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]I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds.  Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting.  This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling.  I do it, too.  (It's me.  Hi.  I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility.  That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me?  oh well sorry to bother everyone.[/quote]

If you’re the person vehemently arguing that the judge displayed  no bias at the hearing yesterday  and that Blake didn’t want the postponement, the problem is definitely you.[/quote]

The "Liman couldn't have made an offer because the offeree didn't accept it" was a new rhetorical low for them.[/quote]

What's crazy to me is that you are so incensed by this you've posted about it like 5 times in two pages. We get it, you think it's a bad take. It's a minor issue though so who cares?

The inability to just register an objection and move the eff on is the #1 worst thing about this thread. Both sides! We get it, we get it, we get it. Pleeeeease stopping harping on about it.[/quote]

Dp, no, the worst thing is the gaslighting.  No one can have a good faith conversation with someone who can’t acknowledge basic facts.  It’s called being detached from reality.[/quote]

You call any opinion that differs from yours "gaslighting." That's not gaslighting.

Once my husband accused me of gaslighting because we went to a movie together and he thought part of the screen had a greenish tint but I could not see what he was talking about. He said I was "gaslighting" him because I didn't agree with him that something was wrong with the screen. But the screen just looked fine to me. That's not gaslighting -- we just didn't see it the same way (literally).[/quote]

Not at all, you repeated denied basic facts about the hearing including that the judge offered to retract the Wallace opinion and that Gottlieb was the only lawyer willing to agree to a two week extension.  [/quote]

“Facts” like you guys arguing clear bias of the judge when he’s dismissing Wallace and making Lively produce financials, and [b]“facts” like Lively wasn’t ready for this dep and wanted to delay [/b]when Gottlieb threatened Garofalo with sanctions if she tried to delay. You know, “facts.”[/quote]

I said this but I was very clear it was my speculation. I think the sanctions stuff was just gamesmanahip personally. If they meant that about the expenses maybe they can offer to reimburse Baldoni lol.[/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