Customize

this man is truely disgusting

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by laughingsock, Feb 2, 2014.

  1. And Mia's continued attraction to Polanski makes more sense.

    Their real-life methods vary, of course: Mr. Polanski, anally raping a 13-year-old in the louche heyday of 1970s Hollywood,

    Read more at http://observer.com/2014/02/j-d-roman-and-woody-why-great-men-get-a-pass-from-their-peers/#ixzz2sgd9Prke
    Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook
  2. White Tara Global Moderator

    Woody responds.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/woody-allen-speaks-out.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1

    Snip;
    Last Sunday, Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of Woody Allen and Mia Farrow. Mr. Allen has written the following response to the column and Dylan’s account.
    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.
  3. nevarmore Member

    • Like Like x 3
  4. White Tara Global Moderator

    ^That pretty much would have to be the most gut churning post in this thread.
    Wow, Mia had concerns about his behaviour towards Dylan from the time she was three. WTF? She continued on with him even so. She disgusts me, and as for him, shudders :(
    • Like Like x 4
  5. laughingsock Member

    • Like Like x 2
  6. White Tara Global Moderator

    Admiring Dylan farrow more and more.
    • Like Like x 3
  7. nevarmore Member

    I admire Dylan. She is living her life on her terms, in spite of the past. She's spoken out, and refuses to be cowed by lawyers, Hollywierd, and anyone else in Allens pocket. It takes a lot of guts to stand your ground when others are trying to undermine the ground you're standing on, especially if those others are people you were raised to believe were your 'family'. The big guns haven't even come out (yet,) against her. I hope her support system is strong and loyal, she's going to need it. Mr. Allen and his 'team' will prove to be the vindictive ones before this is over. (The irony being, that's exactly what he's accused Mia of, spawning the accusations against him.) Let's see how closely my predictions pan out.

    Dylans story rings true...Woody's sounds like misdirection, and guilt. He continually points the finger to Mia in order to deflect attention from his own actions... before this ever went public. It's all her fault for being so hurt, betrayed, angry by his seduction of one daughter, that she made up the molestation of another to shame him. Well duh...... imagine yourself in Mia's shoes. Maybe she didn't handle it the best but, how would you handle it? Anyone? Your daughter, which you've had problems with due to her own demons and issues, has just been exposed as your own intimate partners NEW inimate partner. You know, the one you raised from a child after adopting her with another man. Suddenly you discover your sexual parnter of almost a decade leaves naked pictures of this child on his mantle. Your mind races back across the past, was there any signs? Yes. Were you worried about your child with this man before now? Yes, but not THIS daughter. So you are stunned, shocked, wounded in multiple ways. As a partner, a lover, a mother, a woman, you have been betrayed not only BY your parnter, but also in tandem by your DAUGHTER. As if that wasn't enough, hurtful enough, mind shattering enough, yet another child comes to you and tells you the horror of her victimization at the same hands that have sexualized the other daughter. Soon Yi had problems with the family, with Mia, and Woody used that to his advantage and no one ever shows a spotlight on that part. Mia and Soon Yi were often at odds with each other. What better way to "get back at a despised, not-my-real-mother" than to steal her sexual partner. Woody and Soon Yi were the perfect storm in Mia's life.

    WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DYLAN'S MOLESTATION. One did not trigger the other. He is a serial pedophile. Nothing EVER stops these people. EVER. Because that is how they are hard wired. To prey on children for their sexual fulfillment. ALWAYS, forever, and ever until they die.

    Regardless of how it was, and still is, portrayed by Allen, if Mia were simply using Dylan to get back at Woody, wouldn't it have been MORE exposed? To firmly cement his guilt in the public eye? Why go half assed and back off, letting him off the hook, to pursue his relationship with the tainted Soon Yi? Mia pushed them both out of her life and away from the family. But she sheltered, protected, supported Dylan. Moses, was also estranged from the family, according to others.

