Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

The California complaint would not have become public.

I could have sworn someone here said it would have, and I saw someone in another forum saying it would have, so I guess people are just lying out of their asses?

Anyways, that’s crazy then. I don’t understand does that does not then utterly weaken the Times case. Yes they’re reporting on a document but on a document they shouldn’t even have.

*I don’t understand how that does not then …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

The California complaint would not have become public.

I could have sworn someone here said it would have, and I saw someone in another forum saying it would have, so I guess people are just lying out of their asses?

Anyways, that’s crazy then. I don’t understand does that does not then utterly weaken the Times case. Yes they’re reporting on a document but on a document they shouldn’t even have.

As the complaining party, Blake was free to share it with them. The problem with the article is that it claims to be based on hours of investigation, not just review of the complaint.

[Anonymous]

The way the judge is sick of them already

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

The California complaint would not have become public.

I could have sworn someone here said it would have, and I saw someone in another forum saying it would have, so I guess people are just lying out of their asses?

Anyways, that’s crazy then. I don’t understand does that does not then utterly weaken the Times case. Yes they’re reporting on a document but on a document they shouldn’t even have.

just because the state wouldn’t have published it doesn’t mean it is confidential and cannot be disclosed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why the Times didn’t just wait for the complaint to become publicly available.

Something I’m curious about is: the complaint was going to become public anyways, right? And Justin’s reputation would have been damaged eventually. So what does the NYTimes’ early reporting change, exactly?

It doesn’t change anything. Reporting hurts reputations - that’s part and parcel of the whole thing. Of course the Times wanted a scoop - also inherent to journalism. People are looking for angles that don’t exist. For defamation the question is whether it was false and that they acted with actual malice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Was the Hilaria Baldwin discussion woman hating? She’s also detested as a liar and the conversation as ‘spicy’ as a no-teeth sex act texted to a villainous harasser.

[Anonymous]

Don’t pick fights with that poster. Just move on and let her repost the same thing for the umpteenth time without responding.

[Anonymous]

I think it’s important to note Blake and Ryan are not college graduates. These are two incredibly stupid uneducated bozos, power drunk with delusions of grandeur.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

I am a DP and you sound crazy.

PP is correct that there's nothing wrong with posting that you don't believe Lively or agree with Baldoni or whatever, but when the people saying that also use this extremely charged, often misogynist language, it destroys the tenor of the conversation on here and totally undermines whatever valid point you might be making.

Like whenever I look at this thread I find myself feeling stressed because of the intensity of some of the posting and how angry it is and the name calling and rudeness (of Lively/Reynolds but also of other posters, even when they aren't even posting anything sympathetic to Lively, it's so weird).

Similarly, earlier today I clicked a link for a Perez Hilton video about this whole thing and it had the exact same vibe -- just extremely nasty and rude in this aggressive way that is very unpleasant. I was actually interested in the subject he was talking about (about Lively getting people fired on the set) but I turned it off because I can't listen to someone talk like that.

The thread isn't always like that but it's especially bad today -- I can't tell if it's one or two posters doing it but I really dislike it and wish you would stop. You don't have to be antagonistic. You can just disagree and focus on the content of the disagreement, instead of content nasty language and personal attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

I am a DP and you sound crazy.

PP is correct that there's nothing wrong with posting that you don't believe Lively or agree with Baldoni or whatever, but when the people saying that also use this extremely charged, often misogynist language, it destroys the tenor of the conversation on here and totally undermines whatever valid point you might be making.

Like whenever I look at this thread I find myself feeling stressed because of the intensity of some of the posting and how angry it is and the name calling and rudeness (of Lively/Reynolds but also of other posters, even when they aren't even posting anything sympathetic to Lively, it's so weird).

Similarly, earlier today I clicked a link for a Perez Hilton video about this whole thing and it had the exact same vibe -- just extremely nasty and rude in this aggressive way that is very unpleasant. I was actually interested in the subject he was talking about (about Lively getting people fired on the set) but I turned it off because I can't listen to someone talk like that.

The thread isn't always like that but it's especially bad today -- I can't tell if it's one or two posters doing it but I really dislike it and wish you would stop. You don't have to be antagonistic. You can just disagree and focus on the content of the disagreement, instead of content nasty language and personal attacks.

You can’t be serious. But if you are, the solution is obviously to avoid things that stress you out.

[Anonymous]

It is not misogynistic to call someone who has been caught lying a liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

I am a DP and you sound crazy.

PP is correct that there's nothing wrong with posting that you don't believe Lively or agree with Baldoni or whatever, but when the people saying that also use this extremely charged, often misogynist language, it destroys the tenor of the conversation on here and totally undermines whatever valid point you might be making.

Like whenever I look at this thread I find myself feeling stressed because of the intensity of some of the posting and how angry it is and the name calling and rudeness (of Lively/Reynolds but also of other posters, even when they aren't even posting anything sympathetic to Lively, it's so weird).

Similarly, earlier today I clicked a link for a Perez Hilton video about this whole thing and it had the exact same vibe -- just extremely nasty and rude in this aggressive way that is very unpleasant. I was actually interested in the subject he was talking about (about Lively getting people fired on the set) but I turned it off because I can't listen to someone talk like that.

The thread isn't always like that but it's especially bad today -- I can't tell if it's one or two posters doing it but I really dislike it and wish you would stop. You don't have to be antagonistic. You can just disagree and focus on the content of the disagreement, instead of content nasty language and personal attacks.

You can’t be serious. But if you are, the solution is obviously to avoid things that stress you out.

I mean, a better solution for everyone would just be to stop using the unnecessarily charged language. Just state your opinions without calling women connivers or evil or asserting out of nowhere who she slept with etc -- your crazy language isn't relevant and its hurting your cause anyway. Just argue the facts and stay calm. Not sure why that's such a big deal, sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

I am a DP and you sound crazy.

PP is correct that there's nothing wrong with posting that you don't believe Lively or agree with Baldoni or whatever, but when the people saying that also use this extremely charged, often misogynist language, it destroys the tenor of the conversation on here and totally undermines whatever valid point you might be making.

Like whenever I look at this thread I find myself feeling stressed because of the intensity of some of the posting and how angry it is and the name calling and rudeness (of Lively/Reynolds but also of other posters, even when they aren't even posting anything sympathetic to Lively, it's so weird).

Similarly, earlier today I clicked a link for a Perez Hilton video about this whole thing and it had the exact same vibe -- just extremely nasty and rude in this aggressive way that is very unpleasant. I was actually interested in the subject he was talking about (about Lively getting people fired on the set) but I turned it off because I can't listen to someone talk like that.

The thread isn't always like that but it's especially bad today -- I can't tell if it's one or two posters doing it but I really dislike it and wish you would stop. You don't have to be antagonistic. You can just disagree and focus on the content of the disagreement, instead of content nasty language and personal attacks.

You can’t be serious. But if you are, the solution is obviously to avoid things that stress you out.

The rhetoric is very aggressive and rude, and unnecessarily so. We should be able to discuss this situation without name calling and rudeness, bu there is one or maybe two people who are really struggling with that today. I've reported some of their posts and I think others have also reported some because I've seen them disappear. But it's a lot.

My hope is that reporting those posts and focusing on rational, polite debate, we can maybe get the crazy person/people banned and then have good conversation here.