Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

YES! The only people I have heard of being on Signal are Trump admin folks who are trying not to get caught. Who does that?!

Still unknown exactly who was paying Wallace, which also seems weird. He’s just a regular guy living in a two million dollar mansion in Austin who just makes little reports on social media but definitely doesn’t do anything except that and exclusively communicates on Signal. 👌

Every journalist I know, all of them Democrats. Also a lot of Dem political operatives.

What does being a democrat or republican have to do with this? That’s a bizarre bit of extra shading you added.

If journalists are using Signal to protect their sources and political operatives are hiding the money or other trails, while normal PR operatives like Nathan etc are using email and texting, what possible reason could little old Jed Wallace “just monitoring social media” have to use Signal and nothing else? It’s bizarre.

Dp, but you sound out of touch. Signal is very popular these days, particularly among government employees who want to discuss things like doge without doge knowing.

Again, feds have a reason to not want their communications to be discoverable rn, no? If all Jed Wallace is doing is “monitoring social media” in a completely above-board way, what possible need does he have to use Signal where messages can be set to “disappear” after a period of time? Doesn’t he need to be able to keep records of his totally above board and legit business communications, rather than have them disappear into the ether?

Again, everyone is using Signal these days, you are just out of touch. There is nothing nefarious about using it.

I don’t know a single person using Signal, and still don’t understand why someone would use this for work exclusively if they (like me) actually needed to keep track of their business records.

Because you’re old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

Go back and count the whole thread, and report back. Looking at a page or two tells us nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

The "settle" Anon is the worst. They're not settling anytime soon and it most definitely won't be for 14 million dollars.

There are multiple parties to this case and some will and should be dismissed or settled. This is really about Blake/Ryan vs Justin/Wayfarer and then also Abel/Wayfarer vs Jones. Wallace, Sloane, NYT and Sorowitz (as an individual separate from wayfarer) could all honestly be cut loose. Lawyers tend to add in everything to see what sticks, but some of these parties are really just caught in the crossfire.

DP.

That's fine but there's no indication any of the parties are interested in settling. So the "they should just settle" PP is strange. Settlement takes two sides ready to agree. There's just no evidence of that here.

PP here, I’m also the one who said Blake should settle the case with Wallace. He does seem like a regular person to me who owns a small business and has been caught in the middle of a celebrity feud between two people he has never met. Blake has leaked his home address, his medical records, defamed his company such that anyone who does business with him would be looked at suspiciously (the same way people look at Nathan suspiciously). The damages he’s asking for are pocket change to Blake and Ryan and I think in his case they should cut him loose, pay him and move on. The evidence against him is weak. Blake’s own exhibits show sentiment had turned negative against her weeks before he was hired and she said herself in her request for pre litigation discovery that she didn’t have enough evidence to bring a case, yet that didn’t stop her from defaming him in the nyt.

I think you are giving him a weird amount of credit. You should really look into his backstory. Wallace is not just a small business owner in Texas. In fact, his company was based on California. As he discloses in his own complaint, he's previously done work for and been in litigation with Paramount Pictures. She also alludes to the fact that his business sometimes "helps" people who have drug addiction. This is because he was involved in a fairly high profile case where he was hired to help an entertainer deal with a drug addiction, and was later sued for his methods. Wallace has a long history with Hollywood and the entertainment business, and a shady past with his own business dealings.

You might also want to ask yourself why, when Meghan Twohey reached out to Wallace, Abel, Nathan, Baldoni, and Heath (each separately) to inform them of the upcoming NYT article in December and request comment, Wallace has Jennifer Abel tell Twohey they he, like all the others, was represented by Bryan Freedman (who has a history with Wallace as both his lawyer and his client). But now Wallace claims to have nothing to do with the matter and has retained separate counsel. If Wallace truly had nothing to do with this matter, why would he not have issued a *separate* response to Twohey and immediately retained his own counsel.

Wallace is a shady dude and his involvement in this case is entirely his own doing.

Meant to say his company was based in California until recently. He only moved it to Texas within the last year or two, likely in part because he believes anti-SLAPP provisions there can protect him and his business.

Huh? You’re saying anti SLAPP in Texas is better than Ca??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wallace has filed his amended complaint. Makes Blake look really bad, like she’s punching down. The judge should grant his MTD, and if he doesn’t, Blake should settle out of court and pay him what he’s asking for (14 million) and cut her losses. I think it’s pretty clear she’s caused this guy a lot of trouble, and he’s really just a regular person who got paid for a job and had never met Blake or Justin and knew nothing of the supposed SH. It’s a bit ridiculous that she’s suing him.

What you’re saying is insane. He’s a regular guy who could… remotely have $14 million in real damages from reputational damage? She should just go ahead and pay this “regular guy” $14 million (i.e., more money than an actual regular person will come close to earning in their entire life)? This take really shows you’ve jumped the shark.

Thank you.

To the PP: Wallace's lawyers of course want to position him as a "regular guy" who isn't even involved and should be dismissed from the case.

