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]Personally, you all make it nearly pointless to post here.  Baldoni supporters are not participating in good faith.  Nobody ever admits anything is bad or hurts Baldoni/Freedman, you just deny and deflect.

Events in Lively's favor/Baldoni/s disfavor that Baldoni supporters insisted weren't at least minor Lively wins/Baldoni losses.

1.  Protective Order was issued from Lively's draft (with minor changes), not Baldoni's.  (Baldoni supporters actually insisted this was a Baldoni win or that it didn't matter, though the issued PO goes well outside the norm in protection 3d party and even party confidentiality as Lively requested).
2.  Liman's denial of extension to Baldoni's amended complaint request.  (This was defended as Liman just denies all extensions, even Lively's where parties agreed, so it doesn't show he's getting fed up with Freedman.  Yet when Liman actually granted Lively an extra day or two to file her amended complaint but not as long as she asked for, this was written about here by Baldoni defenders as a huge diss to Lively by Liman.).
3.  Liman striking Freedman's letter and subsequent affidavit re Swift/Venable subpoena. (This was seen by you all as Liman being wrong and/or being prejudiced in favor of Lively or actually it was totally rational since the events pertained to a different court - no concern admitted that Liman is getting annoyed with Freedman's PR antics.)
4.  Now Baldoni is arguing the CA law protecting (mostly) women from defamation suits is unconstitutional and the feminist organization filing amicus briefs supporting Lively shouldn’t even be considered by Liman. (This clearly conflicts with Baldoni’s male feminist brand/ideology but no Baldoni supporter will admit it makes him look like an absolute hypocrite.) 
5.  Team Baldoni on dcum includes wacky "They are tracking our IP addresses from our posts" lady (no one on your team will admit this happened or that it shows some of your people are nuts).
6. Your team copied at least one comment word for word from Reddit without attributing it (maybe more) -- this is actually the sort of bot-like Baldoni support at issue in Lively's complaint but Baldoni supporters thought this was an okay thing to do somehow.)

When Lively's original overbroad subpoena was denied by Liman months ago, I admitted it wasn't a good showing by Lively's attorneys and the doc request was overbroad.  When Freedman's Venable filings were made, I admitted the salacious details, if true, would make me question my support for Lively and probably even withdraw it.  No similar admissions are ever made from most Baldoni supporters (I think there is one who is waiting for more details at trial).

Lively supporters actually admit when rational Baldoni/Freedman points or actions taken by supporters hurt her legal arguments.  Not you all, though.  Your whole side is just a black hole of meaningless churn.

Then you post a bunch of nonsense/gossip and wonder why there's no response.

Still deciding whether to participate further when actual legal developments occur, but it seems largely pointless.  You are not participating in good faith and don't really deserve my time or my own good faith participation. [b] At this point I’m mostly discussing case with other Lively supporters.[/b] [/quote]

lol good, please go back to r/baldonifiles[/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