Dylan Farrow Responds to Woody Allen: 'Distortions and Outright Lies'

[Waiting For Everyman]

172. Do you see the words *I* *don't* *think* in that sentence you quoted?

Last edited Mon Feb 10, 2014, 05:42 PM - Edit history (2)

...which indicates a PERSONAL OPINION OF MINE. That's a personal opinion as opposed to making a statement as to a fact. I think I'm still allowed to have a personal opinion if I choose to? Next, about what...

Do you see *3* *specific* *named* *individuals* there? Not all survivors, 3 specifically named individuals. Do you understand the difference?

Yuppers, I'm allowed to have a personal opinion as to my estimation of a given individual, same as any body else. Newsflash: I don't have to like anybody, and guess what else? I don't even have to have a good reason, or any reason at all. It's my prerogative, same as anyone else. Are we clear on that too, now?

Next, Dylan is the one who attacked Allen's reputation, which is what the news reports reported, to bring her name back into the news lately. Note the word "lately" I just used there, meaning very, very recently, not 20 years ago. She attacked him. She is the one being abusive NOW, in current time.

Do you see the word "NOW" which I *italicized for emphasis* in an effort to be extra-clear on that point, in that sentence of mine that you quoted? Here it is, for convenience:

The only thing new is Woody Allen's film award recently. This controversy is nothing more than an attempt to detract from that. Thus, regardless of the past, Dylan is the abuser now.

I never was a Woody Allen fan, I didn't like most of his films long before this controversy came up the first time, but regardless of what he did or didn't do, I don't think Dylan, Mia, and Ronan are any better.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024467818#post79

Just to be clear, there are no current news reports of Allen attacking her or her reputation in any way in any recent time frame. Do you understand that difference? We are talking about -- let's make it easy -- within the last year. She has attacked him within the last year, and he has not done anything aggressive against her within the last year. She is the one deliberately trying to damage his career and reputation as much as possible. So she is the abuser NOW. She is being abusive to him now.

So... he may or may not have abused her in the past. She damn well for sure IS being abusive to him in the present, there is no question about that (meaning that she is doing it in the press, openly, without any dispute as to what is being done and by whom). Hence, my opinion. I'm not an admirer of any of them, as I stated the first time I wrote it.

So does this mean that anyone who does exactly the same thing is an abuser too? Point #1: go to the top of this post and read it again; Point #2: as I have already said, that would be a completely different matter which I have no opinion on and did not comment on; Point #3: please see post #93 in which I replied to the same thing by seabeyond, waaaaay the hell up the subthread. And I referred you there too already, so you already know that; Point #4: refer up the thread to my other earlier responses to the exact same things. It is not up to me to repeat myself for each person one at a time who doesn't even bother to read.

Wow. Talk about sad. Don't ever again expect to get your nonsense unpacked for you, because I won't waste my time.