    Fact: Woody seduced, photographed graphically, married and was exposed as Soon Yi's intimate partner. She was raised in a home that Woody played the role of her mother's intimate partner. Woody took her from that home, from the role of daughter and through sexually compromising her, placed her in his own bed.

    No matter the cause of suspicion regarding Dylan, whether reprisals by Mia, or actual memory of Dylan, Woody Allen behaved inappropriately with a child to whom he played the role of father-figure to, by virtue of intimacy with the mother. (Adoptive or biological makes NO difference) . He acted in the role of a father figure. He then seduced her away from her mother, while he was still acting as the mother's sexual partner. That's amajor boundary violation.

    By misdirection, Woody is trying to make people forget what their own intelligence suggests. Woody is doing everything he can to make this about Mia's wounded feelings, coaching Dylan, bitter revengeful Mia. So you won't look at creepy, pervy Woody too close and realize what a disgusting pc of shit he really is.

    And the rest of guilty-of-their-own secrets, pedophilia, drug addled Hollywierd is going to line up to crucify Dylan and her mother because why? Because it's too close to home in many cases. How many child actors and actresses have proven, stated, time and again what a swamp pit of molestation the entertainment industry is to children? Because everyone looks the other way, are only too happy to pretend it doesn't happen. They WANT to have their attention diverted from this ugliness. To go back to just accepting a kid made it up, because of course, that's what kids do... long into their adult years, long after the fact. Because of course, Hollywood would never condone child molestation, especially in one of it's golden boy artistic geniuses. rRght?

    Mia was uncomfortable with the way Woody looked at Dylan when she was THREE YEARS OLD. But she missed how he was looking at Soon Yi.

    I would bet Soon Yi hasn't a clue what he is doing with her daughters, right now, and has been since they were adopted.

    And if she ever found out, and if it mattered to her, and she can't ignore it as well as she would like to, I bet Soon Yi will not make hm a scary valentine. If she catches him. If she isn't too damaged herself to protect them.

    If their girls are lucky. If she really loves them.
    • Like Like x 4
  8. White Tara, while I agree with the gut-churning nature of Maureen Orth's piece, I don't think Mia Farrow deserves your disgust.

    'Inappropriate behaviour' was what she was aware of at the time (ie before the events of Aug 4 1992), and it seems she took steps to try to ensure Allen addressed that behaviour, as well as to prevent Allen being alone with the toddler.

    Perhaps you have reason to think she should have taken more decisive action at that time, but it may not have appeared so clear-cut to Mia.

    I urge everyone to read the judgment of Judge Wilk in response to the suit, brought by Allen against Mia Farrow, seeking custody of Dylan, a mere seven days after a paediatrician - not Ms. Farrow - reported possible sexual abuse, based on what Dylan had herself reported to the doctor:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/02/woody-allen-1992-custody-suit.pdf

    and compare the wording, point for point, with Allen's latest statement. There is a huge discrepancy there, not least of which is Allen's failure to address the substance of the 1992 court finding, based on Allen's own testimony and that of others involved, that his behaviour towards Dylan was "grossly inappropriate". He makes no reference to this, either to refute it or to make any admissions or concessions.

    The judge refused Allen custody of any of the three children involved, and ordered Allen to pay Farrow's counsel fees, finding that Allen had not demonstrated credible evidence of parenting skills, nor of an interest or knowledge of the children's lives that would warrant awarding him custody. He found instead that Allen was "...self-absorbed, untrustworthy, and insensitive...lacking insight, judgment and impulse control...", which begs the question: why would he seek custody at that particular time, or at all? In awarding costs. he found the petition "frivolous", and that it "compounded the pain he inflicted upon the Farrow family".

    There is not the merest whiff of any of the judge's findings in that case in Allen's statement, which he says is his final word on the matter. To that extent, it does not appear to me to be a truthful statement, but rather self-absorbed, repeating the insinuation that Mia had coached Dylan, which in Wilk's judgment was without foundation.
    • Like Like x 5
  9. White Tara Global Moderator

    Yes I agree, disgust is too harsh a word, perhaps 'disappointed' would have been better. She had enough gut instinct to impel him into counselling and instruct staff to not allow him to be alone with dylan. that would be enough concern for me to walk away from a relationship. I cannot help but wonder what was stopping her from walking away, they had a personal and very profitable professional partnership over many years. I sure hope that this did not enter consideration when she was deciding what to do about the situation with her dylan.

