This message was self-deleted by its author

[BainsBane]

This message was self-deleted by its author (BainsBane) on Sat Feb 8, 2014, 08:08 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[snooper2]

1. This poll/thread could be classic, or a bomb

either way I wanted to be first to respond-


With a tuner of my favorite truck ever! damn I want one!

[TreasonousBastard]

2. I really don't care.

[LostOne4Ever]

3. Not enough info is available to know (nt)

[Ken Burch]

4. I believe Dylan(children do NOT lie about this)but is this really appropriate as a POLL question?

[BainsBane]

5. It's been the subject of countless threads this week

Why should a poll be any different? I thought it might be useful to get a breakdown of where people fall. Sometimes heated discussions can give an impression that a certain POV is more predominant than it really is. Not that these polls are scientific, of course.

[TM99]

6. Unfortunately, yes

children can indeed 'lie' about abuse.

During the 1980's and 1990's there were countless cases even brought to court that were based on the false abuse testimony of children. This was especially prevalent during the height of panic over 'Satanic Ritual Abuse'.

In graduate school, I was training in the use of hypnosis and several classes were devoted to false memory syndrome and the extremely high suggestibility of both children and certain classes of mental disorders.

I do not know enough of the actual particulars to know whether she wasn't or was molested. I can observe that Mia Farrow has definite issues and this very public drama is highly dysfunctional.

[anneboleyn]

123. Yes the "satanic abuse panic" of the 80s is a great example of the problems that can arise

when an adult asks a child leading questions, and "approves" when the child gives the "right answer." The infamous McMartin preschool case was a prime example of that -- the prosecution psychologists asking leading questions and the children developing more and more fantastical stories. And of course -- millions of dollars were wasted and the McMartin family was persecuted for years as that spectacle continued.

Honestly I don't know what to say about Dylan -- Woody has a history of being interested in teenaged girls (actress Stacey Nelkin was 17 and Woody was 42 when they began a sexual relationship and of course Soon-Yi was 19 or possibly younger) but whether or not that means he molested his 7year old daughter is something else. It is a sad story with a great deal of pain for those involved.

[TM99]

133. Exactly.

From my experience, just because some one is attracted to younger women does not make them sexually attracted to children. I honestly am hard pressed to even think of a case where that correlation was even present.

And that is why I have a lot of problems with many of the posters in this and other threads. Their own personal distaste for Woody Allen's predilection for younger women (creepy is the word I believe that is most used) has become a reason for why he must absolutely be guilty of sexually abusing Dylan Farrow. Being guilty of one 'sin' therefore makes him automatically guilty or suspect for any other 'sin'. Being guilty of a lesser 'sin' therefore makes him automatically guilty or suspect for a greater 'sin'.

I don't know what happened. I ask questions though. One that I have not even seen considered is this: What if Dylan Farrow was sexually abused but it was not by Woody Allen but by someone else?

[seabeyond]

139. actually you did declare allen innocent and vindicated. and secondly.....

Their own personal distaste for Woody Allen's predilection for younger women (creepy is the word I believe that is most used) has become a reason for why he must absolutely be guilty of sexually abusing Dylan Farrow.

you are not listening well at all, if this is your conclusion. it has been spelled out many times, and spelled out to you, the many reasons that people believe dylan was molested. what i have NOT seen is what you are stating to be the SINGLE reason for anyone to believe that dylan was molested.

wtf is that?

in all your experience and education. you create a conclusion for EVERYONE.... who holds a certain position that is totally created in your own imaginings.

[polly7]

142. What on earth are you reading?

You got this: "actually you did declare allen innocent and vindicated. and secondly....."

from this?:

Their own personal distaste for Woody Allen's predilection for younger women (creepy is the word I believe that is most used) has become a reason for why he must absolutely be guilty of sexually abusing Dylan Farrow.

No, he/she did NOT declare Allen innocent and vindicated. He/she explained that having a bias against relationships in which one partner is much older is often seen as a natural conclusion, by some, that they must also have been guilty of abusing that younger partner.

No-one here knows what happened. There have been a myriad of reports and facts brought out over the last few days that make it impossible for any one of us to tell for sure. I'm at a loss as to how you got that the poster declared allen innocent when he/she said nothing of the sort. Just more spinning and twisting and relating your (completely wrong) interpretation as FACT, when in FACT, it never happened ... and using that to imply whatever nasty thing want.

And, that poster 'did not create a conclusion for EVERYONE'. 'You' are not EVERYONE (quelle surprise!).

[seabeyond]

143. what am i reading? other posts of his also. lower in the thread. but jump

right in like you know what i am talking about.

and yes... that poster did conclude for all of us with differing views that we only did that because allen likes 'em young. his words. there for you to read. regardless of being told repeatedly the reasons we believe dylan.

[polly7]

144. Oh .... sorry, I didn't realize this thread wasn't meant to include everyone.

No, the poster did nothing of the sort.

[seabeyond]

148. and, i said that where? really? bah hahahaha

[polly7]

151. You said I just 'jumped right in'.

Doesn't that imply you were thinking I shouldn't have posted to you where I did?

Strange how you never fail to twist the words of others to vilify and demean people based on their personal opinions, yet can't even grasp how what you post yourself would be interpreted as.

And ..... I'll post when I like.

[seabeyond]

154. yes. you did. jump right in. ... that is as far as i am going. polly....

have a good weekend.

[polly7]

155. I sure did. I pay to be a member and post here just like you. nt.

[seabeyond]

159. ya, ok, so??? lol

[seaglass]

170. She surely missed you a lot sea - lol. n/t

[polly7]

171. Wow. Speak for yourself.

I replied to something that completely misinterpreted what a poster had stated, as I've done so on this thread numerous times with others. Do you have a problem with that?

[seaglass]

172. I think it's funny. n/t

[polly7]

173. I actualy find deliberate twisting of others' words fairly disgusting,

especially when the goal is to imply they're some sort of pedophile apologist.

I didn't find it funny being labeled a rape-apologist either .... I guess you can see why I might post when I see it happening.


I do however, find you sort of amusing.

[seaglass]

183. I do too polly, avoid it at all costs. As far as your other comments, are you stating that sea

called you a rape-apologist? I'd have to see a link - I have seen how sea's words are twisted and I wouldn't take just your word for evidence. If it's not sea you are accusing then why don't you work it out with whoever did and stop with the group blame.

[polly7]

187. If you avoid it at all costs,

what's so fucking funny about someone other than yourself being bothered by it?

And yes, I've been called that ........ and worse, by 'sea' and many other members of your exclusive little group. The famous META was a virtual hog-pen for insulting anyone that had an altering opinion or dared speak up for someone else whose words were - once again - being twisted into the most vile, ugly things imaginable.

I'm not shy about accusing anyone, because I KNOW what I've been called and who's done it. But I'm over it for myself .... it just seriously pisses me off seeing it done to well-meaning people here who've done nothing to deserve it.

GET IT?

GOOD.

[seaglass]

189. What I think is funny (when not annoying) is your constant obvious and selective attacks.

I don't think the actual content of your posts are funny at all.

[polly7]

192. Attacks!

lol. Of course, everything anyone posts that defends someone from being labeled and having their posts deliberately misconstrued is an attack. Sure glad I don't live in your world ... constant victim-hood must be hard to handle.

But hey ........ you want to see what was a real attack? Just ask seabeyond of her treatment of a certain poster and passing around private info, etc. That was probably the ugliest attack, ever on this board. I know that she'll be here right quick to explain it all for you.

[seaglass]

193. I'm not a victim nor claiming to be one - talk about twisting words...lol. n/t

[BainsBane]

232. What does any of that have to do with Woody Allen or Dylan Farrow?

I request you take your personal vendettas elsewhere. All of this has nothing to do with the subject matter and is unnecessary. We understand that you despise Seabeyond. and the rest of HOF. Fine. Good for you. Now find something productive to talk about rather than bringing up things from past years ago. Whatever anger you carry around inside of you has nothing to do with the past history of what you think someone said on the internet a year or more ago.

[polly7]

234. I was answering posts addressed to me, do you have a problem with that too?

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 02:33 AM - Edit history (1)

I don't take requests from people who've used socks and post at the cave ..... you know, that place that wants people here dead and celebrates in the most sickening ways the loss of those who've already left us. So stuff it.

I don't despise Seabeyond or anyone else. I despise the bullying, authorative bullshit and labeling anyone who doesn't bow down to all of your 'educated' (googled) knowledge at the end of a club as pedophile-enablers, rape-apologists, misogynists, attackers!!!!, blah, blah, etc. etc. etc. for daring to disagree. Carry on with your perpetual pity-party and don't worry so much about what I post ...... believe me, it's nothing personal.

And ... about that 'past history'. Did you read me bringing up mention of (non-existent) 'attacks'? Nah .... but I sure as hell have the right to respond with an example of a REAL one any time I choose.

[BainsBane]

231. That's quite an accusation. Where did she call someone a pedophile apologist?

Last edited Sat Feb 8, 2014, 12:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Looks like you're doing some twisting yourself.

Seabeyond said she thought the poster had expressed a view that Woody Allen is being falsely accused and therefore innocent. In equating that with implying someone is a 'pedophile apologist," are you suggesting that anyone who thinks Allen is innocent is a pedophile apologist?

[polly7]

235. Quite an accurate accusation!!

Do you not read?

All over the board ........ against anyone who dares state there just may possibly be more to the story than what she's professed as the absolute truth.

So stuff that, too.

[BainsBane]

238. Twisting words

and you refuse to provide evidence. Moreover, you are the last person on this site to be worrying about how other people behave. Everyone here is an adult, and they can advance their own arguments far better than you can. Worry about your own life.

[polly7]

239. Oh, I don't worry about your life ......... believe me.

I just don't take orders from people who've done what you have online that has affected others here, and given support to people who actually hate people here with a passion.

The 'evidence' is all over the place and has been also stated by others. Don't you read anything at all?

And why am I the last person on this site to be worrying how others behave? I don't use socks, I don't post at right-wing hate sites, I don't bully people who don't believe what I think they should, and I don't have to twist anyone's words to make my own point.

Yes, we're all adults ....... and we certainly don't need your lectures.

