As an adult and publically:
QuoteDylan Farrow's Story
FEB. 1, 2014
Nicholas Kristof
WHEN Woody Allen received a Golden Globe award for lifetime achievement a few weeks ago, there was a lively debate about whether it was appropriate to honor a man who is an artistic giant but also was accused years ago of child molestation.
Allen's defenders correctly note that he denies the allegations, has never been convicted and should be presumed innocent. People weighed in on all sides, but one person who hasn't been heard out is Dylan Farrow, 28, the writer and artist whom Allen was accused of molesting.
Dylan, Allen's adopted daughter who is now married and living in Florida under a different name, tells me that she has been traumatized for more than two decades by what took place; last year, she was belatedly diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. She says that when she heard of the Golden Globe award being given to Allen she curled up in a ball on her bed, crying hysterically.
With everyone else commenting, she decided to weigh in as well. (Full disclosure: I am a friend of her mother, Mia, and brother Ronan, and that's how Dylan got in touch with me.) She has written a letter that I'm posting in full on my blog, nytimes.com/ontheground. I reached out to Allen several days ago, and he declined to comment on the record.
The blogpost:
Quote(A note from Nicholas Kristof: In 1993, accusations that Woody Allen had abused his adoptive daughter, Dylan Farrow, filled the headlines, part of a sensational story about the celebrity split between Allen and his girlfriend, Mia Farrow. This is a case that has been written about endlessly, but this is the first time that Dylan Farrow herself has written about it in public. It's important to note that Woody Allen was never prosecuted in this case and has consistently denied wrongdoing; he deserves the presumption of innocence. So why publish an account of an old case on my blog? Partly because the Golden Globe lifetime achievement award to Allen ignited a debate about the propriety of the award. Partly because the root issue here isn't celebrity but sex abuse. And partly because countless people on all sides have written passionately about these events, but we haven't fully heard from the young woman who was at the heart of them. I've written a column about this, but it's time for the world to hear Dylan's story in her own words.)
What's your favorite Woody Allen movie? Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother's electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me. He talked to me while he did it, whispering that I was a good girl, that this was our secret, promising that we'd go to Paris and I'd be a star in his movies. I remember staring at that toy train, focusing on it as it traveled in its circle around the attic. To this day, I find it difficult to look at toy trains.
For as long as I could remember, my father had been doing things to me that I didn't like. I didn't like how often he would take me away from my mom, siblings and friends to be alone with him. I didn't like it when he would stick his thumb in my mouth. I didn't like it when I had to get in bed with him under the sheets when he was in his underwear. I didn't like it when he would place his head in my naked lap and breathe in and breathe out. I would hide under beds or lock myself in the bathroom to avoid these encounters, but he always found me. These things happened so often, so routinely, so skillfully hidden from a mother that would have protected me had she known, that I thought it was normal. I thought this was how fathers doted on their daughters. But what he did to me in the attic felt different. I couldn't keep the secret anymore.
When I asked my mother if her dad did to her what Woody Allen did to me, I honestly did not know the answer. I also didn't know the firestorm it would trigger. I didn't know that my father would use his sexual relationship with my sister to cover up the abuse he inflicted on me. I didn't know that he would accuse my mother of planting the abuse in my head and call her a liar for defending me. I didn't know that I would be made to recount my story over and over again, to doctor after doctor, pushed to see if I'd admit I was lying as part of a legal battle I couldn't possibly understand. At one point, my mother sat me down and told me that I wouldn't be in trouble if I was lying – that I could take it all back. I couldn't. It was all true. But sexual abuse claims against the powerful stall more easily. There were experts willing to attack my credibility. There were doctors willing to gaslight an abused child.
After a custody hearing denied my father visitation rights, my mother declined to pursue criminal charges, despite findings of probable cause by the State of Connecticut – due to, in the words of the prosecutor, the fragility of the "child victim." Woody Allen was never convicted of any crime. That he got away with what he did to me haunted me as I grew up. I was stricken with guilt that I had allowed him to be near other little girls. I was terrified of being touched by men. I developed an eating disorder. I began cutting myself. That torment was made worse by Hollywood. All but a precious few (my heroes) turned a blind eye. Most found it easier to accept the ambiguity, to say, "who can say what happened," to pretend that nothing was wrong. Actors praised him at awards shows. Networks put him on TV. Critics put him in magazines. Each time I saw my abuser's face – on a poster, on a t-shirt, on television – I could only hide my panic until I found a place to be alone and fall apart.
Last week, Woody Allen was nominated for his latest Oscar. But this time, I refuse to fall apart. For so long, Woody Allen's acceptance silenced me. It felt like a personal rebuke, like the awards and accolades were a way to tell me to shut up and go away. But the survivors of sexual abuse who have reached out to me – to support me and to share their fears of coming forward, of being called a liar, of being told their memories aren't their memories – have given me a reason to not be silent, if only so others know that they don't have to be silent either.
Today, I consider myself lucky. I am happily married. I have the support of my amazing brothers and sisters. I have a mother who found within herself a well of fortitude that saved us from the chaos a predator brought into our home.
But others are still scared, vulnerable, and struggling for the courage to tell the truth. The message that Hollywood sends matters for them.
What if it had been your child, Cate Blanchett? Louis CK? Alec Baldwin? What if it had been you, Emma Stone? Or you, Scarlett Johansson? You knew me when I was a little girl, Diane Keaton. Have you forgotten me?
Woody Allen is a living testament to the way our society fails the survivors of sexual assault and abuse.
So imagine your seven-year-old daughter being led into an attic by Woody Allen. Imagine she spends a lifetime stricken with nausea at the mention of his name. Imagine a world that celebrates her tormenter.
Are you imagining that? Now, what's your favorite Woody Allen movie?
I'm not exactly willing to take her at her word.
Bananas or Zelig.
QuoteFull disclosure: I am a friend of her mother, Mia, and brother Ronan
It's suspicious how he hasn't made any accusations.
I read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 01, 2014, 10:38:31 PM
I read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
To be honest I'd never heard about these allegations until this fuss kicked off. I knew he married one of Mia's children with Previn but that was all :blush:
Quote from: PsellusI read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
I'm pretty sure you've seen a Polanski movie in the last thirty years, and he pretty definitely did what he's been accused of. (He pretty definitely fled justice, anyway, and pretty definitely should have been blacked out by our foreign operators for doing so, rather than being permitted to hide behind wealth and privilege and a country vastly weaker than our own.)
