Take a deep dive in the credibility of 'journalist' Roger Friedman. Fired at Fox. Sacked at The Hollywood Reporter. Now a gossip blogger. Need I say more? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_F...
PhD Education. 38 years of teaching. Academic teacher educator. Namesearching & defending a falsely alleged Woody Allen against idiotic odds. Father of three. Reasonable to the reasonable. It/Its😁
27 followers 14 following 2,686 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Take a deep dive in the credibility of 'journalist' Roger Friedman. Fired at Fox. Sacked at The Hollywood Reporter. Now a gossip blogger. Need I say more? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_F...
Please name that 'spokesman'. You can't. Because @DaveCBenoit and @KhadeejaSafdar 'forgot' to name the 'spokesman'. And won't respond to questions. Try for yourself if you like. No 'Woody spokesman' has come to the fore to confirm the WJS's unverifiable claim. Don't tell me you're gullible.
Remaining factual and honoring verifiable facts is indeed a 'strong look'. As opposed to being uncritical, gullible, and susceptible to audience manipulation. I'm sure we agree on that.
After two long years, the Wall Street Journal has not disclosed a single 'document' or 'calendar' they claim to have in their possession. NO ONE, including you, can read, inspect, authenticate said 'materials'. 'Journalists' @DaveCBenoit and @Khadeejasafdar never respond to requests. 'Nuff said.
Incorrect. Take that first movie, 'John Wick 4' with Keanu Reeves. Produced and distributed by *Lionsgate*, the very same production company that gave us your 'Ballerina'.
You keep claiming some imagined 'friendship' for which no material, verifiable evidence exists; while the available evidence points to the absence of any such 'friendship'. You *do* know that everyone and their sister is trying to smear disliked people by associating them with Epstein, don't you?
Of course, it could be a matter of pure chance that a well-known paparazzo-for-hire happens to have set up a 'burst shot' for no particular reason along the route of Woody's and Soon-Yi's daily stroll to their restaurant, while a famous, avid photo collector just happened to have casually walked by.
Yesterday, today, tomorrow. The principle is simple: obvious, vicious lies about people deserve to be exposed for what they are. Misinformation is one of (social) media's plagues. Media have been & will be abused to trick people into false beliefs, for whatever purpose. More awareness is needed.
To show you how easily you have been led on by all kinds of false claims published in social media. Just because you *liked* to believe them. The 'Woody Allen case' offers a great opportunity to demonstrate how your beliefs have been shaped by false 'information' while immunizing you to the facts.
If this only known photo with Epstein and Allen in the same frame, this 'burst shot' taken by a hired paparazzo *proves anything*, it is that Epstein could not get a photo of him and Allen in any other way. So far for their 'friendship' and 'frequent contacts'.
That Box Office Mojo link can show you how many, many US-made movies have been released to Russian theaters post-invasion in Ukraine. Rendering any idea of a 'cultural boycott' absurd, and blame put on Woody Allen for 'breaking' it (by having an online talk with movie aficionados) hypocritical.
The only photo with Epstein and Allen in the same frame has them walking 20 feet apart without any visible contact. It was taken by a professional, paparazzo Elder Ordonez, who claims copyright. As Epstein is constantly looking Ordonez in the eye, it is likely that Epstein hired him.
I wrote 'verifiable evidence'. That alleged 'letter' is no 'verifiable evidence'. The NY Times refuses to disclose its source, and no researcher has been allowed to authenticate that 'letter' which its weird contents, its many spelling errors, and lack of paragraphing.
You can see for yourself how many USA made movies have been released to Russian theatres in the more than two years since Russia invaded Ukraine. www.boxofficemojo.com By the way, do you know there's ZERO verifiable evidence of any 'friendship with Epstein'? You're not very well informed, Logatex.
I kinda think it dishonest to claim someone 'legitimizes' a regime when he has literally and vehemently condemned that regime's actions, but you do you.
Here's a few facts for you. None of his kids has ever legally accused him of anything. There is *zero* verifiable evidence of any 'friendship' with Epstein. Your picture show no one 'hanging out' with anyone. You're fantasizing, Logatex. And you're fantasies are at odds with the facts.
While I am put off by people who like to call other people pedophiles with exactly ZERO serious, factual reasons. Like you do. You may blindly 'believe' you have such reasons, but you really don't. It is a bloody shame that you fell for the Farrow's lies, hook, line and sinker. It's absurd.
Participating in that Moscow Film event was unfortunate, particularly in the sense of bad publicity. Although I have never heard of a 'cultural boycott' going on concerning Russia, and LOTS of USA movies have been released in Russia in 2023-2024-2025. No one complained about that, did they.