[BainsBane]

240. Cool

We don't need yours either. Say, there is a legal finding from Woody Allen's custody suit that lays out the facts of the case as much as they can be known. http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

Roguevalley posted this thread linking to it: http://www.scribd.com/doc/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

[polly7]

242. Just answering your smarmy accusations.

Got a little uncomfortable with the answers, did you?

[BainsBane]

245. No, it didn't

I decided to ignore the snark in favor of something positive (rather something related to the subject of the thread, hoping you might be interested). I was asking for evidence of your allegation against Sea, which you were unable to provide. I made no allegation against you. I asked a question intended to show the contradiction inherent in your accusation against her. Why you feel its appropriate to lecture other people about things you do in spades, I can't begin to imagine.

Peace. I'm putting you back on ignore. While sympathetic to what you must be going through, I find you way too negative to deal with. All the best.

[polly7]

246. I'm going through some pretty great things at the moment, thanks.

I'd worry about yourself and stop believing you know a damn thing about anyone but you, as difficult as you may find that to do.

And you only have to do a little reading to see how people are being called pedophile enablers and apologists. But that doesn't fit your agenda. And I've already told you ... I don't do orders.

But speaking of negative ........ check out a mirror. I'm not the one that started a thread to reinforce her black list of people she hasn't been able to bulldoze over yet.

SEEYA

[seabeyond]

191. lol. i know. to be so loved. there are a handful. i got the welcome yesterday in a subthread

not a couple hours on the board.

[R B Garr]

200. Would 10 years old be considered a "younger woman"? That's when Woody first met Soon-Yi,

but who knows exactly when the attraction actually started enough that he actually acted upon it. Although we know he took nude pictures of her, by all accounts that I can tell when she was underage, so if that's the case, then he had to be grooming her for some time before those pictures were actually taken. I'm just going off of common knowledge that is widely circulated about sexual predators and certainly don't have first-hand knowledge or experience with any of it. It's just a lot of people here seem to want to dismiss Soon-Yi as a "younger woman," so anything is fair game with her.

[seabeyond]

201. he said she was in the background and he noticed and wanted her to feel special. (not exact quote) .

he also said that is the reason he took the nude pictures, so she would be comfortable in her nudity

these are actions of a predator.

he was father figure to all the kids and father of three. that is the way a unit works with two adults and the rest young children, starting at 10.

how long was the playing and toying, before the got to the nitty gritty.

yes. for people to ignore this

and what does it teach a young girl, in a foreign country assimilated in a family of many

does this young girl learn, this is what love is. and this is how a grown man demonstrates love. to child or wife

and then

two girls are adopted.

it really is not as simple as people would make it out to be.

or it can be.

[R B Garr]

202. Yes, it's not as simple as a man being attracted to a "younger woman"

The main reason I was thinking the timeline of his actions with Soon-Yi is important is because of how much difference there is from a 7-year-old girl (Dylan) to a 10-year-old girl (Soon-Yi) to a predator -- although as the pictures showed, Soon-Yi was more mature than the 10-years-old when she first met him.

But mainly, that's what I was wondering -- how much of a difference is there between 7 and 10 as far as predators go. I'm thinking not much. So if he was attracted to 10-year-old Soon-Yi, he could have been attracted to 7-year-old Dylan. Considering like you said, there is grooming time in between his attraction and when he acts on it. This is not even taking into account the access to the girls. He may not have gone out of his way to scout young girls before, but if they are right under his nose...he had access and maybe that's all he needed to act out. It seemed to work out well for him so far with Soon-Yi, so why not take a shot at Dylan. What's he got to lose?

I never followed the case that closely, so maybe this was all covered in the trials, but I haven't seen that much about those pictures anymore, and I'm still kind of curious about that timeline.

Good to see you posting again!

[seabeyond]

211. here is the thread, that has link to judge. very interesting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709

and thank you RB

[TM99]

233. There is a lot of muddied information

but the facts seem to be that Soon-Yi Previn was not raised by Woody Allen as a step-daughter. This was confirmed by both her and Mai Farrow. While neither Soon-Yi Previn nor Woody Allen have stated that their relationship began prior to her being 19. They have now been married for 20 years and have two children of their own. There are zero reports from anyone in or around that family that there is anything out of the ordinary or inappropriate with their family system.

So with that said, yes, Soon-Yi Previn was a young woman - 19. She is of consent and while many may find the circumstances 'creepy' of their meeting and how they began their relationship trying to say that Woody Allen is an obvious 'sexual predator' and that therefore, he must have sexually abused Dylan Farrow does not necessarily offer perfect proof.

I still maintain that I do not know what happened. I was not there. I do not know the family personally. I have not clinically evaluated them.

[treestar]

251. except that's not the basis for it

also, teen girls is not the same as just "being attracted to younger women." Naturally men prefer them younger, but early 20s is a better way to hang onto that theme. Go into the teens and you are a bit suspect if those are the women naturally most attractive to you.

[TM99]

253. From what is reported

Soon-Yi was either 19 or 21 depending upon the age given her exact birth date is unknown. Some sites report one and others report the other. She was legal - that is the point.

There is still no correlation between his being attracted to Soon-Yi as an automatic 'suspicion' of his alleged sexual abuse of Dylan.

[treestar]

256. It's not like your average rich man being attracted to a 19 year old

He knew this girl since she was 10

[msanthrope]

174. I have a relative who is a Wee Care kid...

He still thinks he was abused...as do his parents. He isn't a liar, but is a victim of his parents, investigators, and court system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wee_Care_Nursery_School_abuse_trial

[bowens43]

177. actually many have lied about this.

[gollygee]

7. I voted that it's likely

but I guess "more likely than not" would be my opinion. I think it's more likely than not that it happened as she said. I think the idea that it's a false memory is unlikely. Most memories are real memories.

[el_bryanto]

8. The other question - if the allegations are true what should fans of Woody Allen do about it? nt

[BainsBane]

9. That, I believe, is a separate question

I probably don't qualify as a fan, but I haven't been able to watch any of his films since he married Soon Yi. It hasn't been a deliberate boycott. I just have a visceral reaction of nausea even if I come across an old movie on television.

[el_bryanto]

10. It is a separate question but I think it's key.

I mean there's nothing legally that can be done to him as near as I can tell. And if you don't like his movies or are disgusted by him personally than it's an easy enough question. But if you are fond of his movies (and I am) than are you contributing to a culture of abuse by supporting him? That's why this case arouses so much passion - if Woody Allen were a plumber, it seems unlikely anybody would be defending him.

But because people do like his movies and, in some cases, identify with his on screen persona it puts them in an uncomfortable situation. As I said elsewhere they can, as I see it, choose one of three options.

- stop watching movies they enjoy because they were made by a molester
- continue watching movies they enjoy, while knowing they were made by a molester
- figure out some way that Woody Allen is innocent.

Bryant

[CTyankee]

12. I had to break down and see "Midnight in Paris" and I admit I loved it.

And I did see Blue Jasmine so I could see Cate Blanchett work. But I went for a long time boycotting his movies and missed lots of them.

I was wrong to relax my standards, as I now sadly realize. So I am resolved to boycott his stuff.

I am now rooting for Judi Dench to win the Oscar. I would have said Blanchett for her fabulous performance but Dench was superb and should get the honor. I hope there is a change in Hollywood's attitude towards Woody Allen...

[SolutionisSolidarity]

104. This will never be proven.

Barring a confession by Mia or Woody, it will never be possible to know if the allegations are true. Mia has the word of her daughter, who was very young at the time. It's certainly possible that she has been manipulated by her adoptive mother. Woody has his polygraph results, though it's possible for a small percentage of people to beat those tests.

In the absence of strong evidence, people will believe what they want to believe. Woody Allen's fans will continue to give him the benefit of the doubt. People who instinctively believe any charge against a man unless proven otherwise will judge him guilty. The rest will muddle through.

[el_bryanto]

116. Any charge against a man? That's interesting terminology. nt

[SolutionisSolidarity]

216. The argument has been that false accusations are so rare that we should assume all accusations true.

I can't help it if that argument is absurd, as I'm not the one making it. Perhaps it would be more accurate to characterize it as "any sexual based charge against a man must be true unless proven otherwise".

[BainsBane]

185. I'm not sure how useful a polygraph is in such cases

Since pedophiles see nothing wrong in what they do. A polygraph measures physical reactions that signal someone is nervous about lying. They don't determine truth. If a person believes he is entitled or justified in doing something, he's not nervous so no deception registers.

[Capt. Obvious]

11. When you display the names of the voters

does it match your list?

[pintobean]

13. .

[BainsBane]

14. All but one has been entirely predicatable throughout this story

They generally are. Then I'm always glad to be proven wrong in my initial assessment of someone, if the circumstances call for it.

[seabeyond]

15. after reading this for a couple days, it seems what i hear, is the people that excuse allen

have no interest, thought, knowledge, awareness of sexual abuse. they do not need to have interest, thought, knowledge or awareness of abuse because they are not in a position in life cause of gender or circumstance that make that knowledge vital.

as a mom protective of my children, and a woman, that has experienced sexual harassment, and a feminist that has read many many many stories, i am in a position where tells are easy to see.

my husband on the other hand that has always lived in a safe world, doesnt have interest in feminism and womens experience, wants to just enjoy life in his privilege and entitlement which allows him this perspective and not the parent that does the emotional work with the children, he would not see the tells, at all, not even a little. they would have to be pointed out to him. and then, they would have to be explained to him. he would be open, but it would not be something he comes to on his own.

where as a man, and i can think of a few on du, that grew up with sexual assault or experienced it are in the same position where tells are easy to see.

not really a gender issue, more a privilege/entitlement, experience issue.

so those that listen to the story and say meh.... to many of the tells that throw up a flag will never even kinda get why it is obvious to so many of us.

when having the responsibility to our children, to protect them, without causing the children to have to live in the adult world responsible for their own safety because it is the parents job, then it makes it very clear and easy for the parent.

there is no fooling around. there is no wishy washy. there is a line and when someone steps over, even a toe, not even planting the foot on the ground yet? done. that person is done being around the kids, or ever to be trusted alone with them. it is not something any of us would ever play with.

[BainsBane]

16. I've been surprised by the number of men here who have disclosed experiences

of sexual assault, either as children or adults. I think far more men are survivors than we realize. I agree about your assessment of the Woody Allen defenders though. I also think many of them picture themselves in a position of being falsely accused.

[seabeyond]

17. agree with what you say.... absolutely. and i think some feel they are entitled, a mans right

regardless. those men are the fewest, i believe.

we have had enough threads over the years to make me very very aware of the number of men abused as children.

[Squinch]

65. I think some are also truly unaware that their

defense of Allen is not a neutral position. I think many defending Allen think their position is one of neutrality.

One poster couldn't quite figure out how I was able to think that Dylan might not be lying, and then gave me the benefit of the doubt by explaining to me that not telling an accurate story doesn't necessarily mean "lying." It might, this poster assured me, be the result of her having been brainwashed, and therefore it wasn't a moral judgment against her.

The idea that she might have been remembering accurately didn't seem to take up any space in his brain. (Sorry if you're reading this, poster, but it really struck me.)

[BainsBane]

68. Where do you think that comes from?

Women are liars by default? We've pointed out to them that false child abuse accusations are not common, so how can they assume Dylan has been brain washed. I am fully aware that I have a bias toward believing victims. I make no pretense otherwise. It bothers me that they can't see the bias in their own view point--a bias that is not in keeping with what we know about the frequency of child abuse and the rarity of false accusations. Of course it's possible, but that's quite different from saying it's a certainty or even likely.

I see a lot of attacks on Mia Farrow: She has affairs; she took up with an older man when she was young; why was it okay for her but not Woody Allen, as though any of that has a thing to do with Dylan's statement. This week I have learned how rape culture is so pervasive and why so few predators are convicted. It is disheartening.

[Squinch]

71. To give THEM the benefit of the doubt, for SOME I am sure it comes from

finding the idea of molesting a 7 year old truly unthinkable and unbearable. That gets coupled with the idea that, "this guy has spoken to me through his work and therefore he and I have things in common." Those two things can't exist together, so their brains throw out the possibility that she's telling the truth.

That mindset originates in naivete, but it has truly awful consequences for anyone who accuses a popular person of molestation.

I actually don't think there is any way to know what happened, which is why the avalanche of OP's we got that said, "here's why you shouldn't believe her" pissed me off no end. If we are really taking a neutral attitude about this, those posters would never have seen the need to post things to encourage disbelief in her story.

[seabeyond]

96. false accusation is rare, and pedophiles lying is always. hm... lets believe the pedophile.

not make logical sense there and women are the irrational ones, lmfao

[TM99]

20. Politely but bluntly

it is incredibly arrogant and wrong-headed to believe that you can know the 'tells' of sexual abuse just because you are woman, have experienced sexual harassment, and consider yourself a feminist.

I am a man. I was sexually abused from the ages of 7 to 9. I am a psychologist. I have practiced somatic psychotherapies from almost 25 years. With all of my personal experience, years of therapy and supervision, professional training, and professional experience, I know that there are no 'tells' certainly such that I or anyone can or could look at this muddled and dysfunctional family system and know for sure that Dylan Farrow was molested.

Additionally, my mother is a brilliant and loving woman who was a 'feminist' long before many of y'all were even born. She was a damned fine mother who still had no idea I was being molested. She didn't miss any 'tells' because there weren't any to miss.

I watch fellow therapists, men and women, who have unresolved abuse issues carry that counter-transference into the counseling relationship. They see abuse where there was not any, and often miss the more subtle signs that could lead to a realization of abuse because of their unfinished business and arrogance.

There is enough information that counters sexual molestation as there are claims of it in this case. I am not arrogant enough to presume that I know for sure unless I actually have clinical contact with those involved.

[seabeyond]

22. i do not fully agree with you, and i do not disagree either....

[BainsBane]

23. We all have instincts

I've gotten into trouble when I tried to talk myself out of following thsoe instincts. We pick up cues from people we often can't process consciously. While I wouldn't accuse someone of sexual abuse based on tells or instinct, I certainly would stay the hell away from them.

[TM99]

28. Instincts are just not enough

when dealing with abuse. Going on instinct can and has destroyed both the abused and those who didn't do any kind of abuse.

When it comes to yourself and yourself alone, of course. But when it comes to others and cases like this, no, not so much.

[BainsBane]

29. I was quite clear about how I see the role of instinct

We aren't talking about a court of law. I can do anything I want with my life, and I am under no obligation to allow abusers into my life because someone like you thinks I owe them the benefit of the doubt. I owe them exactly nothing.

I've been in two separate therapy groups with men my instincts told me were batterers. I was right in both cases. I know the signs, which is why I stay far away from them.

[LanternWaste]

53. What then are the precise and objective consequences of an instinct to avoid Woody's movies...?

"But when it comes to others and cases like this, no, not so much..."

Why? What then are the precise and objective negative consequences of an instinct to avoid Woody's movies or maintain a wholly personal opinion about his actions based on instincts?

[TM99]

106. Both of you seem focused solely on the idea of a 'court case'

yet, isn't ironic that he was cleared in a court case but that is not enough for those posting here 'against' him?

If you are not capable of empathizing with others to the point of recognizing that being falsely accused of a heinous act when one has not done said act is an horrific experience, then there is nothing more I could say.

What were the objective negative consequences for the following cases?

The Duke Lacrosse case
The Tawana Brawley case
The Day Care sexual abuse hysteria of the 1980's and early 1990's (at least 21 big public media driven cases of false allegations)

No one needs to be a psychologist or have advanced degrees in psychology to gain the knowledge of how difficult it really is to deal with sexual abuse cases, how reliable and unreliable memories are, what the actual statistics are on recovered memories in various populations, and how poor 'instincts' are in dealing with all of this.

[BainsBane]

110. "Both of you seem focused solely on the idea of a 'court case'"

No, neither of us mentioned it, other than when I explicitly said I wasn't talking about accusing anyone. We both made crystal clear we were talking about our own personal reactions and decisions in life, not a court case. I twice said I was talking about keeping away from predators in my own life. LaternWaste talked about not watching his movies. You mentioned a legal case. You object to our statements as though we don't have a right to make our own decisions in our own personal lives. Do you council your female patients to invite men they suspect of abuse into their homes and have them around their children because it's so unfair to harbor negative thoughts about someone? Are you seriously suggesting that the prospect of such a man having his feelings hurt is worse than the potential danger to ourselves or our children?


"Capable of empathizing with others": how about empathizing with the victim? There are tens of millions of victims of child abuse and few men falsely accused. You cite three cases from a period of decades. During the same time, millions of children have been abused and even killed by predators. Anyone who bothers to inform themselves even minimally know that. You keep invoking some claim of expertise, yet what you post shows the exact opposite.

What about your role as a mandated reporter? If you are a licensed therapist, you are obligated by law to report any and all signs of abuse against children or vulnerable adults. I've known a lot of social workers and therapist over the years. I have never seen one so easily dismiss the possibility of child abuse and elevate the feelings of accused predator above the life and safety of children. If you act in accordance with those views, that Is a violation of the law.

As far as Woody Allen, a man who repeatedly jokes about his ex wife's brutal rape on television and thinks a comment about being in a "love next with 12 yr olds" is funny isn't someone whose feelings I'm going to worry much about. A man who has an affair and then later marries the teenage sister of his children demonstrates quite clearly he has no regard for the feelings of even those closest to him. (Or any concern for laws about statutory rape in his relationship with Melkin). I'm far more worried about the children in his household.

[TM99]

112. Sadly, a predictable response.

I always find it rich in discussion when the 'empathize with the victim' line is used, particularly given my work and my own experiences of sexual abuse. Would you care to try a different line of reasoning?

And because I do have a greater responsibility as a therapist with regards to reporting, I make bloody damned sure that I have properly assessed a situation because abuse and the accusation of abuse have serious consequences for all involved.

If you want some genuine knowledge as opposed to emotional pablum dealing with the legal, ethical, and therapeutic realities of childhood sexual abuse, this is one of the books I recommend all of my beginning interns read:

True And False Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse: Assessment & Case Management edited by Dr. Tara Ney.

[seabeyond]

117. not really. at the least baines was a well thought out and well expressed post

that you basically ignored and did not take into consideration at all, before giving a reply how sad it was with little to know substance in your post.

i am not seeing it. therapy.

your posts are full of contradictions.

no tells.... watch for the subtle signs
not opinion to other side.... as you claim he was vindicated by courts which he was not.
no judging, .... as you judge.

a really non bias conversation with a person educated in therapy, what a BA in psychology? what is the extent of education to get a therapist license? a conversation with someone educated in this would be interesting. but, a person that doesnt listen or consider what another is saying is not interesting at all.

[TM99]

119. There is no possibility of conversation

with those who lack the knowledge to have one.

My posts are most certainly not full of contradictions. I offer a more balanced response to this situation from the perspective of one who has not only experienced sexual abuse but also gone through extensive training to deal with it.

In this particular case, none of us personally know the individuals involved. In this particular case, there are enough contradictions to warrant serious investigation by those actually trained to do so. That occurred during the time of the trial, but it is ignored by those who do not like the results. Yes, there are many, many cases of sexual abuse. Yes, there are some accusations that prove to be false, coerced, and mistaken. 'Instincts' and 'tells' are not even reliable for personal choices but if you must go on believing it is so, there is nothing I will try to say further to suggest otherwise. It took a great deal of training to learn how to distinguish what is clinically 'real' and what is not. No where did I ever state that there were 'subtle signs'. That is a tactic that I have watched you use in other threads.

Finally, not all therapists come from the same school of thought and yet can and are quite effective and empathic in their approaches to healing. Given that neither of y'all are in the field, I am really not surprised that you instead wish to attack my character, my training, and my approach instead of dealing with what I have said all along in this sub-thread.

I deal with men and women like you and BanesBaine all the time....sadly. I have nothing to defend nor to prove.

Please carry on with your back patting, arrogance, and little attacks at those who contradict y'all even in the slightest.

I won't waste further time with those who make up stuff to frame their debates and conversations with. Please have the last word as I put you both on ignore.

[BainsBane]

120. "There is no possibility of conversation"

with those who don't read what someone writes or respond to their points and instead claim I have said the precise opposite of what I actually did.

[seabeyond]

121. you are the one that has chosen to name call thru out your posts. you are the one that has

continually insulted those that disagree with you, without actually addressing the issue.

and no where in your post did i see balance.

sorry. not buying it.

[BainsBane]

126. Heads up

To make an attack on me effective, you should probably post it in response to one of my post's rather than Seabeyond's.

[Rex]

149. Really? I've had some great conversations with BB and sea.

Maybe it is just a bad day.

[BainsBane]

184. It is more challenging when one doesn't read my post

and decides I've discussed the opposite of what I actually said.

[Rex]

222. Yeah that has to be hard, to discuss something

without reading the post you are replying to!

[BainsBane]

223. Did you see this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709

Remarkably quiet thread for such an important document.

[msanthrope]

175. Thank you for your brilliant, well-thought out posts on this matter. nt

[BainsBane]

124. Somatic psychotherapy

I happen to work at an institution with one of the top-rated psychology departments in the nation. Yet amazingly, not a single faculty member specializes in somatic psychology. There is a very nice adjunct in the dance department who teaches dance therapy, which is part of somatic psychotherapy.

This is what I found online about this superior form of knowledge, too superior to be taught at one of the country's leading psychology departments.

Somatic psychology is an interdisciplinary field involving the study of the body, somatic experience, and the embodied self, including therapeutic and holistic approaches to body. The word somatic comes from the ancient Greek root σωματ- somat- (body). The word psychology comes from the ancient Greek psyche (breath, soul hence mind) and -logia (study). Body Psychotherapy is a general branch of this subject, while Somatherapy, Eco-somatics and Dance therapy, for example, are specific branches of the subject. Somatic psychology is a field of study that bridges the Mind-body dichotomy.

While Pierre Janet can perhaps be considered the first Somatic Psychologist due to his extensive psychotherapeutic studies and writings with significant reference to the body (some of which pre-date Freud), it was actually Wilhelm Reich who was the first person to bring body awareness systematically into psychoanalysis, and also the first psychotherapist to touch clients physically, working with their bodies.[1] Reich was a significant influence in the founding of Body Psychotherapy (or Somatic Psychology as it is often known in the USA & Australia) - though he called his early work "Character Analysis"[2] and "Character-Analytic Vegetotherapy&quot . Several types of body-oriented psychotherapies trace their origins back to Reich, though there have been many subsequent developments and other influences (ref: entry on Body Psychotherapy and Somatic Psychology is of particular interest in trauma work.[3][4]

There is increasing use of body-oriented therapeutic techniques within mainstream psychology (like EMDR and Mindfulness practice) and psychoanalysis has recognized the use of somatic resonance, embodied trauma, and similar concepts, for many years.[citation needed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_psychology

Ah, Freud: I do love a historical misogynist.

Somatic psychotherapy, which is a form of body-oriented therapy, has grown dramatically since its inception from the theories of Pierre Janet and the works of Wilhelm Reich in the early 21st century. The original model of somatic psychotherapy using energy and character has been expanded upon in recent times by Pierrakos, Lowen, and Keleman. In the United Kingdom and throughout Europe, additional modifications have been made through creative additions from Boadella and Boyesen. Contemporary somatic psychotherapy recognizes that every intricacy of human experience is connected and that each element of body, mind, and spirit co-exist, complement, and contrast each other and combine to create a complete, whole person. In addition, somatic theories state that every experience, event, external and cultural environment, and somatic reality are woven together as one seamless fabric. This form of therapy employs a comprehensive and naturalist approach to human development, growth, and healing.

What is Somatic Psychotherapy?

Somatic psychotherapy is an embodied experience that makes no distinction between body and mind. By severing the two and considering them as disconnected separate entities, one's understanding of the intricate inter-relations people have becomes distorted. These misperceptions of people's internal selves often go unrecognized in traditional verbal psychotherapy, however by incorporating somatic experiences into the treatment, these relevant symptoms and signs become visible. In addition, various toxic practices continue to be unattended to because of the missing component of physical body oriented psychotherapy. The body represents an enormous field of awareness and this belief has been at the core of all body oriented therapies since they came into development.

http://www.goodtherapy.org/somatic-psychotherapy.html

I don't know if it is true that it was developed in the early 21st century, since our expert says he has been a practitioner for twenty years. I do have to wonder why a new field of psychotherapy would be developed at that time since recent developments in clinical psychology focus on forms of cognitive behavioral therapy because psychotherapy has been shown to actually worsen many mental health conditions. That text above could also be in error.


They do teach it here, the top Google result for instruction in the field: http://www.ciis.edu/Academics/Graduate_Programs/Somatic_Psychology.html http://www.ciis.edu/Academics/Faculty.html
I'll make a wild guess that there isn't a lot of NIH funded research going on there.

[seabeyond]

196. body, mind, spirit.

thank you for giving this info.

body, mind, spirit... very much about the feel. interesting stuff baines. and i better understand. my thought though, if a person spends so much time in htis, then the posts that were given to him, would be a wonderful opportunity for exploration, instead of an insistence and demand to shut it all down.

interesting.

for personal reasons.

[BainsBane]

198. When I spoke with the dance therapist I mentioned

I talked to her about what she did. It sounded very cool. She has an MFA, is a trained dancer, and a degree or certificate in dance therapy. From what I understand, it is a non-verbal form of therapy and part of a dance curriculum rather than taught in the psychology department. She wanted to go to Palestine to work with a dance school to set up a program using dance to help heal tensions between Jews and Palestinians. It sounded great. Ultimately she wasn't able to do that project and ended up doing something similar in the Baltic region.

Anyway, when I did a search for somatic therapy in my area, her name came up, but nothing in the psychology department, even on their faculty page.

[BainsBane]

118. How about a line of reasoning where you indicate

You have read what we actually wrote, that we were talking about our own personal choices in life? Or about your responsibility as a mandated reporter? About following the law? Or about the actual frequency of child abuse vs. false accusations?

"Emotional pablum" from a supposed therapist even? "Genuine knowledge" based on what is clearly documented to be infrequent false reporting based on millions of unprosecuted case of child abuse. You aren't convincing at all. It is obvious you are the one responding entirely emotionally. Are false accusations horrendous, yes. Who the are we falsely accusing? No one. We are discussing a case all over the press. We are choosing to avoid predators in our own life. That for some reason is unacceptable to you. Guess what, it's is absolutely none of your business.

[seabeyond]

122. and this would be the interesting of the net. i am so willing to discuss all kinds of aspects

of this situation with an "expert". from the point of soon-yi at a young age being indoctrinated by a predator who sees potential and the lasting results of that to a parents job of being connected and intuned to recognize signs. cause i guess tells are unacceptable, but signs are where it is at.

yet, from expertise and experience all we get is a diagnosis of who we are as people, with little to no information on us, lol, in certainty and the unchallenged fact that woody is innocent and all other parties are liars, not that anyone can know.

odd odd

[msanthrope]

176. "Emotional pablum" left a mark, did it not? nt

[BainsBane]

182. Actually the most startling part

was insisting we were talking about court cases when we explicitly said more than once we were talking about personal decisions in our own lives and not a court of law or even accusing anyone. Emotional pablum seemed out of character for a therapist, a professional that focuses on feelings. It is not typical for therapist to abhor the emotional part of the mind. which research shows is indispensable to decision making. Rather, they tend to encourage decision making that integrates intellect and emotion, "wise mind," in the parlance of Dialectic Behavioral Therapy. But then, I claim no know of this somatic psychology that appears to be taught at new age institutes rather than Research 1 universities.

[msanthrope]

186. Left quite a mark, then. nt

[BainsBane]

188. No, but you want to think so

nothing will stop you.

Evidently you define "brilliance" as free association non-responsive to what someone actually wrote. Or perhaps it's just disagreeing with the right (or wrong) people. Clearly we have different ideas of what constitutes brilliance. Brilliance is not a term I would use to describe anything on this site, given the casual nature with which posts are composed. A thoughtful response, however, should show some familiarity with what the people he's responding to actually say. But perhaps I'm just not smart enough to figure understand how personal decisions in my life about whom I choose to associate with relate to a court of law. Wouldn't that imply I would be waging some sort of criminal action or appearing in court at some point? It never occurred to me that avoiding a person was some sort of legal travesty.

[msanthrope]

190. Bain..the fact that you've spent so much time on a poster who quite deftly

handed you your rear, and then put you on ignore, is indicative of how deep they got under your skin.

[BainsBane]

194. So what is the point for you?

You hope he got under my skin because that would make you happy? Or do you actually have a point about the subject of the thread or subthread? Clearly the fact that his response doesn't show any familiarity with our posts doesn't matter. Note he put me on ignore, not the other way around. That would seem to indicate I got under his skin, but that certainly was not my intent.

You are correct that I found his comments perplexing given his claims of being a therapist because they seemed so unlike anything a therapist would actually say. But as I said, I have no familiarity with somatic psychotherapy. If that warms the cockles of your heart, I'm glad I could brighten your day.

[pintobean]

195. Is that the way ignore works?

Huh... very telling.

[BainsBane]

204. You're really going to talk about what peple do when someone has them on ignore?

Seriously? Do you have any mirrors at home?

[seabeyond]

207. check out the thread, roguevalley, what the judge said way back when. not looking good for woody. nt

[seabeyond]

209. here is the link. thinking therapist should unignore us so he can gather more info....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709

[pintobean]

212. Your replies frequently

make people wonder what the hell you are replying to, and what must you think you just read. It has to be am act.

[BainsBane]

213. I suggest you worry about what you write

and subjects you engage with, if you decide to do so, rather than what people think about what I write. They are perfectly capable of communicating that for themselves. Everyone here is an adult. I am more than happy to clarify any confusion or miscommunication if asked, as long as it relates to actual subject matter.

[pintobean]

215. Your suggestions are welcome

here

[BainsBane]

230. Classy as always

I'm so glad you would never treat anyone with disrespect.
You have this way of reminding me of junior high. It's not everyday grown adults can converse like 12 yr old. Thanks for that!

[seabeyond]

197. i asked a question, and baines thoroughly provided information for me. why would you turn it into

something catty.

handed baines her ass? really? is this where we are at?

body mind and spirit...







much more healthy place to be. i will agree with the therapist on that one.

[BainsBane]

208. Yeah, I don't see how he handed my ass to me

I have to wonder if she could characterize how he supposedly dismantled my argument. I suspect not, given he doesn't even respond to it.

[seabeyond]

210. since he addressed nothing you talked about, but called you arrogant and stupid, lol

meh....

[seabeyond]

114. point by point excellent post baines that would be an interesting conversation yet was shrugged,

and ignored.

no. i am not seeing it either

[bettyellen]

30. you just said there are no tells, but people- "miss the more subtle signs". A complete contradiction

who is arrogant and wrong headed now? Get your story straight.

[sabrina 1]

134. Does that mean that you are the moral arbiter of what is the right way to think

and the wrong way to think about cases like this where no one has a clue what went on, but SHOULD take the side you have taken anyhow?

[BainsBane]

135. No, it means I answered his question

I am entitled to make my own judgments, just as you are to yours. He asked me what I thought, not what absolute morality was.

[cui bono]

218. So you really don't care about having a discussion, you just want to know how to pass judgment

on people.

So self-righteous. Yuck.

[BainsBane]

220. Right, that's it exactly

That's precisely what I said.

I was asked a question and answered it. Period. Get over it.

[cui bono]

219. Brilliantly stated.

[BainsBane]

221. Brilliance?

My, talk about not caring about subject matter. Are you just pissed off I had the nerve to disagree with you on St. Woody or do you have some longer standing issue with me?

I have to say the bar for brilliance around here is pretty low. One doesn't even have to demonstrate a familiarity with the topic. Just snipe at the right (or wrong) people and get applause. I find it tedious. Just put me on ignore and be done with me. No need to cultivate personal animosity in your life.

Oh, did you see the thread with the actual court record from 1992? Somehow it's different from the publicist version that you and others have been repeating. Imagine that. There might be a side other than Woody Allen's publicist. But no, we can't look at actual court records. We can't consider a victim's actual statement. That would be out of the question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709

[cui bono]

225. Absolutely! Oh, and accurate.

I disagree with a lot of people and no, I'm not pissed off in the least. However most aren't trying to compile a black list as you are and Capt. Obvious stated that in a brilliant way.

There's no discussing this topic with you as you can see just by reading this post of yours, let alone the myriad of other ones that refuse to look at this objectively and this poll where you attempt to "out" people for whatever you feel is their black list worthy opinion.

So... that's all.

[seabeyond]

226. the judge says allen was grossly inappropriate with dylan

court records

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html

"After considering Ms. Farrow's position as the sole caretaker of the children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fulfilled that function and Mr. Allen's serious parental inadequacies, it is clear that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow," Justice Wilk wrote.

The judge, however, did not entirely close the door on any possible future contact between Mr. Allen and Dylan, ruling that a therapist must be hired within six months to determine whether it would be harmful for Dylan to resume visits with Mr. Allen, whom she has not been permitted to see since August. "A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan's therapy," the judge said. In addition, while Justice Wilk denied Mr. Allen's request for unsupervised visits with his 5-year-old son, Satchel Farrow, he allowed him to increase the number of weekly supervised visits with the boy from two to three. As for Mr. Allen's third child, 15-year-old Moses Farrow, the justice said he would accede to the boy's wishes that he not be forced to see his father.

*

Mr. Allen's lawyers have maintained that the charges were concocted by Ms. Farrow out of anger over Mr. Allen's affair with her adoptive daughter, Soon-Yi Farrow Previn, who is now 22 years old. Justice Wilk, however, had few unkind words for Ms. Farrow, whom he commended as a caring and loving mother who had tried to protect her children from what he characterized as Mr. Allen's manipulativeness and insensitivity. "Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen," he wrote. On the other hand, Justice Wilk portrayed Mr. Allen as devious, hurtful and unreliable, a father who did not know the names of his son's teachers -- or even which children shared which bedrooms in Ms. Farrow's apartment. Mr. Allen lived in a separate apartment on the other side of Central Park.

*

The justice said he considered Mr. Allen's affair with Soon-Yi Farrow Previn -- and his inability to comprehend the impact the romance was having on the other children in the Farrow household -- further evidence of his deficiencies as a parent. "Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system," Justice Wilk wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/02/23/reviews/farrow-verdict.html

this would be the judge speaking....

[cui bono]

227. You're confusing me with someone who is arguing the merits of Dylan's accusations.

I was merely expressing my agreement that this OP is nothing more than a misguided and judgmental black list attempt.

[seabeyond]

228. ah. and see. after posting i was thinking to self....

i really kinda jumped in there and have not been following what is up.

[lumberjack_jeff]

237. "Captain Obvious" = Best username ever.

FTW

[11 Bravo]

18. Based on the understanding that most accusations of abuse have some merit ...

I would say that it is likely that Dylan was abused.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

19. I voted other because I don't need nor want to know the sordid details of this family's

dysfunctional life. To me, Woody's actions (or lack thereof) tell me that he is not a man of honor and has boundary issues.

I think that Dylan and Woody had a -weird-(that might be the understatement of the year) father/daughter relationship. To what degree and for how long is a moot point.

I am not sure that coming forward to the public with any of this is good for anyone, even though discussions are being generated I wonder if anyone is learning anything. Questioning their own perceptions.

I feel sorry for Dylan and wish her peace of mind. I hope she can find happiness. I do think her "story" has a ring of truth to it.

As for Allen's talents ... I am separating the man from his work but, I bet it colors how I view his films from now on ... IF I decide to view them.

I was looking forward to seeing Blue Jasmine ... now ...

not.so.much.

[seabeyond]

24. i think the trigger in all this was teh public honoring. how much bile would you have to swallow...

hearing the "father" that abused you was being honored

i think that would be very challenging to not speak out to

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. I agree with that. Would -I- have made a public statement? -I- don't know ...

I kind of doubt it because I am a pretty private sort of person.

Also, didn't I see where the "other side" was questioning the timing of the release of Dylan's statement to coincide with all this to generate publicity (vile, I know) but, some think that any publicity is "good" publicity.

Something also about a book release by another "family" member or something. can't recall exactly.

I don't know.

Manipulation.

by whom?

for what end?

Good lord. all these years and Allen has been in therapy and still ... This ... ???

What kind of childhood did he have?

All of them seem to need counseling of some sort to varying degrees.

sheesh.

[hrmjustin]

21. I have no idea but I have to say he gives me the creeps.

[baldguy]

26. Dylan is unquestionably the victim of abuse.

Certainly by Mia, possibly by Woody, maybe by both.

Moses Farrow is the one who used the term "brainwashed" in speaking about the way him and his siblings were indoctrinated by Mia with regards to Woody.

[BainsBane]

27. "Certainly by Mia"

What evidence do you have to support that claim?

[pintobean]

31. "instinct"

[aikoaiko]

32. And the jury results are in...

On Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:11 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

"instinct"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4455045

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Continually posting laughing emoticons in a thread about child abuse is crass and disruptive.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Feb 6, 2014, 02:16 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I can laugh better than this post.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Nothing offensive here, thanks for wasting our time.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation:

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

34. Haha.

What a waste of time. Some people are a little too alert friendly

[pintobean]

39. Oh my

And, thanks for the laugh.

[Comrade Grumpy]

46. I think alerters need own their alerts. That might cut down on some of this crap.

[BainsBane]

33. Your sensity to the topic is duly noted

How anyone could find threads on child abuse a source of amusement is inconceivable.

[pintobean]

37. The thread topic is not the source of amusement.

You know that, though. Anyone with half a brain could see that. The only reason that I can think why you would post such a ridiculous thing is you think DUers will believe it. You should have more faith in the intelligence of this community.

[BainsBane]

40. Your posts speak for themselves

You have decided the most important thing is not the topic, not the abuse of a child, not the feelings of abuse survivors in this thread, but your antipathy for me, which is so great that you feel compelled to demonstrate it in the most inappropriate places, with no respect for the topic or those involved in the thread. What must go on in your mind to make you think that is acceptable, I couldn't begin to imagine. Nor do I want to.

[polly7]

41. How do you know what he decided is most important?

People do have the right to express themselves occasionally with a bit of humour (which had nothing to do with the abuse of a child) without being judged as the soulless, degenerates you never fail to try to make them out to be. I checked out your group .... you have NO problem using your own brand of 'humour' to demean a whole shitload of people on this board. Everyone is expected to have a thick skin when it comes to having their words and meanings twisted into the ugliest crap possible, time after time on issues like this ...... I (and the jury, obviously) don't think a simple word is nearly as dramatic as you're making it out to be.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

43. She's hiding behind the subject.

Everyone knows child abuse is terrible, she however has decided that because the subject is so terrible she must be impervious to criticism even while spouting off asinine bullshit.



Using child abuse as a shield to hide behind while you post nonsense is pretty low.

[polly7]

45. Exactly! nt.

[BainsBane]

78. Imagine thinking the point of a discussion board

Is to discuss subject matter.

[polly7]

87. The thing is, you don't appreciate discussion that you don't agree with.

You've shown it over and over. Don't blame people when they get fed up with it.

[oldhippie]

49. A very common tactic by some. nt

[LanternWaste]

54. As is the passive aggressive tendency to refer to specific people as "some"

" A very common tactic by some..." As is the passive aggressive tendency to refer to specific people as "some" when the courage to speak one's mind is dramatically absent.

(Insert rationalization here...)

[oldhippie]

56. Which is used as a tactic to avoid .....

.... the trap that the "some" intend with their tactics. *Some* are smart enough to figure it out. DU is just chock full of smart people.

[pintobean]

58. That tactic is common on DU

because of the alert/jury system. It gets the point across without risking a hidden post. "Some" is used by most, especially when jury results are posted in the sub-thread.

[R B Garr]

72. At least you're honest about your "gotcha" tactics.

That's a lot of strategy to keep track of. Is this your version of Spy vs. Spy?

[pintobean]

74. Once again, you show your amazing comprehension skills.

I have no idea who you are, but it looks like you came into this thread to try to give me shit. I don't mind, though - you're very amusing.

[BainsBane]

77. Ironic, considering

that is precisely why you entered this thread.

[R B Garr]

88. Exactly!

I don't think I've seen that poster say anything that is not about you.

[BainsBane]

91. Well, there are a few others he focuses on

But I think I hold a special place in his heart.

[pintobean]

93. Please don't use me

to flatter yourself.

[BainsBane]

99. I can do better than that

I can guarantee I'll never talk or think about you ever again. All you need to is leave me alone.

[pintobean]

100. Not a problem

I'll start when you treat the members of this community with respect. I don't think that will happen, though.