As for Woody Allen, I dunno. If CT didn't pursue it, then what am I supposed to do? What is this, the fucking Hunt? Society is based on a few fundamental premises, and presumption of innocence is one of them.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 01, 2014, 10:38:31 PM
I read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
You could just watch the films made before the abuse. Actually that's probably a good idea anyway.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2014, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: PsellusI read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
I'm pretty sure you've seen a Polanski movie in the last thirty years, and he pretty definitely did what he's been accused of. (He pretty definitely fled justice, anyway, and pretty definitely should have been blacked out by our foreign operators for doing so, rather than being permitted to hide behind wealth and privilege and a country vastly weaker than our own.)
As for Woody Allen, I dunno. If CT didn't pursue it, then what am I supposed to do? What is this, the fucking Hunt? Society is based on a few fundamental premises, and presumption of innocence is one of them.
I fucking hate it when people spout of about presumption of innocence and freedom of speech in this context.
Both of those refer to freedom we have from government interference, and neither have anything to do with how we as private individuals should evaluate each other, except in the most general sense. I am not going to presume someone is innocent simply because the legal system cannot prove them guilty. There is all kind of information that is perfectly reasonable to consider as a private individual that would not be relevant or admissible in a legal setting.
Just because OK was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't murder two people. Just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman doesn't mean he didn't likely kill Trevon martin for no fucking good reason at all other than he had a gun and wanted to shoot someone with it.
And just because Woody Fucking Allen is too important and too big a name for there to be any chance that he could have been convicted in a case like this (and to be fair, even had he been Joe Nobody Blow a conviction would be extremely difficult in a case like this) doesn't mean I can't read a letter like that and think "What a fucking pedo-fucking douchebag asshole!"
Hitler wasn't found guilty of any WW2 crimes in a court of law, so I still have his picture on the wall. It can get tiresome explaining this to visitors; people are morans.
Quote from: Berkut on February 02, 2014, 03:39:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2014, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: PsellusI read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
I'm pretty sure you've seen a Polanski movie in the last thirty years, and he pretty definitely did what he's been accused of. (He pretty definitely fled justice, anyway, and pretty definitely should have been blacked out by our foreign operators for doing so, rather than being permitted to hide behind wealth and privilege and a country vastly weaker than our own.)
As for Woody Allen, I dunno. If CT didn't pursue it, then what am I supposed to do? What is this, the fucking Hunt? Society is based on a few fundamental premises, and presumption of innocence is one of them.
I fucking hate it when people spout of about presumption of innocence and freedom of speech in this context.
Both of those refer to freedom we have from government interference, and neither have anything to do with how we as private individuals should evaluate each other, except in the most general sense. I am not going to presume someone is innocent simply because the legal system cannot prove them guilty. There is all kind of information that is perfectly reasonable to consider as a private individual that would not be relevant or admissible in a legal setting.
Just because OK was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't murder two people. Just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman doesn't mean he didn't likely kill Trevon martin for no fucking good reason at all other than he had a gun and wanted to shoot someone with it.
And just because Woody Fucking Allen is too important and too big a name for there to be any chance that he could have been convicted in a case like this (and to be fair, even had he been Joe Nobody Blow a conviction would be extremely difficult in a case like this) doesn't mean I can't read a letter like that and think "What a fucking pedo-fucking douchebag asshole!"
You're a free man, Berkut. You can feel any way you want.
I presume innocence unless I'm at least persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence, which a woman's accusation is, you know, not.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 02, 2014, 03:58:42 AM
Quote from: Berkut on February 02, 2014, 03:39:25 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 01, 2014, 10:45:55 PM
Quote from: PsellusI read this. Don't think I'll be able to watch an Allen movie again.
I'm pretty sure you've seen a Polanski movie in the last thirty years, and he pretty definitely did what he's been accused of. (He pretty definitely fled justice, anyway, and pretty definitely should have been blacked out by our foreign operators for doing so, rather than being permitted to hide behind wealth and privilege and a country vastly weaker than our own.)
As for Woody Allen, I dunno. If CT didn't pursue it, then what am I supposed to do? What is this, the fucking Hunt? Society is based on a few fundamental premises, and presumption of innocence is one of them.
I fucking hate it when people spout of about presumption of innocence and freedom of speech in this context.
Both of those refer to freedom we have from government interference, and neither have anything to do with how we as private individuals should evaluate each other, except in the most general sense. I am not going to presume someone is innocent simply because the legal system cannot prove them guilty. There is all kind of information that is perfectly reasonable to consider as a private individual that would not be relevant or admissible in a legal setting.
Just because OK was acquitted doesn't mean he didn't murder two people. Just because there wasn't enough evidence to convict Zimmerman doesn't mean he didn't likely kill Trevon martin for no fucking good reason at all other than he had a gun and wanted to shoot someone with it.
And just because Woody Fucking Allen is too important and too big a name for there to be any chance that he could have been convicted in a case like this (and to be fair, even had he been Joe Nobody Blow a conviction would be extremely difficult in a case like this) doesn't mean I can't read a letter like that and think "What a fucking pedo-fucking douchebag asshole!"
You're a free man, Berkut. You can feel any way you want.
I presume innocence unless I'm at least persuaded by a preponderance of the evidence, which a woman's accusation is, you know, not.
I'm shocked that you are quicker to judge gay pedos.
Quote from: The Brain on February 02, 2014, 03:54:45 AM
Hitler wasn't found guilty of any WW2 crimes in a court of law, so I still have his picture on the wall. It can get tiresome explaining this to visitors; people are morans.
I love you.
This is probably the closest we're gonna get for an answer from Allen's camp:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/27/the-woody-allen-allegations-not-so-fast.html
It's very long, but does raise some points although doesn't really disprove the Dylan allegations. It's hard to believe she made all of this up after reading that letter in the NYT. But dunno.
As for me, I'll keep watching the films if they're good. I don't have to be Allen's friend or have any personal relationship with him (I doubt I could, I've met some people that worked for him and the stories aren't pleasant). I already consume art from some fairly reprensible human beings, anyway (including Mia Farrow's friend, mr. Roman Polanski).
