Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Wut?  There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon.  So weird.

What is SEO?  Is that Search Engine something?  I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc.  [b]But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.  [/b][/quote]

Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny.

[/quote]

You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad. [/quote]

That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day…

And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’.

Look, we aren’t dumb. [/quote]

Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse.  Lame.  I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support.

(It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.)

I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC.  Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol.  The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before.  [/quote]

There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement).

The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin.

They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics