Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

I think people are confusing it and it may confuse the jury as well. Lively uses smear campaign but seems to prefer digital campaign or retaliatory campaign, and that may be why. I would not be surprised if she does seek some kind of jury instruction or moves that Wayfarer can't mention that none of the information relating to the non-defamation claims was false (not saying the judge will grant it, but they may ask).

It's kind of like a lot of Lively's issues which is they are well-pled and meet the standards for the issues (SH, retaliation) and are enough to get to trial, but that once it does get there it's going to be hard, because Wayfarer is going to present it like "He said she looked sexy, on a movie set with sex scenes, not an accountant's office" and "There was not a single false story published about her" and frankly, that is persuasive to laypeople even if it technically could still legally be SH/retaliation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

That’s strange, because the Oxford dictionary specifically defines it as a false statement to discredit a public figure. What’s your three sources?

Wikipedia, dictionary.com, civil liberties union.

I could not access the Oxford English Dictionary without a subscription.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

PP - agree. I mentioned in an early post that some posters seem to be confusing acts required to prove sexual harassment with sexual assault.

Show us the post, because another thing the Blake bots re just making up.

What kind of person argues with a bot?

So you are both admitting you are a bot and no such post exists? Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

PP - agree. I mentioned in an early post that some posters seem to be confusing acts required to prove sexual harassment with sexual assault.

Show us the post, because another thing the Blake bots re just making up.

What kind of person argues with a bot?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

PP - agree. I mentioned in an early post that some posters seem to be confusing acts required to prove sexual harassment with sexual assault.

Show us the post, because another thing the Blake bots re just making up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

That’s strange, because the Oxford dictionary specifically defines it as a false statement to discredit a public figure. What’s your three sources?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

PP - agree. I mentioned in an early post that some posters seem to be confusing acts required to prove sexual harassment with sexual assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

So true.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Probably because they also think sexual harassment is sexual assault.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

DP - I looked up the definition of a smear campaign three places and all three talked about the promotion of negative propaganda, not intentionally spreading known falsehoods. The later seems to be linked more closely to defamation. Are people confusing the two?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

So tell us specifically what she was “smeared” by? Specific allegations in specific articles. You can’t because she hasn’t alleged anything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

No, I'm not the poster claiming that. Just confirming she does use the term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

And you think it only means spreading falsehoods? That’s it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

She uses it in her opposition to the MSJ, for one. Typically Lively calls it retaliatory campaign but she has used the term.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyway, I don't think the argument was TAG using bots to comment. They denied bots that but told Baldoni they were "doing something very specific in terms of what they do." My guess is they had actual fake accounts on reddit (shills, not bots) and some SEO tech to boost certain articles online (this is described in Jones' expert report). There are real time texts between Case and others, reacting during the crisis, sending things to Jed to be boosted and bragging he did a good job. There are texts talking about "we didn't write that article, but if they were talking about comments then maybe lol." That's Wayfarer/TAG people saying that, not Lively. I don't know if Lively will find enough evidence to prove what those things were and the scope of them. I hope so because I want to know more about how this stuff works.

There hasn’t been a specific example by Lively of an article containing falsehoods about her that was boosted, or even an example of such an article.

Why is falsehood a requirement for proving retaliation? Asking honestly, because I don’t think that is a legal requirement.

Because she chose to allege the retaliation took the form of a smear campaign. She doesn’t allege “normal” retaliation like demotion, lower salary, lose of responsibilities because they didn’t occur.

Where exactly does she use the term smear campaign?

Better yet, Why don’t you explain to us what you think she’s claiming if you think it isn’t a smear campaign?