[BainsBane]

103. Pot-kettle

You are the last one to make that charge. So much so that you seldom comment on subject matter at all, as the other poster observed.
There is an alert system for when people say something offensive. DU does not need a self-appointed hall monitor. I sometimes get overheated in debate and cross the line, but I at least care about and discuss issues.

If you don't want a truce, fine. You clearly derive some sort of satisfaction from what you do. I might take it personally if I didn't know it says far less about me than how you feel about yourself.

[pintobean]

89. I entered the thread to vote in your poll.

Then, I let Capt. Obvious know that I appreciate his sense of humor.

The thread had potential, but it turned into a typical BB thread. When I saw your double standards on display, I pointed it out.

[opiate69]

66. Oh, the irony!

Oh, the irony!

As is the passive aggressive tendency to refer to specific people as "some" when the courage to speak one's mind is dramatically absent.

[BainsBane]

76. Going for another?

[opiate69]

90. Another what? Is that some kind of a threat?

[BainsBane]

92. It was a question

That's why there was question mark.

[BainsBane]

75. Criticism?

This is your idea of criticism? My, how profound.

The subject matter is the point of the thread, as it is every other thread on this site. That a few here are entirely uninterested in engaging in a discussion of that subject matter and instead only care about the grudges they carry about people strikes me as unproductive, but then people make their priorities clear in what they post.

What you think I'm "hiding behind" escapes me. Seemingly you feel posters should be able to ignore the subject matter of a thread to devote themselves to ridiculing people they don't like without being called on it. Well, at least if it's against someone as odious as myself who has the nerve to disagree with you on porn, heroin, and the infallibility of libertarianism.

I think it's well established that you and your pals dislike me. Why you think that is a source of public discussion, I can't begin to imagine. Ignore exists for that very purpose, which is why I had Pintobean on ignore for months. Yet that doesn't stop him from the same old thing all the time. It's not exactly a newsflash that you all don't like me. Guess what? I don't care what you think of me, and I suspect very few other people do either. Most people are here to discuss subject matter, not nurture grudges against complete strangers. I don't know what you think you're going to accomplish, but it's a waste of everyone's energies.

[polly7]

85. People don't even know you,

isn't it stupid to decide if you like or dislike some nameless, faceless being on a message board?

Get over trying to make everything about 'you', we discuss things and are continually having our posts twisted into ugly bullshit (that inevitably ends up being all about you), when in fact it's the intellectual dishonesty and flat out lying some of us 'dislike'. ie, being called rape-apologists (as a survivor), pedophile enablers - for admitting we don't know the whole story any more than you do, etc. etc. etc.

I don't get why you choose to play victim whenever someone says something you don't like ...... it really isn't all about you. It's the tactics used to shut people up and out of conversations you don't believe have room for any opinion other than your own.

[BainsBane]

79. People reveal their concerns and priorities through what they post

That is as true for me as it is for you and Pintobean.

[polly7]

86. Well that was deep.

lol. He said something you didn't like. It revealed nothing but that occasionally people resort to humour.

[sabrina 1]

136. Thanks Polly. Well said. n/t

[pintobean]

42. Your posts speak for themselves, as well.

Up-thread, you blew off the opinion of a professional, trusting your own instincts and readings of 'tells'. You actually got pretty rude about it. Then you see an opinion you disagree with and you demand evidence. If you held yourself to the same standards you expect from others, you might see fewer of these:

[BainsBane]

44. Make whatever excuse you like

The fact is you do what you do because of who you are. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. Tomorrow it will be another excuse about me or someone else. That is how you choose to spend your life.

[pintobean]

51. You know nothing about me or my life.

Read the rest of this sub-thread for a little perspective. Everybody knows what you're trying to do. Being slapped 6-0 by the jury taught you nothing.

[R B Garr]

69. "Everybody knows what you're trying to do." Who is "everybody"?

Is "everybody" the individuals who voted the same way you did in the poll?

[pintobean]

70. Well, you just proved me wrong.

[BainsBane]

47. As for subject matter

Are you claiming that women have a responsibility to invite abusers into their homes because an anonymous person on a message board says instincts aren't enough? Because what you take exception to are decisions about my own life. Why you think an anonymous "professional" should be able to decide that, God only knows.

[bettyellen]

55. the "professional" who directly contradicted themselves- saying there were subtle signs but no tells

at all. Tells Are signs, so I'm hoping that poster isn't paid for such contradictory nonsense.

[BainsBane]

60. Moreover, liscenced therapists are mandated reporters

If they do not report to authorities ANY sign of abuse of a child or vulnerable adult, they are in violation of the law.

Additionally, there is research that shows that people process information without being aware of it. Most of communication is non-verbal, and you are assessing people as you interact with them, even if you are not consciously aware of it. Those instincts I refer to are the result of processing that information. My experience has been that failing to pay attention to them is not wise. Whenever I've talked myself out of paying attention to the feeling in my gut, I've been wrong. I've never known a therapist to tell anyone to ignore that.

I also made very clear I was not talking about any kind of accusation but rather choices about my own life, which are no one's decision but my own.

[bettyellen]

62. yeah, that was no professional opinion, LOL. Ignoring your gut feelings is counter indicated-

a real pro might ask you to try and figure out why you have that feeling.
but they wouldn't tell you to ignore them, that was just nonsense.

yeah, it's not always obvious why red flags go off, but the older I get the easier it often is to say why. Narcissistic people who show callous disregard of others, who dismiss them or constantly push their agenda. People who are consumed by only their own needs and use others as props or lackeys. I think when you are younger you might envy that as confidence. I know had to be run over it like a truck to realize I had sociopath on my hands. And I had myself been making excuses for them for years, just like everyone else.
I missed a lot of red flags, LOL. Never again.

[BainsBane]

63. I hear you

As awful as those experiences are, we can learn from them. The other aleternative is not to learn and continue to repeat a pattern of involving oneself with abusive partners. Therapy is intended to avoid the latter.

Why you have that feeling is exactly what therapists do. That enables you to think consciously about the various cues you've picked up on. Yeah, abuse survivors can be hypervigilant, but it beats the altnerative. I'm not risking my life because someone online who despises me thinks I should succum to the determination of an anonymous therapist. That some don't distinguish between a categorical statement of another person's guiilt and making personal decisions about one's own life is also odd.

I'm very sorry you endured such an awful experience, bettyellen. I'm gald you came out on the otherside of it.

[polly7]

166. Now, now ......

"And none of our childhoods have anything to do with it. Ya think?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4454122

Don't be bringing up any past experience that might influence how one might want to consider every angle of a situation ....... cause that's just totally irrelevant crap. Ya know?!

[oldhippie]

48. What some people find inconceivable .....

... is inconceivable to me.

[BainsBane]

50. Yeah, it's a safe bet that will always be the case

for you and me.

[baldguy]

80. You don't think that brainwashing your child to hate their other parent isn't abuse?

Remember, that's are Moses' word. Not mine.

[BainsBane]

81. Moses isn't the victim, Dylan is

Dylan says she was molested. She said so very clearly in her recent NYTimes letter. Why would you assume Moses knows what happened when he wasn't even there during the assaults? Dylan was. Moses' word is about as credible as Rownan's. Neither were victims or witnesses to the abuse.

[baldguy]

82. I note that you didn't answer the question.

I guess some forms of abuse are OK with you.

[BainsBane]

83. I didn't answer the question because I don't believe it happened

Why would you assume that as a fact, over Dylan's own statement? Why disbelieve the victim in favor of someone who wasn't even there? Brainwashing is not okay with me, and I know it only happens exceedingly rarely, and typically under war conditions and torture. Yet you assume it happened why exactly? Because the brother said so? The other brother says differently. Ultimately, the one whose testimony I'm concerned with is Dylan's. The rest are all opinion, not evidence.

If Mia brainwashed Dylan, why is it that Dylan first told the babysitter and not Mia? It was then the babysitter who told Mia. Dylan spoke about the abuse first before Mia ever knew of it. This is according to the testimony of the babysitter. Clearly the court didn't believe Mia was abusive because they denied Allen's custody suit to award Mia full custody of Dylan without Allen's even receiving supervised visitation rights. It is rare for a father to be denied any visitation whatsoever.

[baldguy]

94. So you think Moses is lying when he said him and his sister were abused by Mia.

The thing is, YOU KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about what happened & what the relationships in that family are like. And you're not likely to. To pretend you do is obscene.

OTOH Moses has seen it first-hand. Ronan has seen it first-hand too, but his estrangement from Woody has nothing to do with theses allegations.

Further, there's no "testimony" here. What I see from the outside is a bad breakup from over 20 yrs ago where Mia tried to get a molestation charge against Woody to stick, and then tried to get Woody's adoption of Moses and Dylan annulled. The justice system shot her down on both counts.

So you have to ask: What is the purpose of bringing up these stale allegations again after 20 yrs? There's not going to be any new charges filed and there won't be any prosecution as a result. So, why? The only possible reason is to cause more harm to Woody.

[BainsBane]

101. I know nothing but you know with certainty Mia abused Dylan

because you read it in People magazine. Neither Ronan or Moses witnessed Dylan's sexual abuse. Dylan provides the only testimony of that, though there is corroboration of some of her story from a nanny.

Child abuse is never "stale." That rape shaped that girl's formation. It is part of who she is. It affects her ability to relate to people, to form romantic relationships, and virtually everything abut her. Her rapist was never punished for violating her. Instead, he got a lifetime achievement award from the Golden Globes. She clearly felt writing that letter to the NYTimes was important to her own ability to heal.

A study conducted in 1986 found that 63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8). . . .

A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, a feeling of worthlessness and an abnormal or distorted view of sex. The child may become withdrawn and mistrustful of adults, and can become suicidal (page 1)http://www.victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/child-sexual-abuse-statistics

Survivors are also far more likely to be obese, suffer from Depression, and suffer from a host of illnesses. They are not "stale" accusations. She lives with that experience each and every day of her life.

You have the basic facts of the case wrong. Dylan first told a babysitter about the abuse, who then told Mia. Mia contacted a doctor and then her lawyer. After the lawyer informed Woody Allen of Dylan's allegations, HE called a press conference and sued for custody of his three children. He lost. Not only did he lose, but he was denied even supervised visitation with Dylan, something that is typically only done when the family court believes the father a danger to the child.