    She is not responsible for what Woody did, and ultimately there is nothing to be gained by crying over spilt milk. I am sure she probably has her own demons to wrestle with over how she may have better acted in the situation.

    The saddest part for me is the potential damage to the adolescent daughters he has adopted with Soon Yi, and I hope like hell they are safe.
    • Like Like x 4
  10. muldrake Member

    Unfortunately, when I was considering whether to read this at all, how I would react to it was partly based on how he actually addressed the allegations. I decided someone guilty would launch personal attacks at the accuser. That's exactly what he did.

    I was frankly skeptical of these claims when they were coming from Mia Farrow. She is, herself, an untrustworthy witness. Dylan Farrow has no conceivable reason to make this stuff up, though, and responding to these allegations as if they are coming from Mia Farrow, then just attacking Mia Farrow, does not inspire confidence at all.

    Especially when it doesn't even comport with the findings in the only legal opinions on this by a disinterested party.
    • Like Like x 6
  11. Enturbulette Member

    This is an excellent discussion on how investigations are stacked completely against children, and for the side of the abusers.

    http://www.theatlantic.com/national...sault-victims-tell-incoherent-stories/283613/

    Aside from that, it dismays me when people argue so fervently that "no evidence was found" and figure that's that. This isn't necessarily a messy crime. It is quite possible to touch and even grope without leaving behind a mark or fingerprint. You can touch a forbidden area very softly, and it is still the heinous criminal act of a molester -bumps, bruises and scratches are NOT required. In fact it should be argued that such evidence is left behind usually when someone is old enough and large enough to attempt fighting back. Anyone who premeditates a crime of this nature and grooms a child for days, months or years is certainly capable of figuring out how to leave no "evidence" of the act.

    It is strange to me that this needs to be spelled out to Allen's apologists.

    A couple of Allen's hairs were found in that attic room Allen claimed he never entered - he compounded his claim saying the charge was "ridiculous" because he has claustrophobia. When confronted with that evidence of his hair, he backpedaled and then said Oh yeah, he might have "stuck his head in" the room a "couple of times". This casts deep doubt on his testimony for me. And the opening of his last statement that he thought the charges were so ridiculous he didn't give them any serious thought for a good deal of time....This dismissive arrogance is not a reasonable reaction from someone who has genuine concern for their child's welfare.

    Allen has said he will not say anything else on the subject, and this is certainly his best move. Because every time he opens his mouth, he becomes less sympathetic and hangs himself just a little more. I hope that Dylan keeps speaking out until such time as she is ready to move on - a day I hope will come sooner than later for her.

    But if she keeps talking about it for years, I don't blame her one bit and that is for two very good reasons - those two girls adopted by Allen and Soon-Yi - a mother who was an emotionally disturbed child who was then groomed by Allen for private pornography as a teen - well, I hope those girls have some chance at personal safety because of the loud public discussion Dylan has started and kept rolling. For that reason above all others, I support her.
    • Like Like x 11
  12. nevarmore Member


    28bfsdt.jpg
    • Like Like x 7
  13. Enturbulette Member

    • Like Like x 5
  14. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/02/10/woody-allen-statue-defaced
    • Like Like x 3
  15. laughingsock Member

    • Like Like x 3
  16. Enturbulette Member

    It will be interesting to see how long the new musical version of "Bullets Over Broadway" will run, opening at the beginning of March. Broadway ticket buyers are mostly female and mostly out of state tourists. Allen could well have repelled that audience once and for all.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. muldrake Member

    I can't say I'll never enjoy a Woody Allen film ever again. But I may wait until he's dead so at least he doesn't enjoy any profit from it. It's been posted to this thread already, but I just have to comment again that I'm always amazed how The Onion tells you what you think already.