Your understanding is mistaken. I am not a Woody Allen fan, let alone a 'big' Woody Allen fan. As far as I can see, Woody Allen never 'fucked up things' in his private life. All his exes, his wife, and both of their daughters, love him; one known deceiver (M.F.) being the sole exception.
Good for you! I wish I were you. But alas, I am not.
Wow. Two pedestrians walking on a NY pavement, 20 feet apart, without any visible contact. All the rest is your fantasy.
Of course you can make a mistake based on a loose memory. Everyone can. And I'm happy that you admitted it. Not all people show such courage in public.
Yes, I am happy now. Particularly as there is nothing wrong with dating Mia Farrow's 21 yo daughter, and staying with her for 30+ in a relationship that has shown itself to be harmonious, durable, faithful and productive. Even when it started out as unorthodox, it was not abusive or immoral.
I think there's a good reason to defend someone from vicious lies told about him or her. Lies that make people believe that he or she is 'awful'. Maybe you prefer the lies? I don't.
Simple facts deserve to be defended. Against vicious lies. I can't imagine we disagree about this.
Vicious, false claims, such as the ones you like to make, are 'fucking weird as hell'. NOT admitting to having made such vicious, false claims is 'fucking weird as hell'. You ought to know.
Only *one*, above-age teenager in 50 movies, that include literally *hundreds* of female actresses & love-interests. Their average age is 33,5. 80% is between 25 and 55. And you blindly believe 'Woody Allen is preoccupied with getting involved with "younger women"'? It is an absurd claim, sorry.
Sure. Create your own information bubble. Never let facts get in the way of your 'opinion'. Just call those people who present such facts 'bad people'. And you've got yourself a great excuse to not listen to them.
Schoof-1 is een parlementair meerderheidskabinet, mogelijk gemaakt door ons stemgedrag in 2023. Geen zakenkabinet. Het is belangrijk dit te erkennen. Het probleem is niet dat 'we' gekaapt zijn, of ondemocratisch worden geregeerd. En ons stemgedrag wordt sterk bepaald door de media. Nu opnieuw.
PVV, BBB en NSC. Samen maar liefst 64 van de minimaal benodigde 76 zetels waarop het kabinet-Schoof berust. 64 volstrekte amateurzetels. 64 zetels voor partijen die nooit eerder regeerden, en die in de valkuil trapten om eigenbelang voor collectief belang te stellen. Weg met die onnutte amateurs!
Het zou niet zo erg zijn dat prutsers prutsen. Het leven kent nu eenmaal prutsers. Het erge is dat Nederland prutsers aan het Roer der Staat hebben gelaten die ernstige schade berokkenen. Vooral door onverantwoordelijke *inertie* waar *actie* geboden is. Huizen. Asiel. Klimaat. Onderwijs. Grrrr.
As said, you have exactly ZERO factual, verifiable reasons to claim 'Epstein loved having WA over'. Everyone and his sister is trying to SMEAR people they hate by associating them with Epstein. There's ZERO evidence for Epstein and Allen having been 'friends' or even 'contacts'. Enjoy your lies.
Of course you're muting me. Blind Woody Haters cannot stand facts that get in the way of their 'opinion'.
At this moment in time, Patti Smith coincides with Iggy Pop.
Woody Allen never 'hung out with a convicted pedo rapist', and you have exactly ZERO factual, verifiable reasons to claim that he did. You may like to 'believe' you do, but you really don't.
It is a joke about statutory rape. The joke takes nothing away from the fact that 'Tracy' is above age, that there is nothing illegal about their relationship, and that 'Ike' is not a rapist of any kind.
You may like to 'think' that 'Ike' is a statutory rapist. Other people 'think' the Moon is made of green cheese. It doesn't make your, or these people's, thoughts true. In fact, they are false. 'Ike' is not presented as a rapist, as he is not a rapist. A big moral thing is to acknowledge facts.
Thank you for admitting your vicious lie about Woody Allen marrying some 'daughter' of his. There is no character in 'Manhattan' that commits statutory rape, rendering your question unanswerable.
So you believe a guy who *fails* to date several women in his own age-group, who has an obvious *inappropriate* relationship with a 17 year old, and who is *abandoned* by this young woman who goes her own way in life, is a 'good guy'? Blind Woody Haters are such idiots, believing their own lies.
This photo proves Epstein and Allen were not 'friends' or 'frequent contacts'. Apparently, the only way Epstein could get a photo of him and Allen in the same frame, was to hire a paparazzo (Elder Ordonez) and have himself photographed walking 20 feet ahead of Woody on a NY pavement. Friends, eh?
