great.

It’s not about him being that great. It’s just calling the game for what it is.

I can’t think of anyone with their type of money, who would squander it on a case like the when they can simply apologize and pay $. Game theory points to the fact that these players have something to lose.

I’m pretty certain of my narrative. It’s somewhere in that ballpark that I’ve described. But we shall see how this plays out in the courts.

[Anonymous]

Still waiting for either of the two lawyers who said that of course Judge Liman obviously would be granting Baldoni’s motion for an extension, and this was simple stuff, to come back and explain how you managed to get it so wrong. Please explain this from the mind of a litigator so that I can begin to understand your ways.

It’s just that you’re consistently so scornful and demeaning to people who disagree with you. And yet you are also so very wrong. It’s difficult to reconcile those two things.

[Anonymous]

And I agree with one of the above posters. Ryan and Blake won’t be banished or blacklisted. But then and their friends will fade. Not sure if Blake will ever gain whatever star power she had, ever again. Ryan has a few deals left in him. He’ll weather it better. Baldoni will probably do smaller stuff going forward. But I already see TS appeal fading a bit. I think most people are ready for something big and new in music.

All they had to do was apologize and pay.

Those Baldoni receipts were a game changer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but also thought the judge was being strict here and wondering if this portends the judge will dismiss some claims without leave to amend.

Didn’t give Lively an unopposed request for extension so seems he wants to move things along. That’s usually the sign of a judge that wants a settlement,

Just laughing at this reading of the tea leaves from Team Balboni that, of course, the judge's actions here portends a settlement! Everything that happens portends a settlement to you guys! Lively requesting more time to file an amended complaint portended a settlement! The MTDs portended a settlement! Lively et al opposing Freedman's extension requests portened a settlement! The judge denying said extension portends a settlement! And yet, there is still no settlement, aw. Maybe the judge dismissing a bunch of Baldoni's claims also will portend a settlement? I bet it will!

I really enjoyed Reynolds letter opposing the Baldoni's motion to extend time. Its reasoning and case support is great, it notes that -- inexplicably! -- Baldoni doesn't even mention the proper standard for showing good cause for an extension (which, amusingly, is based on Liman's prior case called Furry Puppet Studio -- that is fantastic!). But, specifically, the tone of the letter is great, I love it. It isn't demeaning to Baldoni (as Freedman's letters often are), but it clearly states how Freedman's past "strategic" decisions in the case (which probably were made more for the PR side than the legal side) properly lead to rejection of Baldoni's extension request here. If Freedman thought they couldn't meet their discovery deadlines, they could have agreed to Sloane's motion to stay discovery two weeks ago. Nope. Alternatively, Freedman could have preserved their opportunity to amend their complaint as of right for the first time. Nope, they didn't do that either, and instead filed their first amended complaint and its crazy appendix with no notice to either party claiming they wanted to move the case forward. And the paragraph on there being no right to have MTD rulings before you amend your complaint is *chef's kiss*:

"The premise of the Wayfarer Parties’ request—that they should be entitled to read the Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss before seeking leave to amend—is unsupported. Rule 15 permits a party to amend once as of right within 21 days of an opponent’s responsive pleading (provided the party has not already burned that chance, as the Wayfarer Parties did), and Rule 16 requires that an amendment deadline be fixed in a scheduling order entered near the outset of the case. Nothing in the rules guarantees a party the right to lose a motion to dismiss before alleging all of the facts that support their claims (much less to continue receiving discovery while they wait). Moreover, the Wayfarer Parties have already sought leave to amend in each of their oppositions to each motion to dismiss, but did not identify in any of the oppositions how they would amend their pleading to cure any defects, much less attach a proposed further amended complaint. See L.R. 15. Nor do they do so now, even as they ask the Court to grant this “exceptional” relief. At best, the “information supporting the [Wayfarer Parties’] proposed amendment . . . was available to [them] even before [they] filed suit,” defeating a request for more time to amend. Parker, 204 F.3d at 341."

The letter is great, and I love that it's full of reasonable arguments that rightly point out the mistakes that Freedman made up until this point, but keeps the tone perfectly straightforward and not petulant and insulting, as Freedman's letters often are.

That's more than I can do here, as I note that no one on Team Baldoni is admitting they were completely wrong on this motion. Just as with the PO! I almost expect that someone will try to position this as a win for Baldoni, actually. (Like, someone already is saying it means the judge wants settlement, lol!) You guys are so quick to insult the lawyers who defend Lively's legal arguments, and yet here we are again, somehow, with you having been so fantastically and completely wrong. WRONG. WRONG. Will anyone on Team Baldoni admit they were wrong here? Not holding my breath lol. Maybe we are better lawyers than you think, though. Or maybe you are less great than you think you are.

Jesus. I can’t wait for this thread to be locked at 500 pages. I’m glad you’re into it though. Did not intricately follow all that…

That’s my reaction to the gossipy Taylor posts, above. Can’t digest them. I think most people here are 50 year old moms, but somebody is regressing.

Yeah, the posts where people assume they know what any of these people are thinking or how they feel or what they are doing and saying behind closed doors are so weird to me. I am interested in this conflict because of the legal aspects but am not normally a celebrity gossip person, so when people are like "well obviously Taylor Swift was angry with Blake for dragging her reputation into something like this because of something I read on Page Six that was anonymous but everyone knows that's actually Taylor's PR people but now they've reconciled because Blake and Ryan posted an Instagram post where they reference her and everyone knows they wouldn't do that without Taylor's okay" -- I'm just like wtf this sounds like astrology. Just something a person with a very vivid imagination made up to entertain themselves.

Maybe it's true, I don't know, I just don't get how people think they can know what is going on with these people behind closed doors. Especially when everyone involved is saying almost nothing, except occasionally Blake and Baldoni through lawyers. Almost everyone else has been totally silent. I really don't know what they think! Some of them will be deposed and I assume we'll find out then, but for me at least, it will be a surprise. I truly have no idea why Slate or Sklenar or Ferrer think of any of this, if they are on one side or the other or if their allegiance has changed or maybe they have a take no one has even though of and don't agree with either Blake or Baldoni. I'm curious to find out but will wait to actually hear from them and not try to "read the tea leaves" which just sounds like a good way to get attached to a narrative only to have it proven totally wrong later.

Yes! Astrology is a great analogy! Folks are bringing in some other narrative here that I don’t believe in and is not based in reality in any way, but they are really serious about it. That’s when I back away into the shrubbery.