    Not sure why this pisses me off more than, say, Roman Polanski. Maybe because Polanski was always pretty obviously a sick fuck of some sort. I really didn't expect this out of Woody Allen, though.
    • Like Like x 2
  18. laughingsock Member

    • Like Like x 1
  19. nevarmore Member

    It's only been in relatively recent times that pedopiles are getting the legal scrutiny they should. Prosecutions are becoming more common than they once were. Also, these are not crimes that are easy to prove, with the popularity of forensic programs, juries are wanting physical proofs and that isn't always to be had. Sometimes the publicity is as damaging as the event, for the victims, so that has to be weighed into a decision to prosecute. After all, who believes a child who has no frame of reference to judge these events, against an adult who is more powerful, socially more believable, and has all the tools to protest innocence. Unless caught in the act, it takes a lot to win a case based on a child's version of events.
    • Like Like x 2
  20. I also suspect that judge was weighing the burden of celebrity. Dylan was in no more danger because she was with her mother and trying Woody would have brought the many of the same reactions and media shitstorm we see now turning on a 20-something tumbling down on a seven-year-old child. Children are often considered anonymous parties, Dylan, although aminor at the time would not remain one, and while I'm not totally sure I agree with the decision, I do see that the judge was trying to protect Dylan.
    • Like Like x 2
  21. laughingsock Member

    Agreed, although some actions should've been taken to put Allen on a watch list and prevent him from adopting more victims.
    • Like Like x 4
  22. Yeah, that too. Who knows, some red flag might have gone into his files and he might have been effectively blacklisted by mainstream US adoption agencies. Except the man is rich and travels the world. He can get a baby for supper if he wanted it. Sad, sad course of events.
    • Like Like x 3
  23. laughingsock Member

    Yeah, this is one if those times when i want to believe in hell.
    If there is one him and his like will surely get there.
    • Like Like x 2
  24. That's why I referred to the Lolita scene in the first place. Peter Sellers with nerd glasses stuttering his way through the role of a pervert who has no limits monetarily or socially, the movie came out before Woody's fame but it is still contemporaneous with his career. I do not think it is a portrayal of him, but it sure is intersting in retrospect.
  25. laughingsock Member

  26. Of Nabokov, I have only read Lolita. Interesting that his other books returned to a similar theme.
  27. laughingsock Member

    Long but very interesting.
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Maybe he was working through personal history, I wish we knew. His protagonists he portrayed as despicable and entitled (I think all pedophiles feel entitled) and rich. Their money was the power they used to control their victims. In Lolita he tracks down his victim and is surprised and devastated that he doesn't find affection. He also didnt find her attractive any more.
  29. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Wow! Thanks laughingstock, this puts a different light on his book. It's not what I took from reading it. Very long but interesting indeed.
    • Like Like x 1
  30. laughingsock Member

    Laughingstock was indeed the pun i was going for.
  31. muldrake Member

    ETA: What actually pissed me off, that is, the refusal by the NYT to run a counter-statement to Woody's bullshit by the prosecutor in the original case.

    Apparently only Woody Allen himself gets "equal time" in the Gray Lady.

    Fuck that fish wrapper.

    Check ya privilege.

    (ptui)
    • Like Like x 4
  32. Disambiguation Global Moderator

  33. I haven't watched the above clip, but he, and his family's escape from the bolsheviks, pops up in the book I've been reading about the demise of the Russian upper class post-revolution. I think he is, in part, satirizing the mindlessness of the privileged wealthy of his (or any) era. Not unlike FS Fitzgerald who wrote of the rich being spoiled children who ruin the lives of others with as much care as a petulant child breaking it's toys. The Great Gatsby has it's own flirtation with the theme: Daisy is petite and childlike (played at one time by Mia Farrow) and childish. And (IIRC) she runs her husband's lover down in the street with not so much as a pang of regret.
    • Like Like x 1
  34. Thank you!
    • Like Like x 1
  35. Enturbulette Member