But I can expect people with a working brain to check the facts, and respect them. FACT 1: Soon-Yi PREVIN is an adoptive daughter of André PREVIN, as her name indicates to anyone with a working brain. She was never *any* kind of 'daughter' to Woody Allen. FACT 2: you are a liar. Willfully or not.
Woody Allen never *had* a stepdaughter, and his wife was never any kind of 'daughter' to him. I think you are the type who finds damned lies 'cool'. You know you are. You just don't want to admit that,
Woody Allen performed as an actor in 50 movies in the course of 50 years. Lastly at the age of 80 in his tv series 'Crisis in Six Scenes' (2016). Since then, he has directed four movies, that have been released to 40 countries across 4 continents. He is among the most productive US moviemakers.
I was invented by my parents in 1964. Ten days before The Beatles performed in my Dutch hometown.
Your thought is wrong. Now ask yourself why someone tried to TRICK YOU into believing this young girl is Soon-Yi. And why someone ABUSED the photo of Bechet Allen to TRICK people into believing she is her own mother. Bechet has complained MANY TIMES about this ABUSE. The OP doesn't give a damn.
Allen spent a lifetime writing & directing 50 movies in the course of 60 years. They include lots of romances with all kinds of women, young and (mostly) older. There are ZERO 'young girls' in those 50 movies. There's ONE above-age teenager in 50 movies. Maybe YOU are 'obsessed with young girls'?
Indeed, "running through all of the boxes is an insistent, vivid obsession with young women & girls"; and that is apparently what Richard Morgan did. The NYT readership did not like the product of Morgan's obsession with young women and girls. In fact, they called it 'dishonest' and explained why.
While you are so funny and everybody loves you. Now what?
Tell us, who is the young girl in the blue sweater, whose photo you have posted on a world-wide public forum? Do you think it is normal to post young girls' photos on public fora without their permission?
Woody Allen is not so stupid as to waste his time by giving this idiotic 'letter' free publicity. Any 'authenticity' is to be established by the NY Times or objective expertise; instead the NY Times *refuses* to disclose the source/document. It's VERY clear that 17 yo 'Tracy' is based on 'Stacey'.
Please look up 'projection'. Fascinating concept.
And, just like with the @WJS article, the 'journalists' will not reveal their sources and disclose their 'documents' for inspection and authentication. Are you gullible?
In other words, if you believe that 'NYT letter to Epstein' is authentic, I have all of Amsterdam's bridges to sell to you.
For some reason, the @NYTimes 'forgot' to publish Woody's second letter. We know it is authentic as, just like the first letter, it is written on a typewriter, it has Woody's signature, and it contains only one paragraph.
Leslee Dart has never made such statement, was not named as the 'spokesperson' in the WSJ article. No one else has come forward to claim having made the statement. The 'relationship with Engelhardt' was confirmed by no one, not even by Mia Farrow, who figured in it, and is never too lazy to smear.
Better take that Logic & Deduction 1.0 course.
No 'Allen spokesman' has come forward 'confirming' that. That's why that alleged 'spokesman' was left anonymous. Christina Engelhardt has come forward saying she was NOT 16 (= underage) after all. The @THR editor who published her interview, claims 'Babi' said 16. These LIARS are all so credible!
Obviously, your admiration for Orson Welles is a long as your toes are.
On informing you of the contents of my message. That part seems to have worked.
You ARE aware, aren't you, that everyone and his sister is using Epstein's name to SMEAR people they don't like. This has been going on for years, without physical evidence showing up. Smears made by people who count on people's blind belief, and on the smears dragging on for god knows how long.
Your @NYMag reference merely repeats a claim in @WSJ in an April 30th 2023 article. The @WSJ claims to have 'documents' and 'calendars' in their possession, but has NOT disclosed a single one of them. NO ONE can read, inspect, authenticate their stuff. The 2 journalists never respond to requests.
I think an innocent person publicly alleged of a heinous crime*) deserves a public defense. I'll do mine. *) by people who weren't found credible at all by no less than four thorough judicial investigations, and who have shunned all legal responsibility for 33 years while playing the media
La mayoría de los adultos que conozco son capaces de admitir que se equivocan. Eso merece respeto. El infantilismo no merece respeto.
Just an aside: Dylan Farrow, her mother Mia and her brother Ronan have NEVER legally accused Woody Allen of ANYTHING. Never taken him to court. Not a single charge was made. All they did was play the media, and evade all legal responsibility since Day One. That is for 33+ years. And counting.
