1923: The Art of Charm

[ghauck]

Originally Posted by lattaland

Have you seen the pics? I've been looking and can't find them anywhere. I was really curious to see if Asian women really have sideways gashes.

They do but only if you hold them sideways, or you look in a mirror during Asian cowgirl. True story.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

i think the real question is, assuming she's of age, would keet be able to jerk it to them? gauntlet: thrown.

I'm pretty sure Danny would beat (pun intended) keet by 30 seconds if both used the alleged pictures for sperm donation. Irony is said sperm donation results in girl who marries Hugh Hefner on life support in 2030.

gauntlet: picked up for 5 yards and left for scummy

[JSZilla]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

Defensiveness: No, I'm right on. People can only attack me, not the truth of what I'm saying.

About Chemda's period, some people will see the humor of that post, and some people will idiotically think it's evidence of my misogyny (no offense.)

Ps, I never said Woody didn't do it.

Alright. I figured I'd ask. No offense taken. I think I would watch those jokes, particularly in debates/arguments like this. A person may think you were on the attack. I certainly thought you were and if it matters I can accept my own ignorance. Not saying this was any indication of misogyny per se, but of going for the easy insult. A joke is a joke, I suppose. Cameron Diaz.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

For what it's worth: The word "hysterical" originally ONLY pertained to women.

1610s, from L. hystericus "of the womb," from Gk. hysterikos "of the womb, suffering in the womb," from hystera "womb" (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus.

While I didn't go to school to be a 1610s doctor, I'm going for it anyway: for what it's worth? It's not worth anything, you misogynistic creep.

And I'll play the minutia game too, Bucho: I never said, "at most 15," so look at what I really said, go off the facts, breathe deeply and relax, and then go eat another dick.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by seamus

Pat, in the first few minutes of the talk on the topic, you started calling Keith a misogynist with no facts about it. It didn't ask for a follow up to clarify what the position was. You made an assumption with researching, and went very boldly with your opinion.

Why are you complaining about other acting in a manner similar to the manner you started the debate with?

It wasn't a complaint about Keith's manner, it was an observation about his belief that young women are not equal to older men.

Keith's belief is that younger women of the ages 18-20 are all easily mislead and can be easily mislead into sleeping with an older man.

My belief is that women that age know well enough who they're attracted to and who they are not attracted to, and can make their own decisions.

If you consider the fact that relatively few women 18-20 actually sleep with or date a man in his 50's, while there are certainly plenty of older gentlemen who would be happy to go there, I think the conclusion is obvious that older men can't just manipulate women this age so easily. I think women that age are much smarter and give them more credit that Keith does.

Also, I point out the fact that when an older woman sleeps with a much younger, inexperienced male, she's typically celebrated as a "cougar" rather than accused of being a "creepy old lady." No one worries about a man that age being manipulated.

My view of the relative power of the sexes seems more balanced to me. It could be argued that "misogynist" isn't the precise word, since it can't be proven that Keith HATES women just because he perceives them as less than equal. However, I've been called a misogynist on the show for far less, so I figure we're throwing that word around loosely in the KATG world.

I hope that answers your question.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Bucho

Hey Keith, you weren't just up to "tricks" when you told us Soon Yi was definitely "15 at the most" when the photographs were taken were you? Throw up that link you have when you get a spare 12 seconds. It would sure help ease my hysteria on the matter.

A look back at the allegations against Woody Allen - The Washington Post

According to the Washington Post timeline of events:

JANUARY 1992:

Visiting Allen’s apartment, Farrow discovers a set of nude, explicit photos Allen has taken of her 21-year-old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn (her father is Farrow’s ex-husband, Andre Previn). The discovery precipitates their split.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Keith

It just hit me: Pat reminds me of Spooky!

I never understood why anyone would argue with Spooky and his weird minutia.

Now here I am with Pat.

And Bucho, YOU I feel like I know. Where's my link? Where's your proof that those pictures were on the up and up? And who knows if there even WERE pictures?

Eat a dick.

Classic Keith. There's your opinion, which is whatever your immediate reaction was when you heard about a thing, and then there's weird minutia, which is any fact that contradicts your opinion.

I'm sorry to bore you (yaaawwwn, suddenly this subject is so boring!) with this weird minutia, but you claimed Soon-Yi was 15 when Woody took naked pictures of her, but according to the Washington Post she was 21.

A look back at the allegations against Woody Allen - The Washington Post

JANUARY 1992:

Visiting Allen’s apartment, Farrow discovers a set of nude, explicit photos Allen has taken of her 21-year-old adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn (her father is Farrow’s ex-husband, Andre Previn). The discovery precipitates their split.

[Keith]

Want to hear my Pat Dixon impression?

"Who wrote that in the Washington Post?! I never heard of them! So somebody wrote something and now we go off of that?!"

I told you what the babysitters in the house saw in regards to Dylan.

There's Pat: "What babysitters? What are their NAMES?"