In reality, Wallace has a history of calling himself a "fixer", promising the ability to sculpt online sentiment to his will, and engaging in unethical business tactics. He has previously been sued for administering some kind of drug addiction program that, the plaintiff argued, almost killed him. He was repped by Bryan Freedman in that case from several years ago, the same Bryan Freedman who now reps Baldoni and has previously worked for Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton.

Wallace is mentioned several times in the texts from Abel's phone, including in a text from Nathan reassuring Baldoni that Jamey Heath has spoken to Wallace to better understand the work he is doing for them.

Wallace, of course, is not in these texts because he only communicates via Signal. How many "regular people" do you know who only communicate via Signal?

I don't know if Wallace did anything worthy of liability in this case, but the idea he's just a regular fellow who has been unfairly dragged in by Blake is laughable. Or that she owes him 14 million, lol!

YES! The only people I have heard of being on Signal are Trump admin folks who are trying not to get caught. Who does that?!

Still unknown exactly who was paying Wallace, which also seems weird. He’s just a regular guy living in a two million dollar mansion in Austin who just makes little reports on social media but definitely doesn’t do anything except that and exclusively communicates on Signal. 👌

Every journalist I know, all of them Democrats. Also a lot of Dem political operatives.

What does being a democrat or republican have to do with this? That’s a bizarre bit of extra shading you added.

If journalists are using Signal to protect their sources and political operatives are hiding the money or other trails, while normal PR operatives like Nathan etc are using email and texting, what possible reason could little old Jed Wallace “just monitoring social media” have to use Signal and nothing else? It’s bizarre.

Dp, but you sound out of touch. Signal is very popular these days, particularly among government employees who want to discuss things like doge without doge knowing.

Again, feds have a reason to not want their communications to be discoverable rn, no? If all Jed Wallace is doing is “monitoring social media” in a completely above-board way, what possible need does he have to use Signal where messages can be set to “disappear” after a period of time? Doesn’t he need to be able to keep records of his totally above board and legit business communications, rather than have them disappear into the ether?

Again, everyone is using Signal these days, you are just out of touch. There is nothing nefarious about using it.

Most people had not even heard about Signal 6 months ago.

I use signal. Lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

Go back and count the whole thread, and report back. Looking at a page or two tells us nothing.

No thanks, besides which, that wouldn't make any difference. I'm sure the Louis CK and Alec Baldwin etc threads have people defending them, also, and yet are still so much shorter. That's the extra spicy ingredient that women are treated to on DCUM. Bravo, ladies!

fwiw, I don't follow these other threads. I just thought of some men who had done awful things and searched for their DCUM threads, saw Hatmaker in recent threads, and searched on Markle since she always seems to have a thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

Go back and count the whole thread, and report back. Looking at a page or two tells us nothing.

No thanks, besides which, that wouldn't make any difference. I'm sure the Louis CK and Alec Baldwin etc threads have people defending them, also, and yet are still so much shorter. That's the extra spicy ingredient that women are treated to on DCUM. Bravo, ladies!

fwiw, I don't follow these other threads. I just thought of some men who had done awful things and searched for their DCUM threads, saw Hatmaker in recent threads, and searched on Markle since she always seems to have a thread.

You seem to love literary fallacy. First you try using ad hominem attacks to shame the people who don’t agree with you. When that doesn’t work, you throw out a bunch of false analogies as red herrings. Keep digging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

Go back and count the whole thread, and report back. Looking at a page or two tells us nothing.

No thanks, besides which, that wouldn't make any difference. I'm sure the Louis CK and Alec Baldwin etc threads have people defending them, also, and yet are still so much shorter. That's the extra spicy ingredient that women are treated to on DCUM. Bravo, ladies!

fwiw, I don't follow these other threads. I just thought of some men who had done awful things and searched for their DCUM threads, saw Hatmaker in recent threads, and searched on Markle since she always seems to have a thread.

You seem to love literary fallacy. First you try using ad hominem attacks to shame the people who don’t agree with you. When that doesn’t work, you throw out a bunch of false analogies as red herrings. Keep digging.

I don't think you understand my posts. For example, a literary fallacy is when you ascribe human characteristics to inanimate objects, lol. Nice use of strawmen, though.

[Anonymous]

Blake is shameless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

Go back and count the whole thread, and report back. Looking at a page or two tells us nothing.

No thanks, besides which, that wouldn't make any difference. I'm sure the Louis CK and Alec Baldwin etc threads have people defending them, also, and yet are still so much shorter. That's the extra spicy ingredient that women are treated to on DCUM. Bravo, ladies!

fwiw, I don't follow these other threads. I just thought of some men who had done awful things and searched for their DCUM threads, saw Hatmaker in recent threads, and searched on Markle since she always seems to have a thread.

You seem to love literary fallacy. First you try using ad hominem attacks to shame the people who don’t agree with you. When that doesn’t work, you throw out a bunch of false analogies as red herrings. Keep digging.

I don't think you understand my posts. For example, a literary fallacy is when you ascribe human characteristics to inanimate objects, lol. Nice use of strawmen, though.

That’s personification…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, the vast majority of this thread has been generated by the Blake supporters who write page long posts and repeat themselves constantly. So, not misogyny, at least according to them.