This is a man who joked about being in "a love nest with 12 year olds," who several times publicly ridiculed his ex-wife on television about her violent stranger rape; a man who felt entitled to take nude photos and carry on a secret affair with the teenage sister of his own children, a girl he had watched grow up from age 9. He expressed no concern over the impact that relationship would have on his own children and instead decided his lust was more important than their well-being. He also has a pattern of dating teenage girls who look younger than their years. Everything abut him points to being a predator.

You proclaim with absolute certainty that Mia abused Dylan, despite the fact Dylan herself has never made that claim. The chances that Dylan is making up the allegation or relying on false memories are exceedingly slim. Child sexual abuse is very common: 20% of all girls in this country are victims, as are 5% of boys. False allegations are rare. For you to proclaim with such certainty than Mia brainwashed Dylan is not logical. Most importantly, you are completely delegitimizing Dylan's own account of her experience in favor of something you read in People magazine. The girls and women of this country deserve better than to be so summarily dismissed.

[sabrina 1]

137. And you are deligitimizing the other child's own account of his experience

in favor of something you read in whatever magazine you read it in.

Do you know these people, were you present, as Moses was, when all this supposedly happened? You speak as if you were an eye witness.

[BainsBane]

214. The victim

The "other child" is not the victim. He did not experience the abuse. He cannot possibly say that his sister did not experience something. There are lots of people who talk about what they think might have happened, and give different points of view, but the only ones who experienced it are Dylan and Woody.

All of Mia's children except Moses support Dylan's account. His one brother insists she wasn't abused. Families are full of people who deny that abuse occurs. I would guess there are scores of people on this site who were abused yet had a family member insist it wasn't true. The default position for many seems to be let's pretend rape doesn't happen, for what reason I can't imagine.

[treestar]

252. The judge found that it was Woody who responded in litigation by

attempting to turn the children against their mother.

[baldguy]

254. And that has exactly bupkis to do with Mia's allegations of sexual abuse.

If Woody is to be faulted for attempting to turn the children against their mother, that should go double for Mia because she's succeed.

[treestar]

255. The judge did not find that she did that

But that her chief fault as parent was her "contented relationship with Mr. Allen."

[Squinch]

95. This whole Moses Farrow thing is ridiculous. ALL of the other children say the opposite

of what he says. ELEVEN of them. His statements are not proof of anything.

[El_Johns]

98. No they don't. Most haven't said anything at all. And 6 of them were adopted after Farrow &

Allen split.

Moses' statement means something because he was living at home and was 14 when it happened.

Most of the Previn kids were out of the household by then, in college or working.

The last six weren't even adopted.

Ronan was 5. He wasn't old enough to understand what was going on very well and is unlikely to have coherent memories from that period.

Dylan was 7.

Moses was 14, the only one of the kids who was old enough to have a somewhat adult understanding of the situation and also be forming coherent, connected memories.

[BainsBane]

111. Keep telling yourself that

That a boy who didn't even witness the abuse knows more than the victim herself. His claim is that Mia brainwashed Dylan. That would have taken years to accomplish, far beyond that period that Dylan said she was abused. I suppose if you repeat that crap long enough you might eventually believe it yourself, but you are not going to convince us that Mia, Martians, or ghosts are responsible for Dylan's memories. Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is usually the right one. The chances that Mia Farrow had some sort of Manchurian Candidate operation going at home are highly unlikely. The story is bizarre and I see no reason to believe it.

Look, the guy is not going to jail. He's got two children in the home now. He's free to do whatever he wants, including molesting the two kids in his home. So some people on a message board think he's trash? He's still filthy rich, still entirely unconcerned with Dylan or the rest of his children. It's not like anyone is going to force him to become a decent human being. People just aren't going to watch his movies, which means he might be slightly less filthy rich. Big fucking deal. That's nothing compared to the devastation he caused on Dylan's life and the rest of his kids when he married their sister.

[Bonobo]

113. You must have an awfully low opinion of Soon-Yi.

In your view, not only is she not capable of making her own decisions about who she marries (&quot he) married their sister&quot but she must surely be aware of his being a pedophile and chooses to do nothing, putting her own children at risk.

[El_Johns]

127. None of which has anything to do with the point at issue.

[BainsBane]

131. If brainwashing isn't at issue

What is responsible for Dylan's testimony? She's just a liar?
Then what is the point of continually raising the brother's story in the hallowed publication People magazine? I thought your point was he was more credible than the victim herself? Now that has nothing to do with the issue?

[El_Johns]

138. Try to follow the conversation, please.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4457327

[BainsBane]

140. Oh, so you were responding to my post

but not actually considering anything I said. You do like to deflect away from everything but the statement by the victim. As fascinating as you may be by Mia's other children, they are what is not at issue. Dylan is. As inconsequential as you may find her, she is the victim in the case.

Additionally, your assertion that the most credible person is all of this is Moses entirely about brainwashing, which you now claim is off topic. You are all over the map. If someone takes apart your argument, you deflect.

[El_Johns]

141. I see you are incapable.

"If someone takes apart your argument, you deflect."

Ironic.

[BainsBane]

146. What you are doing is insisting the conversation be directed toward one side issue

after another. Anything but the heart of the allegations and Dylan's testimony. You first insist I am changing the subject because I won't follow your instance that the key issue was that Woody Allen received visitation rights for the two boys, when the court denied even supervised visitation for Dylan. Yet the boys never alleged abuse, so that has no bearing on the key allegation at issue.

Now you insist the issue is that the other children were adopted later, and that Moses is the only one who has credibility because he was 14 at the time. Yet a brainwashing operation would have had to go on for much longer than the period around the alleged sexual abuse. It would have had to endure for years to impact Dylan all this time later. Yet you insist the other children could have no awareness of it, and that Moses is the only one to be believed. Not the victim but Moses.

What is clear is that you want to excuse Allen, and Moses supports that determination. Therefore you insist nothing else matters, least of all Dylan herself. Yes, I understand that is the common reaction. Victims never matter, especially girls.

[El_Johns]

147. Actually, what I'm asking is that you follow the conversation rather than vomiting out

whatever happens to be in your thoughts at the time.

As you've just done again.

[BainsBane]

206. You mean not getting back to the key issue

of Dylan's abuse, that you refuse to discuss in lieu of side issues. I followed the conversation and showed why your argument did not hold.

I will take your word that Mia adopted other children after Mia's and Woody split up. I don't even care enough to look it up because it's not relevant to the story. It still doesn't elevate Moses above the rest of the people involved and certainly not about Dylan herself. All it shows is your determination to avoid the central issue: Dylan's sexual abuse. Child rape: Got it? It's not a story about adoption or custody of the boys. This is about the person you don't want to talk about, the person you refuse to believe: Dylan Farrow, the human being that is THE CENTER of this dispute.

[BainsBane]

129. So if brainwashing isn't at issue

What is responsible for Dylan's testimony? She's just a liar?
Then what is the point of continually raising the brother's story in the hallowed publication People magazine? I thought your point was he was more credible than the victim herself? Now that has nothing to do with the issue?

[BainsBane]

105. But it was in People Magazine!

[kskiska]

199. Moses is a family therapist himself.

He was present in the house on the day in question when Woody's supervised visit took place.

[Iggo]

35. Other.

I have an idea, but there's no way for me to know.

So I'm leaving it at that.

[BainsBane]

36. That is an option.

Number 3.

[Iggo]

38. No, Number 3 is "I have no idea."

I do have an idea.

[Marr]

52. This is tasteless.

Subjects like child molestation and criminal accusations don't belong on glib little polls.

[sendero]

57. I have no idea and furthermore..

... do not care. At this point way too much time has passed to be able to determine what actually happened. There is no legal recourse. IOW, it's moot.

[Liberal_in_LA]

59. what i do know - woody is a perv to start up romance with teen adopted daughter

[kwassa]

107. but it wasn't his adopted daughter.

Soon Yi was adopted by Mia Farrow and Andre Previn.

Woody never lived with them, either. Still, it is weird.

[countryjake]

61. BLECH!!!!

If I were to lower myself and actually participate in such a crass poll, I would have selected "other", but because this is DU, I choose not to tick any of your ridiculous boxes and I honestly wish that others would also refrain from indulging in what I consider an extremely rude exercise.

The sensitivity involved with this entire "situation" (as you so glibly termed it) should never be reduced to opinion polls. Why you believe that any of our DU thoughts on this matter may make even a scintilla of difference is, frankly, beyond my comprehension.

If I were you, I'd delete the post and hope that you have not offended anyone.

[Sheldon Cooper]

73. Here, lie down for a bit.

[countryjake]

165. I see nasty, sexist smears about pearl-clutching, emotional women...

all over the Internet these days, but I never thought I'd be confronted by such denigration as what you, Sheldon Cooper, have leveled at me right here in a community I've felt safe and comfortable in for all of these years.

Your cute little graphic comment is an outright slap in the face to all parents of the girls and boys who have suffered at the hands of an abuser.

[Bjorn Against]

64. I believe Dylan

I don't know that there is enough evidence to convict in a court of law, but my gut tells me Dylan is telling the truth.

[Gothmog]

67. This is not a court of law and I did not base my vote on "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard

I have my opinion on this issue and I voted based on this opinion.

[pnwest]

84. Other: I just don't effing care. Never liked

Woody Allen or (most of) his movies, thought he was creepy/weird before I heard about any of this. Never understood the worship. Also always got a unfriendly weird vibe from Mia Farrow. Don't know them, don't feel anything warm towards them, think the whole family are strange cats. Haven't read a single thread anywhere about this, 'cepting this one, so I could say "don't give a shit" about any if these people or their problems, real or fabricated.

[Skidmore]

97. Not responding to poll and this thread is going in the trash where it belongs.

[closeupready]

102. There is the notion that even firsthand eyewitnesses

have accounts of an incident which vary dramatically, person to person. Even though everyone is being as truthful as they know how.

Thus, while I voted I have no idea what happened, I think it's possible that there is some truth to everyone's claims. I do believe that Mia Farrow is a despicable, opportunistic woman, that Woody Allen is a creep, and that - as with many hostile divorces - the children are being used as pawns.