Hugsy's babysitters, Pat. Those were the ones we were referring to.

I'm not saying this subject is now boring. I'm saying you and Bucho are being goofballs.

"Consistent doesn't mean the same!"

Admit you're fucking with us so that we can respect you.

[EllaMacFarlane]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

Without knowing which doctor you're referring to, this is the best I can do.

Here is the entire 33-page decision written by Judge Wilk.

http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/0...stody-suit.pdf

Pg. 12 "A medical examination conducted on August 9 showed no physical evidence of sexual abuse."

Pg. 22 "Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan."

Pg. 2 "On March 17, 1993, Yale-New Haven issued a report which concluded that Mr. Allen had not sexually abused Dylan."

This is what you literally laughed off on the show, when Keith brought it up: like any other part of a healthy body, the vagina heals quickly from wounds, which makes it virtually impossible for doctors to detect child molestation if they don't conduct an examination in the right away in the following days.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

This is Woody's take on it, and, sue me, I think what he says makes sense. That's all for the rationality part.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/op...peaks-out.html

Not evidence, your opinion. I think it's amazing that you think you have a monopoly on "speaking truths" and "looking at the evidence critically", when all you really go on is your thoughts and feelings. Luckily, K & C and most of the forums don't fall for that bullshit. The fact that you say you're calm and reasonable doesn't make you so.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

I understand the statement. Frank Maco said he had enough evidence to more forward but wouldn't pursue the case because of the fragility of the victim. A disciplinary panel found that Maco may have prejudiced the ongoing custody fight between Allen and Mia Farrow by making an accusation without formal charges.

Maco simply knew he couldn't win the case, not without Dylan's testimony. From the Yale-New Haven team report, he also knew her story had a "rehearsed quality." In other words, not only was she "fragile" in that, yes it would be scary for any 7-year-old to testify about anything, but even worse for the case, Dylan's testimony would be unconvincing. I hate to break it to you, but this is just reality.

The Yale-New Haven team was hired by Frank Maco to determine if Dylan would be able to tell her story on the stand. This is their finding:

“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.”

Okay?

The show has covered this too, regarding victims and their ability to repeat their story over and over without breaking. Most child victims can't do that. Dylan was forced to talk about this over and over and over and she was examined multiple times. Most adult rape victims describe their experience with the police and trial as "a second rape", because they have to relive it over and over. Dylan was probably an emotional wreck by then. This is why the treatment of any rape victim, and especially child molestation victims, is radically different from what it was. They have to tell their story with a child psychiatry expert only once, and they have one examination with an expert on this issue.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

Merely pointing out, prosecutors prosecute, and defenders defend. The police are tasked with gathering evidence to support the claims of accusers to build cases for the DA. This is how it works. I'm sorry you don't like it.



The reason not to take the test is because it could only benefit the prosecution of the case against him. It would do Allen no good to take such a test, as he is already presumed innocent, and you would've done the same thing on the advice of an attorney because literally ANY attorney would say not to take that test.

No, I wouldn't have. Of course his attorney would tell him not to take it if he thought he's guilty. I would take the test in a heartbeat to prove my innocence. It could only benefit the prosecution if he's caught in a lie, right? So taking the test would be what, just a silly waste of time, because he's totally innocent? Then why the fuck would he commission a test from a private company? It only makes sense if he's guilty.

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

If I can silence just one victim of sexual abuse, I'll feel I've done my job here. I doubt your feeble brain will detect the sarcasm in that, so let me make it clear that I'm just kidding! But you guys need to lay off this whole "Pat makes rape victims cry" bullshit. It's insulting to me, and exploitive of actual victims you claim to advocate for.

People like you are the reason men turn gay. That, and because deep down they always wanted hot dick.

Eat shit, I turn men straight

[Enunciated Piffle]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

About Chemda's period, some people will see the humor of that post, and some people will idiotically think it's evidence of my misogyny (no offense.)

I thought your Chemda joke was hilarious, but it may have compromised your journalistic integrity.

Are you willing to concede that Chemda's vagina has no blood on it?

ARE YOU WILLING TO CONCEDE THAT CHEMDA'S VAGINA HAS NO BLOOD ON IT??

Well, then, you're just being argumentative

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by Keith

Bucho: I never said, "at most 15," so look at what I really said, go off the facts, breathe deeply and relax, and then go eat another dick.

Well, when you put it that way I guess it's settled.























30:10
Keith (Self-satisfiedly): "Is it odd that he's taken nude pictures of this girl (Soon Yi) when she's a kid?"
Pat (In measured tones): "I will say that's one thing that I really did not research at all and so I'm not qualified to speak on that. I can only talk about what I've read ..."
Chemda (Interupting hysterically, her voice breaking as she's on the verge of tears): "KEITH HOW OLD WAS SHE WHEN HE TOOK NUDE PICTURES!?!?!?!?!"

...

Keith (Smugly): "At most 15 let's say."

What else ya got Tricksy?