Nope, as I've said before, there are 15 posts to a page whether they're long or short. So the Baldoni fans one liners like "you are so obvious" that take take up just as much space as the Lively supporter's 5 page diatribe on the PO, but only take a minute to write. A few pages ago when I counted, it was 7 Baldoni posts to 4 Lively posts, so the anti-Lively stuff is still way outpacing anything Weinstein or Baldwin every drummed up.

Go back and count the whole thread, and report back. Looking at a page or two tells us nothing.

No thanks, besides which, that wouldn't make any difference. I'm sure the Louis CK and Alec Baldwin etc threads have people defending them, also, and yet are still so much shorter. That's the extra spicy ingredient that women are treated to on DCUM. Bravo, ladies!

fwiw, I don't follow these other threads. I just thought of some men who had done awful things and searched for their DCUM threads, saw Hatmaker in recent threads, and searched on Markle since she always seems to have a thread.

You seem to love literary fallacy. First you try using ad hominem attacks to shame the people who don’t agree with you. When that doesn’t work, you throw out a bunch of false analogies as red herrings. Keep digging.

I don't think you understand my posts. For example, a literary fallacy is when you ascribe human characteristics to inanimate objects, lol. Nice use of strawmen, though.

That’s personification…

Maybe it's more pathetic fallacy than literary fallacy, and literary fallacy is the mistake of believing that experience can be understood and expressed wholly in literature, i.e., fiction, poetry, plays, etc. None of this or the rest of what PP mentioned is relevant to that post, either, unless they were re saying the misogyny discussion is an ad hominem attack. I mean, I think it's relevant and really the point of this whole discussion, and why it is continuing on for so much longer than discussions about men who have committed actually disgusting acts, but ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Back to Scarlett, wow! She’s definitely carved a name for herself. A few very good movies coming forth soon. Didn’t I read somewhere that she’s supposed to be directing soon, or was that Reese?

Still have not seen that marriage movie with her and Adam Driver. But wow, I typically like most of her movies. Still haven’t seen a Blake movie. But wow, Scarlett has to be one of the top 5 actresses in Hollywood right now.

[Anonymous]

Way too many “but wows”. Sorry about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The internalized misogyny on this thread is fascinating, and sad.

LOL, ah yes the feminist icon who *checks notes* is a pathological lying scam artist who ruins men's lives for sport. We should all rally behind her scheming narcissistic ass.

Maybe you guys should just admit that you are here in this thread to rage out on Lively more than you are here to talk up what a great guy Baldoni is. His new film A Nice Indian Boy has been out for 3 weeks now and has made less than a half million dollars. You guys are ostensibly big supporters, so how many of you have seen this movie? All the negative stuff about Baldoni (the prior law suits, the gross performative "look at me" nature of his charity and his "love" for his wife, etc, and the legitimately bad way he conducted the first half of the IEWU set (to the extent that he wanted to excuse the issues by blaming his neurodiverseness but his PR reps said no) -- all of this slides off of you while at the same time you avidly hunt for mistakes Lively made 15 years ago.

Why is it so much more fascinating on DCUM when women are the alleged baddie than it is when the man is? For all the terrible gross sh!t he did, Harvey Weinstein only got a 50 page thread on DCUM. Armie Hammer (the actor who said he wanted to cannibalize his girlfriend) got 20 pages. It's a little bit of extra spicy hatred that women on DCUM feel for women who they think have stepped outside of their proper sphere. John Hamm beats up a fraternity pledge so he loses a kidney and he gets a few pages; Louis CK whipped out his dick in front of younger female comedians and got 20 pages on DCUM; Alec Baldwin actually killed someone and he got a whopping 113 pages. But Lively experiences something at least arguably close to sexual harassment on set (even Baldoni's own PR reps admitted Lively honestly felt she experienced this), and you guys are like, 800 pages (this thread and the last 300 page one) of no, that is absolutely not sexual harassment, and moreover he didn't run a smear campaign, and moreover let's dredge up everything bad she has ever done for the last 20 years.

It's weird. It's a little bit of extra hatred and attention that the women perceived to step outside their place get. That's the misogyny.

You sound very limited in your ability to think. I’m not particularly pro Baldoni, I just don’t think he deserves to have his life ruined by false sexual harassment claims.

I think the guy is likely annoying and weird. But he didn’t sexually harass anyone. It’s really not that hard to understand. Try to get there.

[Anonymous]

I think Blake Lively is annoying, not a great actress, and has done some shameless and probably unethical things in this conflict.

I also think it's possible she was sexually harassed, and I think it's likely she was retaliated against based on the evidence we've seen. I'm willing to withhold judgment on these issues until there is enough actual evidence to determine, including testimony from the parties and witnesses.

Given that position, I do find a lot of the "Blake is evil, she made this all up, she's ruining this man's life" rhetoric to be misogynist. Because I can see she's far from a perfect victim, but I can still stay open minded given there's a lot we don't know. When people cannot stay open minded, and just believe everything Baldoni asserts as truth (even though most of it is not backed up by evidence at this point), I do think people are falling prey to misogynist belief systems.