Then again, Dylan Farrow accusing him doesn't prove her allegations either. As much as I don't really care about Woody Allen or his films, I just don't find his accuser credible.
What are the unpleasant stories, Celedh?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 02, 2014, 09:50:08 AM
Quote from: The Brain on February 02, 2014, 03:54:45 AM
Hitler wasn't found guilty of any WW2 crimes in a court of law, so I still have his picture on the wall. It can get tiresome explaining this to visitors; people are morans.
I love you.
I think you're the greatest, but my dad says you don't work hard enough on defense.
I'm not liking this trial-by-media.
Quote from: Neil on February 02, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
Then again, Dylan Farrow accusing him doesn't prove her allegations either. As much as I don't really care about Woody Allen or his films, I just don't find his accuser credible.
Why not?
Why do you think Allen is credible? He's always seemed sketchy to me.
:Joos
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 02, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 02, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
Then again, Dylan Farrow accusing him doesn't prove her allegations either. As much as I don't really care about Woody Allen or his films, I just don't find his accuser credible.
Why not?
Why do you think Allen is credible? He's always seemed sketchy to me.
But Mia Farrow seems at least as sketchy. The evidence in this case isn't even circumstantial, it is purely anecdotal. Given that the defense is by necessity as anecdotal as the accusation, I don't know why anyone would reach a conclusion at this point about the guilt or innocence of Allen.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 02, 2014, 02:26:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 02, 2014, 10:07:27 AM
Then again, Dylan Farrow accusing him doesn't prove her allegations either. As much as I don't really care about Woody Allen or his films, I just don't find his accuser credible.
Why not?
Why do you think Allen is credible? He's always seemed sketchy to me.
You're sketchy, but I don't think you're a child molester.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 02, 2014, 02:26:15 PMWhy not?
It's all anecdotal, years after the fact. She could just be another example of vindictive coaching of a kid around divorce cases.
So the chick's name used to be Dylan, and she decided that was too butch and changed it to Malone. :huh:
Big Cheers fan?
Quote from: Queequeg on February 02, 2014, 11:33:06 AM
What are the unpleasant stories, Celedh?
Nothing too juicy to be frank. Him just being out of touch and really unpleasant with people that work for him. Comes across as somebody that nobody would put up with if he wasn't famous (and talented).
Did the pretzels make them thirsty?
I wonder if Soon-Yi and our Admiral Yi are the same person.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 02, 2014, 05:27:37 PM
I wonder if Soon-Yi and our Admiral Yi are the same person.
:o
since we are all yi, wouldn't that mean we are soon-yi too?
Quote from: katmai on February 02, 2014, 05:33:37 PM
since we are all yi, wouldn't that mean we are soon-yi too?
My lady parts are wet.
Quote from: katmai on February 02, 2014, 05:33:37 PM
since we are all yi, wouldn't that mean we are soon-yi too?
Too soon?
Quote from: katmai on February 02, 2014, 05:33:37 PM
since we are all yi, wouldn't that mean we are soon-yi too?
Fuck you and that "we are all yi" shit. I don't polish Jamie Dimon's knob, Nanook.
Art can go many miles after being made by a despicable human being.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill_Sans#Usage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Gill#Personal_life
Time for siesta ya Hasidic Heeb
Quote from: katmai on February 02, 2014, 05:33:37 PM
since we are all yi, wouldn't that mean we are soon-yi too?
Well, obviously Soon-Yi is who you are before you become Yi.
Quote from: Jacob on February 03, 2014, 02:17:25 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 02, 2014, 05:33:37 PM
since we are all yi, wouldn't that mean we are soon-yi too?
Well, obviously Soon-Yi is who you are before you become Late-Yi.
FYP
http://www.theonion.com/articles/boy-ive-really-put-you-in-a-tough-spot-havent-i,34949/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus
QuoteBoy, I've Really Put You In A Tough Spot, Haven't I?
By Woody Allen
As those who have followed the uproar surrounding my lifetime achievement award at this year's Golden Globes are aware, my name has again become the source of controversy. Once more, the media, the general public, and my own family members have called into question the propriety of continuing to honor and lavish praise upon an individual—myself, legendary film director Woody Allen—who has been accused of committing crimes of the most deplorable nature. Addressing this highly contentious matter would require you to delve into the following ethical quandary: Do you continue to support me as a filmmaker, writer, and human being who has technically not been convicted of any crime, or do you henceforth cease your admiration of me and my work due to the admittedly pretty damn compelling evidence that I molested at least one young child?
I mean, wow, I've really put you guys in a pretty tight spot here, haven't I? Can't say I envy you people one bit; this one's a real doozy.
Gosh, just thinking about the moral ramifications of this situation is enough to make one's head spin, frankly. On one hand, you have the accusations that have been leveled against me: that I am a sexual predator who molested my adopted adolescent daughter while simultaneously entering into a sexual relationship with the child of my now ex-partner that continues to this day. But on the other hand, you have my truly lovable persona and monumental contributions to cinema—as evidenced by such timeless works as Manhattan, The Purple Rose Of Cairo, and Crimes And Misdemeanors—that have delighted millions of people and unquestionably benefited society as a whole.
So, do you blindly condemn me based on unproven allegations of sexual impropriety that, even if true, shouldn't automatically diminish the import of my immense artistic contributions? Or do you maintain that the value of my work supersedes what I may or may not have done in my personal life, knowing that in doing so you are most likely siding with a pederast whom the American public has inexplicably let off the hook for a series of horrific crimes that in a just world would have seen me in handcuffs long ago?
See what I've done to you? See the choice I've forced you to make? That's right, folks; for the rest of your lives you'll have to weigh everything my art has meant to you personally against a series of damning, albeit not technically proven, allegations of horrific abuse, and you basically have to make that calculation every single time you watch one of my films or laugh at one of my undeniably funny jokes. Holy Moses, that has to be a real drag for you guys.
