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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]New letter from Wayfarer attorney's regarding NYT's motion to stay discovery pending the MTD: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.117.0.pdf

Couple of interesting-ish things
-Even if NYT's case is dismissed, they still intend to serve them subpoenas for discovery in the Wayfarer/Lively case. 
-Their argument on the merits is similar to some PPs in this thread: that NYT did not just report on the complaint, but made its own conclusions, without full context, and they cite one case where where a "reasonable jury could find that news article suggested more serious conduct than actually suggested in official proceeding." 
-They noted "the Wayfarer Parties do not presently intend to move to dismiss Ms. Lively’s claims."

Only the third bullet surprised me... why wouldn't they be doing so?[/quote]

[b]Contrary to what some here post, it’s really hard to win a motion to dismiss because all allegations in the Complaint are taken as true for purposes of deciding the motion.[/b]  It makes sense for the NYTimes and publicist because they can narrow the claims or get out altogether.  Baldoni is in it for the long run because of his own complaints

Better to spend their dollars on opposing the motions to dismiss their claims and discovery.[/quote].

Thank you for the common sense. The people here claiming the NYT MTD will be granted are dreaming. Of course there might be some carving down of issues, but that is typical [/quote]

Reposting a similar thread from early March, where Baldoni supporters lectured others on how impossible it would be for Lively to win significant gains from the motions to dismiss so Freedman was correct not to file any, and that the NYT's MTD would never be granted.  In case some people are having trouble remembering what they said.[/quote]

Seriously why?  You are now spending your time reposting three month old posts to say “I told you so?”  Touching grass so overdue for you.[/quote]

I'm reposting the old posts because so very many of you have been so virulently mean and condescending, but also at the same time so completely wrong!  It's like a John Hughes movie.  I haven't had an experience like this since the girls who bullied me in field hockey asked me how I got into an ivy and did I have any tips for them, lol.  Normally, life is much more of a mixed bag.  But your level of wrongness has just been remarkable, and mixed with how very sure of yourselves and mean about it you all were, it's really something else!  *chef's kiss*[/quote]

Nothing says childless 50-something (maybe even 60-something) cat lady like John Hughes references in 2025. Lady, seek help.[/quote]

DP but I'm a 40-something mom and I of course get a John Hughes reference, as would anyone over the age of 35 since those movies became classics well after they came out.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with be a 50 or 60 something woman with cats but no kids, why would that somehow discredit someone? Your misogyny is showing, you might want to tuck it back in.[/quote]

Au contraire, it is very disturbing to spend 20 hours a day obsessively following online chatter about some civil lawsuit involving a C-list actress and a D-list actor/producer for months on end. PP teased out her age with the movie reference, which means we're not dealing with some summer intern teenager. This is a grown ass woman who should be spending time with grandkids and a husband, maybe gardening on weekends. Anything but this nonsense.[/quote]

And yet you are also here.[/quote]

Dp. The difference is there are a number of normal posters on here who each chime in occasionally. You seem to put us all together as one or two people, but my last count there were 6+ normal people at that given time.  You and your twin are on here non stop, filling this space with blather. [/quote]

DP. That's because you assume those that agree with you are normal posters, and therefore different, while the ones on the other side must be the same poster. Constantly insulting the posters and telling them they have no lives is not normal behavior either. [/quote]

We don’t have to assume.  Unless you think there is more than one poster dragging up three month old posts, linking endlessly to the docket, etc . . By the language of her own posts, it’s one person.  She freely admits it.[/quote]

PP. Yes, think that one is the same person, but I don’t think every person that is defending her from personal attacks about her age and being a cat lady are the same person, which people are implying.

Anyway, to the person posting about Shapiro, I would be open to any proof they are planting stories on Baldoni. 
That wouldn't surprise me.[/quote]

Why do you think Lively hired a former CIA psy ops guy to do PR for her? What’s your thought on that? [/quote]

PP I think Lively is a drama queen with money to burn and therefore hires a crisis PR that would literally make a federal case of it. I would be interested to know what exactly they do for her, but I don't. The tip of the iceberg would be stuff like the time 100 award.[/quote]

Agree. I think the Times award (likely bought), all her orchestrated pap walks and press leaks are just the tip. It’s clear across Reddit that there’s been a great deal of inorganic content and obviously a number of us suspect it here as well. It’s fairly obvious. Ironic because the posts are often so vitriolic… [/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