    Here's some fun guilt by association - the man that Woody and Soon-Yi are strolling with is none other than Jeff Epstein. Sure super-uber-wealth manager Jeff Epstein (he would not manage you if you had 500 million. You HAD to have a billion or more. Seriously) was actually tried, found guilty and served a year and a half or so for sex with one underage teenager, but that's only because the case was so overwhelming against him - no less than 24 girls joined in a lawsuit regarding his pedophilia. Aside from that he threw parties in his fully wired and hidden camera-ed Palm Beach mansion that put politicians in compromising situations on behalf of the CIA, AIPAC or whoever was his customer for the day. That means that quite a LOT of US policy was determined through him through extortion and sex crimes, largely regarding war hawking and Isreali influence. Besties with Clinton, Prince Andrew, and many many many others. He was a top echelon child pimper and political operator.

    http://pagesix.com/2013/09/24/woody-allen-pals-around-with-child-sex-creep/

    Here is a fawning, in depth article on Jeff Epstein before his fall. I had no idea, had never heard of him.
    http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/n_7912/index3.html

    And after the fall: There is plenty more on this guy including Mossad and CIA connections if you care to look. Oh, and Epstein is a member of both the the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations, a fact which was certainly unaffected even after his conviction for pedo crimes.

    Nice friend, Woody. And somehow you and your former teenage concubine now have two more adopted girls under your control...
    • Like Like x 5
  36. Enturbulette Member

    Here is a selection of in depth reading I have found regarding the botched investigation into Dylan's claims, the family history and other links of interest. I am leaving it all here for anyone who may be interested.
    Woody Allen Enrages Connecticut Prosecutor From Dylan Farrow Casehttp://www.connecticutmag.com/Blog/Connecticut-Today/January-2014/Woody-Allen-Enrages-Dylan-Farrow-Sexual-Assault-Claim-Case-Prosecutor/

    This is especially well researched regarding the botched investigation - go to about page 3:
    http://www.connecticutmag.com/Blog/...References-1997-Connecticut-Magazine-Article/

    On Allen's legal rep:
    http://www.registercitizen.com/opin...expensive-fantasies-of-woody-allen-mouthpiece

    Extremely thoughtful points on the fallacies of a lot of the Allen camp arguments, not necessarily the legal points:
    http://excrementalvirtue.com/tag/soon-yi-previn/

    Interesting unauthorized biography -
    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=...Uuv_D4SViAfI_oGIAw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Soon%20Yi%20previn%20failed%20to%20earn%20her%20degree&f=false

    If you look at nothing else, look at this from Esquire - a preponderance of pedo moments in Allen's films: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dylan-farrow-woody-allen-movies#ixzz2t82StJcY

    And this: http://defamer.gawker.com/the-internet-digs-up-woody-allens-creepy-child-loving-1515815185

    And misrepresentations in the widely quoted Daily Beast defense article: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/..._digging_deeper_into_misleading_coverage.html
    • Like Like x 5
  37. White Tara Global Moderator

    Thanks Enturbulette, much gut churning reading there. I went straight for the Internet digging up Woodys past article. I am seething with rage at Barbara Walters and Woodys Lawyers horror and fascination that this has come up to tarnish him for the approaching award season.

    Well duh, you dumbfucks, what would be more sickening to a victim than a world standing up and giving ovations to her abuser. Is it any wonder the subject would be raised by those close to her and by herself given the kudos Woody is receiving from his pedo loving hollywood chums.

    Also WTF Epstein, that he still retains those position of respect and authority after having been convicted is deeply disturbing.
    • Like Like x 3
  38. Oh ho! There was a red flag but the files are missing...


    From this article.
    http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2013/11/mia-farrow-frank-sinatra-ronan-farrow
    • Like Like x 2
  39. laughingsock Member

    And this is why i love you guise.
    • Like Like x 2
  40. laughingsock Member

    If only we put all of them in a box. 1392598013228.jpg
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins