Louis CK, Woody Allen, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey...

[The Modernist]

I don't what the online gossip is about him because I don't visit gossip sites, but I would be reluctant to pass judgement on anyone based on internet gossip.

[Penk!]

I don't what the online gossip is about him because I don't visit gossip sites, but I would be reluctant to pass judgement on anyone based on internet gossip.

As a BCB admin it is your duty to pass judgement on people based on Internet gossip, G.

[Jimbly]

. I mean, have some perspective - he's hardly a 'child molester'.

what would you call him?

[Diamond Dog]

When he hosted the Tony Awards - it seemed pretty “ open secret” to me. That’s the Tony’s for ya.

Not everyone watches the Tony's.

Thank fuck.

[OUTPLAY]

. I mean, have some perspective - he's hardly a 'child molester'.

what would you call him?

You'd call him a child molester? You think that's a fair label?

[Sneelock]

I don't what the online gossip is about him because I don't visit gossip sites, but I would be reluctant to pass judgement on anyone based on internet gossip.

I do go to internet gossip sites. they are called Facebook & Twitter. people repeat anything they hear. it doesn't mean it's true - it's just less surprising when a high profile thing happens and old scuttlebutt starts bobbing to the surface again.

[Jimbly]

. I mean, have some perspective - he's hardly a 'child molester'.

what would you call him?

You'd call him a child molester? You think that's a fair label?

I asked you as you objected to the term and added "hardly" So if you dont think he's a child molester. What do you think he is?

[zoomboogity]

I don't what the online gossip is about him because I don't visit gossip sites, but I would be reluctant to pass judgement on anyone based on internet gossip.

The sad part is, sometimes those sites are more reliable, or at least more willing to break news. I'm not insinuating that The New Yorker is a tabloid or gossip site, but this is a case where the major networks had a story and chose to stay silent.

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/ronan-f ... 1202585986

Ronan Farrow didn’t break the first story of shocking allegations about movie mogul Harvey Weinstein, but his New Yorker piece published Tuesday has added a new sordid dimension to the scandal. Farrow discussed his story Tuesday evening on MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” and there’s good reason: He started the story under NBC’s auspices.

Asked why the story ran in the New Yorker rather than on NBC, Farrow told Maddow, “You would have to ask NBC and NBC executives about the details.”

“I will say that over many years, many news organizations have circled this story and faced a great deal of pressure in doing so,” he continued. “There are now reports emerging about the kind of pressure news organizations have faced. That is real. And in the course of this reporting, I was threatened with a lawsuit personally by Mr. Weinstein.”

He also challenged NBC’s statement that the version of the story they saw wasn’t publishable. “I walked into the door at the New Yorker with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public,” he said. “Immediately the New Yorker recognized that and it was not accurate to say that it was not reportable. In fact, there were multiple determinations at NBC that it was reportable.”

So why now? Why would Harvey Weinstein, one of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry, have his decades of horrific treatment of other people become so public, and see himself get buried so swiftly? It's like, two months ago it was nothing, now it's all the news that's fit to print. My own Jimboesque theory: since Mass Media is just another branch of government, whenever something major is going on in Washington, stories like this need to come out as a distraction, and some schmuck is gonna have to take one for the team. Last time it was Tiger Woods, now it's Weinstein. For the smaller things, Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen get trotted out for a couple weeks. Remember that whole thing about Tiger Woods - how quickly it became the major news story on the planet, then just as suddenly, you didn't hear a peep about it? It did what it needed to do. Something major happened, but no one was paying attention, because it was OJ/Tiger/Weinstein/whoever all day and night.

Meanwhile, as I'd mentioned earlier in this thread, his wife announced that she would be leaving him. It's possible that it was a mutual financial agreement between Weinstein and his wife - a quick divorce, she keeps half the money, and when everyone starts throwing lawsuits at him, he declares bankruptcy while she still sits on half the money. No hard feelings, just the price of doing business. Again, just a theory. Speaking of which...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/movi ... -hunt.html

Woody Allen Warns of ‘Witch Hunt’ Over Weinstein, Then Tries to Clarify

Well, he would, wouldn't he? "A sad, sick man?" I dunno, I have a feeling that ol' Harv wasn't too "sad" about it until it all exploded in his face. I imagine he was even having a pretty good time. But let's not rush into judgment, right, Woody?

Oh... and Woody...? (excerpted from the first article)

Ronan Farrow, who is the son of Mia Farrow and is estranged from his father Woody Allen, has gone on record supporting his sister Dylan Farrow’s accusations of improper behavior by their father.

"His father Woody Allen"?



"Strangers in the night, exchanging glances..." Allegedly.

[zoomboogity]

I didn't know until I first heard of The Slider Wooing

I tried that when I stayed at Slider's place for a few days. I read e e cummings to him, and all I got in response was, "Yeah? And?"

[sloopjohnc]

What could he have said that would have made people feel better about him or his actions?

He could've said he didn't remember and left being gay out of the statement. Like i wrote above. it just plays into the worst fears.

Seems like a weird time to announce you're gay at the same time you're accused of sexually hitting on a kid.

And yeah, Kevin Spacey being gay was the worst kept Hollywood secret around.

[sloopjohnc]

I didn't know until I first heard of The Slider Wooing

I tried that when I stayed at Slider's place for a few days. I read e e cummings to him, and all I got in response was, "Yeah? And?"

If you'd played a Genesis bootleg, you'd still be living there.

[zoomboogity]

Yeah, see, you tell me that now...

[never/ever]

He could've said he didn't remember and left being gay out of the statement. Like i wrote above. it just plays into the worst fears.

Seems like a weird time to announce you're gay at the same time you're accused of sexually hitting on a kid.

And yeah, Kevin Spacey being gay was the worst kept Hollywood secret around.

[/quote]

Seems to me Spacey didn't talk to his lawyer before issuing the statement. He should have either denied it strenuously or shut up completely. The damage he has done now- confessing in public to the act or alleging that it could have happened now puts any defense on the back foot.
Rapp's description certainly makes the act more deliberate, the invitation and carrying him upstairs make it far less something incidental. And I would call that predatory and paedophile behavior for sure.

[OUTPLAY]

what would you call him?

You'd call him a child molester? You think that's a fair label?

I asked you as you objected to the term and added "hardly" So if you dont think he's a child molester. What do you think he is?

What kind of question is that? What kind of answer can I give, Jim, seriously? He's a man, an actor.

The insinuation when you ask a question like 'well what would you call him then?' is that you yourself would be happy with giving him that label. Not in this case?

[OUTPLAY]

I didn't know until I first heard of The Slider Wooing

I tried that when I stayed at Slider's place for a few days. I read e e cummings to him, and all I got in response was, "Yeah? And?"

[The Modernist]

What could he have said that would have made people feel better about him or his actions?

He could've said he didn't remember and left being gay out of the statement.

So it would have been a better statement if he'd lied..?

[Minnie the Minx]

Pedophilia is a primary attraction to pre-pubescent children. That's not the case here.

[Diamond Dog]

The more I read it the more I think it's not nearly as genuine as it first appears.

Despite the 'confessional' side of it that people are seeing, it's simply not that. "But if I did behave...." is not saying he did. It's very much a subtle play on words. He then immediately 'justifies' this 'alleged' action, by blaming it on alcohol. So he's putting his defence out there - maybe it happened, I don;t know, but - even if it did- it was because i was drunk. Note also the complete non mention of the guys age. In my view it's a very calculated statement and, contrary to others on here, I believe very much made with a legal defence perspective.

As for the second 'coming out' paragraph - that is pure deflection. It is completely unattached to the first paragraph. And it cheapens any merit that paragraph has because it's clearly a deflection.

Sorry but it's a cold, calculating statement by a guy who is doing his utmost to get his defence public, and to hell with the other guys feelings.

[never/ever]

Pedophilia is a primary attraction to pre-pubescent children. That's not the case here.

Is that legally so or doesn't it also apply to being attracted to adolescents and anyone below the age of consent?

[The Red Heifer]

Lying about your sexuality and not mentioning your sexuality are two different things.