Oh, sure, you could try to defend me in an argument by saying, "Well, he was never convicted, and it's possible that this little girl just made all that stuff up," but, c'mon, anyone who says that is bound to sound like kind of an asshole, right? Even if your intentions are good, that line of argument does sort of make you look like you're throwing a potential molestation victim under the bus in order to defend, at all costs, that funny, neurotic guy in the glasses who makes you laugh, doesn't it? No, obviously you can't do that. But then again, what are you going to do? Never watch Annie Hall again? Not to sound too conceited or anything, but you know you don't want that.
The fact is, this isn't a black-and-white issue. My gifts to the medium of film are unparalleled: Sleeper; Hannah And Her Sisters; and don't forget Broadway Danny Rose, which is severely underrated! My alleged crimes are atrocious: sexual predation, molestation, pedophilia. I have produced scores of deftly funny yet poignant movies that have pushed the genre of film comedy into new and previously unexplored dimensions. On the other side of the coin, I left my longtime girlfriend for a girl 37 years my junior the same year I very likely, for all you know, digitally penetrated a 7-year-old girl. Are you about to go to bat for someone like that? Will you join a society that is willing not just to exonerate but also to celebrate a possible remorseless child molester just because he made Sweet And Lowdown?
Face it, you're all pretty screwed on this one. Goddamn it, if only the evidence against me was just a smidgen more airtight and I wasn't so delightful. This would be so easy for you all! I'm really sorry about that.
At the end of the day, I am just Woody Allen, the lovably neurotic New York Jew whose works have captivated audiences for more than half a century. However, I am also a man who preyed on the teenaged daughter of my lover, marrying her while tearing apart our family in the process. I also am an acclaimed writer and performer who has produced hundreds of films, plays, essays, and stand-up comedy routines that have become an inherent part of our cultural fabric and that will continue to inspire for decades to come. And yes, I also possibly, maybe, forced myself on a 7-year-old girl—my own daughter—betraying the most sacred covenant of trust and ruining her life. And I made Bananas.
Anyway, sorry I can't do anything more than deny the allegations against me, which does you absolutely no good whatsoever. At the end of the day, it's up to you to decide what happened and what is right. Good luck, everyone!
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
Quote from: Solmyr on February 03, 2014, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 03, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 03, 2014, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 03, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
QuoteAnd yes, I also possibly, maybe, forced myself on a 7-year-old girl—my own daughter—betraying the most sacred covenant of trust and ruining her life. And I made Bananas.
What an odd thing to say.
Um that is an onion article.
I was thinking it was from the Onion when I was reading it but I didn't ever go back and look at the link until now. :D
Quote from: katmai on February 03, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
Um that is an onion article.
it is an excellent one. It had me fooled, as it seemed exactly the kind of thing Allen would write, if he was in the mood to be foolish.
Ten exactly-what-spoofs-should-be out of ten. :thumbsup:
Good critical thinking.
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 03, 2014, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 03, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:mad:
QuoteThe entire Farrow family isn't taking sides against Woody Allen.
After Dylan Farrow penned an open letter revealing details of the sexual abuse she claims happened 20 years ago at the hands of her adopted father Allen, her brother Ronan and mother Mia Farrow both are standing by her side.
One of her other brothers - Moses Farrow, a family therapist - is not. He says he is now able to see the other side of things, and it was Mia Farrow who was abusive, not Allen.
"Of course Woody did not molest my sister," Moses, 36, told People magazine.
He continued, "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister. And I hated him for her for years. I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi."
Woody Allen, 78, and Mia Farrow, 68, split in 1992, after the director began a relationship with Farrow's adopted daughter Soon-Yi Farrow Previn. Allen was never charged with any molestation and married Soon-Yi in 1997.
"It is tragic that after 20 years a story engineered by a vengeful lover resurfaces even though it was fully vetted and rejected by independent authorities. The one to blame for Dylan's distress is neither Dylan nor Woody Allen," Allen's attorney Elkan Abramowitz said in a statement to CNN.
But Mia Farrow is asserting that Dylan's claims are true that when she was 7 years old, Allen led her to a "dim, closet-like attic" and "then he sexually assaulted me."
Moses doesn't believe this happened to his sister.
"[Dylan] looked forward to seeing [Allen] when he would visit," he said. "She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him. The day in question, there were six or seven of us in the house. We were all in public rooms and no one, not my father or sister, was off in any private spaces. My mother was conveniently out shopping. I don't know if my sister really believes she was molested or is trying to please her mother. Pleasing my mother was very powerful motivation because to be on her wrong side was horrible."
Moses added that his home with Mia Farrow at the helm was never a happy one. and in fact, she was the abusive one.
"From an early age, my mother demanded obedience and I was often hit as a child," he added. "She went into unbridled rages if we angered her, which was intimidating at the very least and often horrifying, leaving us not knowing what she would do."
He even said that distancing himself from his mother "has led to a positive reunion with my father."
Dylan asserts to People magazine that she was "never coached."
"My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life," she said. "I can't stay silent when my family needs me and I will not abandon them like Soon-Yi and Moses. My brother is dead to me."
Defending Moses' claims against Mia, Dylan Farrow said, "My mother is so brave and so courageous and taught me what it means to be strong and brave and tell the truth even in the face of these monstrous lies."
There is no additional comment from Woody Allen at this time. Allen has consistently denied the abuse allegation and Connecticut authorities two decades ago concluded there was no evidence to pursue charges.
Efforts to reach Mia Farrow were not successful, including calls to her home, calls to former lawyers and former agents. Farrow, who has been vocal about the alleged abuse, has been tweeting today, but not about Moses' interview with People.
I'd like to attend Thanksgiving dinner with their entire family.
Wow, this certainly shows another side of things. At first I was going to give Dylan at least some benefit of doubt, wondering what she had to gain by fabricating the stories. Now very different, given that there were apparently investigations into things and nothing came of it, plus especially what the brother says about the situation and with Mia.
I don't know what to think. Mia Farrow has crazy eyes. But Woody has Soon-Yi. :hmm:
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 03, 2014, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 03, 2014, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 03, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on February 06, 2014, 04:07:22 PM
Quote from: FunkMonk on February 03, 2014, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on February 03, 2014, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 03, 2014, 07:29:26 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on February 03, 2014, 04:00:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:56:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 03, 2014, 03:53:59 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 03, 2014, 03:44:48 PM
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
:lol:
Does anybody else think adult Dylan Farrow is sorta cute?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2014%2F01%2F31%2Fopinion%2Fdylan-farrow%2Fdylan-farrow-blog480-v3.jpg&hash=4771194435adcde221e9b6e20de79882ce76f861)
Too soon?