Anything you say or write on BlueSky can and will be used against you in a court of public opinion.
Anything you say or write on BlueSky can and will be used against you in a court of public opinion.
Woody Allen no tiene una "hija-esposa". No entiendo por qué a la gente le encanta fantasear con eso.
Always nice to see what kind of stuff Woody Allen Haters are made of.
Well, you don't *know*. It is mere belief, based on fantasy, and is spoken against by the facts I showed you. The two children he got to raise (as Mia did not steal them away) love him. He's never had a stepdaughter. No one ever charged him for 'child molestation'. Do you like facts? I do.
If you blindly believe some absurd 'quote' in a sensationalist 'entertainment' rag governed by 'gossip blogger' and known deceiver Roger Friedman, who was fired by Fox and The Hollywood Reporter for journalistic misconduct, then I have all of Amsterdam's bridges to sell to you.
I didn't count on that. But it would be nice though.
Of course you 'don't know' and you 'don't care'. Blind Woody Allen Haters don't know shit, and they don't care one bit for their lies. Thank you for being so frank about yourself.
There's no shread of verifiable evidence for Woody Allen having 'attended' even a single Epstein 'dinner'. Why are you fantasizing? Because you like to read gossip, and your critical functions are out of order?
Woody Allen never sexually assaulted anyone. Not even a squirrel.
'No sé ya' were the most truthful words in your message. You don't know shit. Woody Allen is not a pedofile, nor a sexual predator, and you have exactly ZERO serious, factual reasons to believe, let alone claim that he is. Why do people just LOVE to LIE about Woody Allen? You tell me.
Are you brain dead yet?
Tus sueños sombríos morirán a partir de ahí. Esta atento.
¿Por qué sueñas con 'follarte a tu sobrinito'? ¿Y por qué proyectas tus propios sueños en los demás?
Según mi experiencia, muchas personas creen que sus fantasías sobre Woody Allen son «los hechos» y no están dispuestas a distanciarse de ellas, a pesar de que hace tiempo que han sido desmentidas. Quizás tú seas una de esas personas. Quizás no. No lo sé.
*'when Woody Allen goes'* Well, Woody went. To France. To make a good movie. Lucky us.
You don't *know* that 'Woody Allen is despicable'. You only *know* that you somehow *believe* he is despicable. That is quite a difference. And the *facts* are against you.
siempre.a.favor.de.rajar.de.la.IA,.pero.acabo.de.leer.a.alguien.decir.que.ya.no.se.va.a.comprar.la.nueva.novela.de.Woody.Allen.por.usarla.en.la.portada.y.tiene.un.poco.vibras.de.esto
Ooh, that reminds me of Orson Welles' envy of movie directors who fared a lot better than he did, both professionally and personally. Welles was a *would-be* alpha ape, trying to climb higher on Ape Rock, but his alcoholism (and weak character) kept him down. Deservedly long forgotten now. Welles?
Thank you for your message! It always makes me happy to see antisemites crawling out of the woodywork to display the antisemitism in their blind Woody Allen Hatred. And their baseless fantasies about 'child rape'. Just so other people may discover in what kind of company they are.
Both of Woody Allen's parents lived to be a 100 or more. Chances are a couple of your 'loved ones' will have perished before he does. How suitable for a death wisher like you.
Yes, because you are not like me. And you're surprised that people are not all like you.
Maybe you should get therapy to release yourself from those obsessive thoughts about banging kids. Before they get you into trouble.
Nope. The present way is good enough for me.
I haven't heard from them for a week. Should I be worried? Maybe you can re-report me, just to be on the safe side?
While the rest of the world agrees with me that ad populum fallacies are the coward's way.
Dream away. And oh, please buy that Kleenex stock. So much to cry over in today's world.
What's the fad of the day? 'Believe all children'?
Many 'someone elses' haven't done their due diligence. And yes, that may include you. Either that, or you're a blunt liar who *has* done their due diligence, but loves to *lie* about the outcome. Choose wisely.
Do you think you are Napoleon too?
Evasion of the topic won't do your image much good.
Life is full of surprises, isn't it?
Ahora estamos lejos de la situación que describiste inicialmente. ¿Te parece supernormal callarte eso?
¿Es usted "supernormal"? ¿Used debe ser "supernormal"? ¿Qué criterio absurdo es este? En todos los países del Tierra es aceptable casarse con la hija o el hijo ADULTO de una ex pareja, siempre que nunca haya existido una relación parental o cualquier otro tipo de dependencia. Como en este caso.