[sabrina 1]

109. I think you summed it up pretty accurately.

[R B Garr]

108. Does anyone know how old Soon-Yi was when he took those nude pictures

of her? I didn't really pay a lot of attention to this case when it came out, but I do remember those pictures (which I saw circulated with those blurred spots), and that pretty much sealed it for me that he was capable of just about anything within that family after I saw those. I am remembering that she was underage, maybe 16 or 17. Is that true?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

164. someone is bound to have a link ...

[tammywammy]

203. I don't think Mia Farrow would have hesitated to mention if they were underage photos.

Considering none of the articles I've read about this have said they were underage, I assume she was 20-21. I think if she was underage in the photos, it would be extensively and consistently mentioned. This article references her age as 21.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20108514,00.html

Part of the larger story she referred to so darkly, it turns out, is that Allen has fallen head over heels for another of Farrow's seven adopted children, 21-year-old Soon-Yi, a sophomore at Drew University in Madison, N.J. With photos of his long, weary face illustrating lurid headlines on the front pages of New York City's tabloids, the normally reclusive Allen felt obliged to do the unthinkable: talk about his private life to the press. He confessed to the new relationship—which Farrow reportedly discovered seven months ago when she came across nude photos of Soon-Yi taken in Allen's East Side duplex—with a statement that was an unabashed valentine. "Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It's real and happily all true. She's a lovely, intelligent, sensitive woman who has and continues to turn my life around in a positive way."

For Farrow, discovery of the affair was devastating, says her friend Maria Roach, 56, daughter of director Hal Roach and godmother to Farrow's daughter Lark, 18. When she coincidentally called Mia shortly after the pictures of Soon-Yi had surfaced, "I thought someone had died," says Roach. Then Farrow wrote her a letter full of heartbreak. My vision has been unclear," the letter reads, "and I have spent more than a dozen years with a man who would destroy me and corrupt in my daughter, leading her into a betrayal of her mother and her principles, leaving her morally bankrupt with the bond between us demolished. I can think of no cruder way to lose a child or a lover."

edited to add: It does appear that Soon-Yi's age in article fluctuates two years. While that archived People article says 21, this article here ( http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2014/02/family-takes-sides-in-woody-allen-dylan-farrow-case/ ) refers to her as 19. Apparently there aren't records of her birth, she was either born in 1970 or 1972.

[R B Garr]

224. Thanks for the links! That's a great observation about Mia, as well.

You're right -- if Soon-Yi was underage, Mia would probably belabor that point nonstop for effect.

[BainsBane]

205. Soon Yi was 19 when they found the photos, I think

Part of the reason you see so many differing accounts of her age is that she doesn't (or didn't) have a birth certificate from her home country. There is some doubt about exactly what her age is. I think it's difficult to know exactly when the photos were taken, other than Woody was still involved with Mia at the time. If Mia had recognized them as looking much younger than Soon-Yi's current age, she would have said so (though I'm not sure she didn't). Still, I would think there is no way to know for sure if a photo was taken before or after her 18th birthday.

[ScreamingMeemie]

115. OTHER: None of my (or anyone's) business.

[BainsBane]

125. If true, you do realize it's a felony

and a very serious one considering he still has small children in his home. That certainly is the state's business.

[ScreamingMeemie]

128. You do realize it's none of my business?

I am not the state, I do not know these people, I am not a fan of Woody Allen, I have my suspicions on this, but it is still none. of. my. business. Nor should it be brought up eleventy billion times in the forum. How horrible of us to behave.

[BainsBane]

130. I disagree

We don't know Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman either. We don't know James Winston or his victim. We don't know the alleged perpetrators or victims in any of the high-profile gang rape cases and suicides. Rape culture is very much my business.

[ScreamingMeemie]

132. I will hope, for you, that your family hasn't been or never is thrust into the court of the

public opinion of those who think they "know" you...

It isn't pretty, and one never recovers.

Not. my. business.

[Capt. Obvious]

145. So how is the list comparison going?

[seabeyond]

150. i would say 3 out of 4 that have an opinion think allen is a pedophile.

[HERVEPA]

152. Incorrect and unwarranted assumption

I, and I suspect many others, have an opinion one way or the other, but are nowhere near sure enough to go into either column.
Doesn't mean I don' have an opinion.

Ludicrous how some view this as a measure of ideological purity, or feminism, or such.

[seabeyond]

156. 74/25. 3 in 4. i excluded those who dont know.

[HERVEPA]

158. Repeating your statement does not address my point

Could you please try to do that?

[seabeyond]

160. he asked what the poll was saying, not all of life. i spoke about the poll, not all of life.

[HERVEPA]

167. I was not addressing all of life.

I was addressing the poll, which had an otion for do not know. You ignore the fact that those answering thusly may and likely do have an opinion, they just don't fit nicelty into the two polar categories. Can you address this?

[pintobean]

169. That's not what he asked.

I'm sure he's capable of seeing the numbers and making his own determination. He asked how the list comparison was going. It was a request for an update on the question he asked in reply #11, which was answered in #14. You even replied to that answer.

As to the 60% that you blew off, see posts #35 and #36 to see what the OP says about option #3.

but jump right in like you know what anyone is talking about

[Tuesday Afternoon]

162. if you have an opinion you are welcome to share it. it is Only an Opinion after all

Otherwise seabeyond correctly stated the findings of the poll.

as much as we might wish this were a private matter the family members (for whatever myriad of reasons)

have come forward to make this a public therefore open to discussion.

If it takes a village to raise a child ...

Domestic Abuse in all it forms is really our business.

To turn your head is your choice, of course.

[pintobean]

153. You blew off 60% of respondents

and still didn't answer the question.

[seabeyond]

157. 74/25. 3 in 4. i excluded those who dont know.

[pintobean]

161. None of us know.

Including you.

"I have no idea what happened" is as close as the poll options give to not having enough information to determine what is, or isn't, "likely".

The fact is, only two people "know". I doubt either of them voted in the poll.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

178. Opinions was the question. Fact is a lot of people have an opinion.

I have heard a lot of times that opinions are compared to a certain anatomical part.

I understand that most people have this body part and it functions properly, of course I could be wrong.

[pintobean]

180. See the post that I replied to.

i excluded those who dont know.

[Capt. Obvious]

163. Perfectly valid way to interpret polls

[Autumn]

168. Other. I don't have a clue, I wasn't there.

Only two of them would know, Woody and Dylan. And I don't even care.

[msanthrope]

179. A poll? nt

[Scootaloo]

181. NOBODY has any idea, except the two people involved

So really that's a meaningless option i chose not to choose.

So i had to go with which is more likely the case, while admitting I do not - and never will - know for sure. I find it far more likely that Dylan is telling the truth, and Allen got his famous butt covered by the police, than the alternative which requires nothing short of seven layers of conspiracy theory.

[cui bono]

217. Getting a black list together?

Sheesh.

[BainsBane]

229. You going to read the judge's ruling?

Or still avoiding it? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024461709

[cui bono]

247. No, I know that there's no point in discussing this with you as that's not what you want.

You want to make everyone admit that you are right and that Allen is guilty. We don't know that. The judge's ruling does not state that.
There is no right or wrong answer here as it is not a known entity. There is no argument to win here and I have no interest in trying to discuss anything with someone who is judgmental and self-righteous and not really wanting someone else's viewpoint, but is rather merely trying to force their's on the other person until they give in and agree.

My comment was not made to have you argue with me, but to make a point that you are just conducting a witch hunt here by posting a poll, making your own little black list so you can sit back and judge those who don't think as you do. I think that's ridiculous.

[BainsBane]

248. I don't want you to discuss it with me.

I want you to read it and learn not to so easily dismiss the word of rape victims. Before you claimed to care about facts. You now have an opportunity to learn many of them, as much as you can know without having been with Woody and Dylan that day. I have no interest in further discussion. This isn't about winning. It's about sexual assault and child abuse and why so many children and women have their claims disbelieved while few assailants are convicted.

I am not conducting a witch hunt. That is a ludicrous allegation. It is a voluntary poll intended to gauge opinion. It only attempts to quantify what people have been arguing openly. Now you hold me accountable for an allegation someone made against me? If I were judging, what would you care? You don't know me. I don't know you. We will never meet. People continually make judgments about one anther. To pretend otherwise is absurd. Here you are not only judging but making allegations against me. If you are uncomfortable with your position, rethink it, examine the evidence, but don't put that on me. Let's just agree to part ways. You obviously are holding a major grudge because I disagreed with you. I'm not responsible for any of that. Whatever is in your mind is your own doing. You are not my concern. I care about one thing: combating rape culture. This is an opportunity for people to learn not to so quickly assume girls and women are lying or don't know what happened to them. I can only hope they do.

[cui bono]

249. Save your condescendingn attitude.

I didn't even bother to read your whole post after "I want you to read it and learn not to so easily dismiss the word of rape victims."

Honestly, do you not see how self-righteous you come across?

I didn't dismiss her. I think she believes it. But that doesn't convince me in this case. And it doesn't convince me due to an investigation having been done. I don't know if it happened or not.

I am not willing to come to a concrete conclusion. Any opinion one has on this is just that, their opinion. You have yours, you have clearly decided what the truth is. I don't think I know the truth.

Don't presume you know how I think and what I dismiss or do not dismiss in all cases because I'm not willing to presume someone guilty based on one person's letter when there are other factors to consider.

[lumberjack_jeff]

236. Other: thank Elad for auto-trash by keyword.

Where are the juries? This whole thread, from the get-go was designed and intended to contribute to the suck.

It's HoF metastasis.

[Gravitycollapse]

241. It is not strictly ethical to change the title of your thread after so many participated.

It would be wise to change it back. We don't want anyone misconstruing responses in here.

[BainsBane]

243. I won't be doing that

This thread has run it's course. It is no longer necessary.

[Gravitycollapse]

244. Then I would delete it or have it locked. Manipulating the title or contents might lead others...

To misunderstand the context of the responses. If you believe the thread has run its course, it should probably be deleted or locked. Preferably locked so that its proper state is maintained.

[pintobean]

250. No surprise. This says a lot

about what you think about the people in this community. You've treated the other side with more respect.

[BainsBane]

257. Another day devoted to spreading cheer

and enlightenment. What would we do without you to tell us who is worthy of respect and who can be trashed.

[BainsBane]

258. This thread won't die so I'm killing it

Discussion continues here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4461709