Ronan is good looking.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2014, 09:15:13 PM
Ronan is good looking.
Is Ronan the one that's Frank Sinatra's son?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 06, 2014, 08:22:47 PM
Does anybody else think adult Dylan Farrow is sorta cute?
Too soon?
Yeah. I mean, I agree, but I don't know what the etiquette is on that.
The actual Woody Allen response.
QuoteIn an open letter to the New York Times, which will appear in the paper's Sunday Review, Woody Allen has responded to the 1992 molestation allegations from his ex-partner Mia Farrow and their children Ronan and Dylan Farrow.
Read his full response below:
Twenty-one years ago, when I first heard Mia Farrow had accused me of child molestation, I found the idea so ludicrous I didn't give it a second thought. We were involved in a terribly acrimonious breakup, with great enmity between us and a custody battle slowly gathering energy. The self-serving transparency of her malevolence seemed so obvious I didn't even hire a lawyer to defend myself. It was my show business attorney who told me she was bringing the accusation to the police and I would need a criminal lawyer.
I naïvely thought the accusation would be dismissed out of hand because of course, I hadn't molested Dylan and any rational person would see the ploy for what it was. Common sense would prevail. After all, I was a 56-year-old man who had never before (or after) been accused of child molestation. I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct. Now, suddenly, when I had driven up to her house in Connecticut one afternoon to visit the kids for a few hours, when I would be on my raging adversary's home turf, with half a dozen people present, when I was in the blissful early stages of a happy new relationship with the woman I'd go on to marry — that I would pick this moment in time to embark on a career as a child molester should seem to the most skeptical mind highly unlikely. The sheer illogic of such a crazy scenario seemed to me dispositive.
Notwithstanding, Mia insisted that I had abused Dylan and took her immediately to a doctor to be examined. Dylan told the doctor she had not been molested. Mia then took Dylan out for ice cream, and when she came back with her the child had changed her story. The police began their investigation; a possible indictment hung in the balance. I very willingly took a lie-detector test and of course passed because I had nothing to hide. I asked Mia to take one and she wouldn't. Last week a woman named Stacey Nelkin, whom I had dated many years ago, came forward to the press to tell them that when Mia and I first had our custody battle 21 years ago, Mia had wanted her to testify that she had been underage when I was dating her, despite the fact this was untrue. Stacey refused. I include this anecdote so we all know what kind of character we are dealing with here. One can imagine in learning this why she wouldn't take a lie-detector test.
Meanwhile the Connecticut police turned for help to a special investigative unit they relied on in such cases, the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of the Yale-New Haven Hospital. This group of impartial, experienced men and women whom the district attorney looked to for guidance as to whether to prosecute, spent months doing a meticulous investigation, interviewing everyone concerned, and checking every piece of evidence. Finally they wrote their conclusion which I quote here: "It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen. Further, we believe that Dylan's statements on videotape and her statements to us during our evaluation do not refer to actual events that occurred to her on August 4th, 1992... In developing our opinion we considered three hypotheses to explain Dylan's statements. First, that Dylan's statements were true and that Mr. Allen had sexually abused her; second, that Dylan's statements were not true but were made up by an emotionally vulnerable child who was caught up in a disturbed family and who was responding to the stresses in the family; and third, that Dylan was coached or influenced by her mother, Ms. Farrow. While we can conclude that Dylan was not sexually abused, we can not be definite about whether the second formulation by itself or the third formulation by itself is true. We believe that it is more likely that a combination of these two formulations best explains Dylan's allegations of sexual abuse."
Could it be any clearer? Mr. Allen did not abuse Dylan; most likely a vulnerable, stressed-out 7-year-old was coached by Mia Farrow. This conclusion disappointed a number of people. The district attorney was champing at the bit to prosecute a celebrity case, and Justice Elliott Wilk, the custody judge, wrote a very irresponsible opinion saying when it came to the molestation, "we will probably never know what occurred."
But we did know because it had been determined and there was no equivocation about the fact that no abuse had taken place. Justice Wilk was quite rough on me and never approved of my relationship with Soon-Yi, Mia's adopted daughter, who was then in her early 20s. He thought of me as an older man exploiting a much younger woman, which outraged Mia as improper despite the fact she had dated a much older Frank Sinatra when she was 19. In fairness to Justice Wilk, the public felt the same dismay over Soon-Yi and myself, but despite what it looked like our feelings were authentic and we've been happily married for 16 years with two great kids, both adopted. (Incidentally, coming on the heels of the media circus and false accusations, Soon-Yi and I were extra carefully scrutinized by both the adoption agency and adoption courts, and everyone blessed our adoptions.)
Mia took custody of the children and we went our separate ways.
I was heartbroken. Moses was angry with me. Ronan I didn't know well because Mia would never let me get close to him from the moment he was born and Dylan, whom I adored and was very close to and about whom Mia called my sister in a rage and said, "He took my daughter, now I'll take his." I never saw her again nor was I able to speak with her no matter how hard I tried. I still loved her deeply, and felt guilty that by falling in love with Soon-Yi I had put her in the position of being used as a pawn for revenge. Soon-Yi and I made countless attempts to see Dylan but Mia blocked them all, spitefully knowing how much we both loved her but totally indifferent to the pain and damage she was causing the little girl merely to appease her own vindictiveness.
Here I quote Moses Farrow, 14 at the time: "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister." Moses is now 36 years old and a family therapist by profession. "Of course Woody did not molest my sister," he said. "She loved him and looked forward to seeing him when he would visit. She never hid from him until our mother succeeded in creating the atmosphere of fear and hate towards him." Dylan was 7, Ronan 4, and this was, according to Moses, the steady narrative year after year.
I pause here for a quick word on the Ronan situation. Is he my son or, as Mia suggests, Frank Sinatra's? Granted, he looks a lot like Frank with the blue eyes and facial features, but if so what does this say? That all during the custody hearing Mia lied under oath and falsely represented Ronan as our son? Even if he is not Frank's, the possibility she raises that he could be, indicates she was secretly intimate with him during our years. Not to mention all the money I paid for child support. Was I supporting Frank's son? Again, I want to call attention to the integrity and honesty of a person who conducts her life like that.
Now it's 21 years later and Dylan has come forward with the accusations that the Yale experts investigated and found false. Plus a few little added creative flourishes that seem to have magically appeared during our 21-year estrangement.
Not that I doubt Dylan hasn't come to believe she's been molested, but if from the age of 7 a vulnerable child is taught by a strong mother to hate her father because he is a monster who abused her, is it so inconceivable that after many years of this indoctrination the image of me Mia wanted to establish had taken root? Is it any wonder the experts at Yale had picked up the maternal coaching aspect 21 years ago? Even the venue where the fabricated molestation was supposed to have taken place was poorly chosen but interesting. Mia chose the attic of her country house, a place she should have realized I'd never go to because it is a tiny, cramped, enclosed spot where one can hardly stand up and I'm a major claustrophobe. The one or two times she asked me to come in there to look at something, I did, but quickly had to run out. Undoubtedly the attic idea came to her from the Dory Previn song, "With My Daddy in the Attic." It was on the same record as the song Dory Previn had written about Mia's betraying their friendship by insidiously stealing her husband, André, "Beware of Young Girls." One must ask, did Dylan even write the letter or was it at least guided by her mother? Does the letter really benefit Dylan or does it simply advance her mother's shabby agenda? That is to hurt me with a smear. There is even a lame attempt to do professional damage by trying to involve movie stars, which smells a lot more like Mia than Dylan.
After all, if speaking out was really a necessity for Dylan, she had already spoken out months earlier in Vanity Fair. Here I quote Moses Farrow again: "Knowing that my mother often used us as pawns, I cannot trust anything that is said or written from anyone in the family." Finally, does Mia herself really even believe I molested her daughter? Common sense must ask: Would a mother who thought her 7-year-old daughter was sexually abused by a molester (a pretty horrific crime), give consent for a film clip of her to be used to honor the molester at the Golden Globes?
Of course, I did not molest Dylan. I loved her and hope one day she will grasp how she has been cheated out of having a loving father and exploited by a mother more interested in her own festering anger than her daughter's well-being. Being taught to hate your father and made to believe he molested you has already taken a psychological toll on this lovely young woman, and Soon-Yi and I are both hoping that one day she will understand who has really made her a victim and reconnect with us, as Moses has, in a loving, productive way. No one wants to discourage abuse victims from speaking out, but one must bear in mind that sometimes there are people who are falsely accused and that is also a terribly destructive thing. (This piece will be my final word on this entire matter and no one will be responding on my behalf to any further comments on it by any party. Enough people have been hurt.)
It's not as funny as the Onion piece.
Quote from: katmai on February 07, 2014, 11:06:06 PM
The actual Woody Allen response.
(snip)
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
Quote from: grumbler on February 08, 2014, 08:50:48 PM
Quote from: katmai on February 07, 2014, 11:06:06 PM
The actual Woody Allen response.
(snip)
Allen should keep his mouth shut. This reads to me like he is confessing that he is guilty.
:lol:
Quote from: katmai on February 06, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
No fucking way he is genetically linked to Woody Allen.
:yes: You ever seen the dude? He looks like a young clone of Sinatra, and good for him. I would much rather be Sinatra's son than Woody Allen's son. :x
Oh yeah, that kid is a chip off the Chairman of the Board's block. There's not a single drop of insecure nebbish Manhattan Jew blood in that body.
Isn't that, um, weird? That Farrow went so completely psychotic over this divorce but was having sex with her 80 year old ex husband that she divorced 20 years prior?
While agreeing with the general content of Berkut's temper tantrum earlier in the thread that we as individuals can certainly decide in our own minds how to feel about someone regardless of whether or not the evidence meets a legal burden of proof, in this particular case I see very little compelling evidence at all against Allen. Every part of the evidence against him is not only weak, but did not survive close scrutiny at the time, and the alternative explanation is quite plausible.
Now, on the flip side Woody Allen is a weird dude who basically looks like a pedophile and acts like one, if he was a family friend or something and not a famous director I'd never leave him alone with my child based purely on his mannerisms and appearance. Maybe that's judging a book by its cover, but I don't particularly care. So while I lean toward this particular allegation either being factually false or at the least totally unsubstantiated, I don't necessarily view Allen as a maligned good guy who has never done anything wrong.
Allen defenders muddy the water because in the two confirmed cases where he banged teenagers, they were over the technical age of majority in the jurisdiciton, and in Soon-Yi Previn's case she did not have a parent/child relationship with Allen. He was definitely an authority figure in her life but she was in regular contact with her actual adopted father (while Woody was just the partner of her adopted mother--never her adopted father) so Allen wasn't "the" father figure. But just the fact he was a pretty advanced-in-years adult who had known her on at least some level as an adult authority figure while she was way under the age of consent, and the fact she was in fact his girlfriend's adopted daughter makes his behavior in regard to Soon-Yi 100% reprehensible and indefensible. People who continually point out that it was completely legal and "not incest" miss the point.
The reality is teenage girls develop at different paces physically, there are teenager girls that look unmistakably like children and you'd frankly need to be a pedophile to be attracted to them and there are teenage girls that most heterosexual men (perhaps shielded from any scrutiny) would admit are hot and attractive. But that being said the vast majority of the adult male population would never actually pursue a relationship with a teenager, with full womanly features or not, regardless of age of consent, because it's just socially unacceptable. So to me I do think there is definitely something to suggest that someone that violates a strong social taboo to pursue very young women may in fact have even more unacceptable desires and predilections such as a desire to bang actual children. I'd definitely say Allen's behavior toward other younger women definitely makes it so that society in general is going to think it's more likely you're a pedophile.
As for Woody Allen artistically I've seen two of his movies, hated both, and have no interest in his body of work. Boring/unfunny movies that rely on some type of Jewish/New York humor I guess I just don't get.
Ephebophilia and pedophilia are different pathologies. I don't think there's a whole lot of evidence of people who sexually abused minors once or twice but otherwise were sexually attracted to people in the 16-20 (Previn was 20) age group, by which time the vast majority of girls who live in industrialized nations are post-pubescent.
Pedophilia implies sexual attraction to a lack of secondary sexual characteristics. It's less an obsession with abusing authority against children and more of an actual, physical attraction from what I understand.
Quote from: Caliga on February 09, 2014, 09:07:59 AM
Quote from: katmai on February 06, 2014, 09:37:02 PM
No fucking way he is genetically linked to Woody Allen.
:yes: You ever seen the dude? He looks like a young clone of Sinatra, and good for him.
yes cal, hence my post.
Iirc ephebophilia is not considered a pathology.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2014, 03:11:07 PM
makes his behavior in regard to Soon-Yi 100% reprehensible and indefensible.
Really? 100%? Isn't that a bit much?
:unsure:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2014, 06:39:23 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2014, 03:11:07 PM
makes his behavior in regard to Soon-Yi 100% reprehensible and indefensible.
Really? 100%? Isn't that a bit much?
:unsure:
Otto has never let the truth get in the way of his little temper tantrums. Soon-Yi Previn was 20 years old when she and Allen started spending time together (at Mia farrow's insistence). But, let's all lie and say she was a teenager because, if she wasn't a teenager, Otto's entire rant looks like ass.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 09, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
Iirc ephebophilia is not considered a pathology.
Right, and that's basically what I was saying. Attraction to teenagers isn't in itself what makes me think Allen *might* have a bad sexual pathology.
Men in proper parts of society regularly used to marry women in their teens who given older ages for puberty in the past would be no more developed than a modern 15 year old and nothing was considered wrong with it. I'm not saying being attracted to sexually developed but young women is a sign of pedophilia, I'm saying Allen being fine with crossing modern day strong taboos in itself suggests he has sexual appetites that are not easily suppressed and to me make it seem more likely that he would be a pedophile vs some random man on the street.
Like I said, most men have seen teenage girls they would like to bang but most would never act on it. Same to the daughter of a girlfriend that catches your eye. Woody gives off stranger danger vibes.
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2014, 08:06:42 PMOtto has never let the truth get in the way of his little temper tantrums. Soon-Yi Previn was 20 years old when she and Allen started spending time together (at Mia farrow's insistence). But, let's all lie and say she was a teenager because, if she wasn't a teenager, Otto's entire rant looks like ass.
Allen has confirmed their relationship began when she was 19, and wasn't discovered by Farrow until she was 20. I know that you're most likely a pedophile since IIRC you work(ed) in private schools that wouldn't find your record of kiddy diddling, but your pathology aside we know Allen began a relationship with Soon-Yi when she was a teenager. Which, as my post mentioned, is the
second teenager we know he's banged, the other being 17 when her and Allen had a relationship (this was in the 70s and predated Farrow.) The story Allen and Stacey Nelkin (the 17 year old) have always maintained is any sexual contact between her and Allen that happened in Los Angeles happened after she turned 18 (as it would be a crime if it happened before then.)
Anyway, pedo, not sure how you read my post as a rant since I actually said I don't think the evidence in regards to Dylan is persuasive at all, and in fact I suspect Farrow had a strong hand in "shaping' Dylan's story. But I also stand by my opinion Allen is a creepy lecherous fuck I wouldn't want near any child of mine.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2014, 08:13:56 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2014, 08:06:42 PMOtto has never let the truth get in the way of his little temper tantrums. Soon-Yi Previn was 20 years old when she and Allen started spending time together (at Mia farrow's insistence). But, let's all lie and say she was a teenager because, if she wasn't a teenager, Otto's entire rant looks like ass.
Allen has confirmed their relationship began when she was 19, and wasn't discovered by Farrow until she was 20. I know that you're most likely a pedophile since IIRC you work(ed) in private schools that wouldn't find your record of kiddy diddling, but your pathology aside we know Allen began a relationship with Soon-Yi when she was a teenager. Which, as my post mentioned, is the second teenager we know he's banged, the other being 17 when her and Allen had a relationship (this was in the 70s and predated Farrow.) The story Allen and Stacey Nelkin (the 17 year old) have always maintained is any sexual contact between her and Allen that happened in Los Angeles happened after she turned 18 (as it would be a crime if it happened before then.)
Anyway, pedo, not sure how you read my post as a rant since I actually said I don't think the evidence in regards to Dylan is persuasive at all, and in fact I suspect Farrow had a strong hand in "shaping' Dylan's story. But I also stand by my opinion Allen is a creepy lecherous fuck I wouldn't want near any child of mine.
DAYUM! :o
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2014, 08:13:56 PM
I know that you're most likely a pedophile since IIRC you work(ed) in private schools that wouldn't find your record of kiddy diddling, but your pathology aside
Lulz
Stop: Otto Time!
QuoteBut I also stand by my opinion Allen is a creepy lecherous fuck I wouldn't want near any child of mine.
I'm not one to judge people when it comes to matters of the heart. :wub:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2014, 08:47:27 PM
I'm not one to judge people when it comes to matters of the heart. :wub:
That might apply if the heart was the organ involved.
Now that's just hateful and hurtful. :glare:
Dylan Farrow is fugly!!!!!!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2014, 08:52:07 PM
Now that's just hateful and hurtful. :glare:
I don't think so - just more accurate.
Quote from: garbon on February 09, 2014, 08:54:52 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2014, 08:52:07 PM
Now that's just hateful and hurtful. :glare:
I don't think so - just more accurate.
Just because your May-September romances usually involve asking for the 3-digit CVV code on the back of his credit card doesn't mean you have to pooh-pooh the random hearts of others. :mad:
AmEx, the 4 digits are on the front. :contract:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 09, 2014, 08:13:56 PM
Allen has confirmed their relationship began when she was 19, and wasn't discovered by Farrow until she was 20.
Previn has confirmed that their relationship began when she was twenty, and that it wasn't discovered by Mia Farrow until 1992, when she was 21. You can believe that Allen knows more about her age than she does, but I don't.
QuoteI know that you're most likely a pedophile since IIRC you work(ed) in private schools that wouldn't find your record of kiddy diddling, but your pathology aside we know Allen began a relationship with Soon-Yi when she was a teenager. Which, as my post mentioned, is the second teenager we know he's banged, the other being 17 when her and Allen had a relationship (this was in the 70s and predated Farrow.) The story Allen and Stacey Nelkin (the 17 year old) have always maintained is any sexual contact between her and Allen that happened in Los Angeles happened after she turned 18 (as it would be a crime if it happened before then.)
This is the lamest ad hom of all time. Sorry, Otto, but it is so pathetic that it isn't even funny-pathetic, just pathetic-pathetic. The Nelkin stuff is just :yawn: A bit creepy? Yeah, but Allen was a lot younger in 1976.
QuoteAnyway, I am a pedo, not sure how you read my post as a rant since I actually said I don't think the evidence in regards to Dylan is persuasive at all, and in fact I suspect Farrow had a strong hand in "shaping' Dylan's story. But I also stand by my opinion Allen is a creepy lecherous fuck I wouldn't want near any child of mine.
I certainly am not saying that Allen is not creepy, but I don't base that on bogus "facts" that i have made up to justify a rant about how teenagers think. I wouldn't trust him near any child of mine, but, then, I'd never trust you near any child of mine, either. Your aggressive ignorance might be contagious.
WTF? Private schools don't conduct background checks on their hires? :o
Quote from: grumbler on February 09, 2014, 09:13:03 PMPrevin has confirmed that their relationship began when she was twenty, and that it wasn't discovered by Mia Farrow until 1992, when she was 21. You can believe that Allen knows more about her age than she does, but I don't.
In 1991, when Soon-Yi would have been 19 and 20, so unless you and Allen are friends (and maybe you guys are through co-membership in NAMBLA) I doubt you can definitively know he never pushed his nebbish Jew dick into her until she hit age 20.
QuoteThis is the lamest ad hom of all time. Sorry, Otto, but it is so pathetic that it isn't even funny-pathetic, just pathetic-pathetic. The Nelkin stuff is just :yawn: A bit creepy? Yeah, but Allen was a lot younger in 1976.
What's the ad hom? Calling a black guy black isn't an ad hom, and that's basically what we're talking about here.
QuoteI certainly am not saying that Allen is not creepy, but I don't base that on bogus "facts" that i have made up to justify a rant about how teenagers think. I wouldn't trust him near any child of mine, but, then, I'd never trust you near any child of mine, either. Your aggressive ignorance might be contagious.
By "child of mine" are you referring to children you've had sex with? Because I don't believe you have fathered any children.
Quote from: garbon on February 09, 2014, 08:49:15 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 09, 2014, 08:47:27 PM
I'm not one to judge people when it comes to matters of the heart. :wub:
That might apply if the heart was the organ involved.
Cardiovascular health is pretty vital.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 10, 2014, 12:54:29 AM
In 1991, when Soon-Yi would have been 19 and 20, so unless you and Allen are friends (and maybe you guys are through co-membership in NAMBLA) I doubt you can definitively know he never pushed his nebbish Jew dick into her until she hit age 20.
You are the guy who is arguing for Allen's claims here, and I am arguing for Soon-Yi's. I didn't even know you NAMBLA guys even knew each others' identities.
QuoteWhat's the ad hom? Calling a black guy black isn't an ad hom, and that's basically what we're talking about here.
Who are you calling a "black guy" here? Me? Allen? Soon-Yi?
QuoteBy "child of mine" are you referring to children you've had sex with? Because I don't believe you have fathered any children.
Sounds like "child" means, to you, merely "sexual object." For those of us without your fetish/mental disease, though, it has other, healthier meanings. And what you "believe" about me has no objective meaning; given your obsession with children and sex, I am grateful that you don't believe I have fathered any children.
Quote from: DGuller on February 09, 2014, 10:51:08 PM
WTF? Private schools don't conduct background checks on their hires? :o
They don't? Shit, I didn't know that. I wonder why they have applicants fill out those background check forms, then.
Quote from: grumbler on February 10, 2014, 07:31:10 AM
I wonder why they have applicants fill out those background check forms, then.
CYA
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2014, 08:00:13 AM
CYA
that doesn't cover their asses, though. The law requires that they do background checks (I know that Otto says this isn't true, but he can't use the world "child" in a paragraph without using "sex' in the same paragraph, so maybe he isn't so credible).
Maybe we can compromise on middle ground here? What if we say that Otto is wrong about Allen, but that grumbler does like the young stuff? Would that be acceptable to everyone?
:hmm: The truth is somewhere in the middle.
Some very troubling lines in Otto's post -- nebbish is a noun not an adjective and doesn't make sense as a modifier for "dick"
FYI, I was talking about "mook" with some friends at the boozer on Friday, one dude googled it, and apparently Scorsese invented the word for "Mean Streets."
:hmm: Nebbish means 'asshole', right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 10, 2014, 11:33:19 AM
FYI, I was talking about "mook" with some friends at the boozer on Friday, one dude googled it, and apparently Scorsese invented the word for "Mean Streets."
Merriam webster disagrees with the urban dictionary mention.
Quote from: Caliga on February 10, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
:hmm: Nebbish means 'asshole', right?
The polar opposite.
Blow hole? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on February 10, 2014, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 10, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
:hmm: Nebbish means 'asshole', right?
The polar opposite.
I think you're thinking of "mensch".
Doesn't nebbish mean something akin to a nerd? :hmm:
Google sez: a person, esp. a man, who is regarded as pitifully ineffectual, timid, or submissive.
It's like a nudnik, but with less spilkes.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2014, 11:44:15 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 10, 2014, 11:38:32 AM
Quote from: Caliga on February 10, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
:hmm: Nebbish means 'asshole', right?
The polar opposite.
I think you're thinking of "mensch".
Doesn't nebbish mean something akin to a nerd? :hmm:
Google sez: a person, esp. a man, who is regarded as pitifully ineffectual, timid, or submissive.
I meant opposite in that a timid person is opposite of an assholish one. Didn't mean it was positive. -_-
Timid people can be assholes too, they're just more passive aggressive about it.
I'm not sure a truly timid person could be passive aggressive. :hmm:
Maybe passive aggressive is the wrong word. There's always "safe" targets like pets, children, underlings, anonymous strangers online, etc. There's also small assholish things one can do without too much worry, like stiffing your waiter or shutting elevator doors on people.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 10, 2014, 12:01:05 PM
Maybe passive aggressive is the wrong word.
We're talking Jews here.