1924: Think of the Children

[Keith]

Take the pictures out of the equation if that's your stumbling block.

Now is the Woody and Soon Yi relationship kosher?

You're being goofy.

[Sashi]

I believe she said something along the lines of, "If he did take pictures of her, what do you think about that?" And then Pat said something along the lines of, "Whoa, whoa, calm down," or, "The prosecutor's job is to get convictions!"

[OnmyojiOmn]

It's probably time to retire this stupid weeaboo username. An onmyoji is an ancient Japanese occultist/fortuneteller, not that that's interesting to anyone. A response to Chemda's response to my response to yesterday's episode, where I said your tone was "hostile and petulant":

I should have taken the time to be descriptive rather than just throwing out a couple adjectives. I don't think my impression came from a place of sexism, but it seems condescending and somehow actually sexist when someone points out that they're not being sexist whenever they're saying anything that might be sexist. It's shitty that you should have to view listener feedback through a prism of sexism, even here on your own forums.

What bothered me about your tone was the emotion behind it. What you characterize as assertive and stern sounds to me like hurt feelings. Your tone when you were debating with Pat didn't sound much different from when you were responding to my comment from yesterday, the latter being a much more personal topic. It was also similar to when things got heated in an argument with Keith from a while back and he called you a bitch.

In a debate between friends there's an understanding that nobody allows their feelings to be hurt, within reason. Pat's "Well, if you're gonna be hostile..." is like saying "Well, if you're not gonna play by the rules...". It's frustrating when the other person crosses that line, and I guess I was feeling some of that frustration when I listened to the show. Also, when I'm debating with someone the last thing I want is to hurt their feelings, and the last thing I want to hear on KATG is hurt feelings or a friendship strained. That said, it's starting to sound like Pat may not have been a close friend in the first place.

Chemda, obviously I'm just a guy on the internet who doesn't know shit about you. If you're telling me that all I should hear in your tone is assertiveness, then I'll take you at your word and that'll be that. I'm looking forward to future debates on the show. I'm sorry this post is so long. I guess this is why people usually just throw out a couple adjectives.

[Grampoo]

Originally Posted by Keith

Take the pictures out of the equation if that's your stumbling block.

Now is the Woody and Soon Yi relationship kosher?

You're being goofy.

I don't know if their r'ship is kosher. They say it is and some folks say it isn't. If Woody Allen really is a manipulative creep, then it isn't kosher. But I don't know. I'm open to the idea that some unusual age-gap (or whatever unconventional biz folks do) might be ok. Obviously, an adult being sexual with a seven year old is harmful and the adult is criminally abusive. But to me, Pat seemed to have well-defended the "we don't REALLY know what happened" perspective. It's an easy perspective to defend.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Grampoo

I don't know if their r'ship is kosher.

You don't know if there's anything wrong with Woody Allen being married to Soon Yi or not? There's not enough facts for you?

Okay. Very good.

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by Grampoo

I don't know if their r'ship is kosher

That would depend on whether Woody's dick is classified as pork.

[Grampoo]

Originally Posted by Keith

You don't know if there's anything wrong with Woody Allen being married to Soon Yi or not? There's not enough facts for you?

Okay. Very good.

I guess the relationship seems unusual when I hear you describe it, but I'm so uncomfortable pointing at anyone and saying they are wrong if they appear to be consensual.
The Dylan question is a different question, where the truth exists. Allen either did it or he didn't. If false memories and even false convictions weren't real, there would be no need to be skeptical about this girl. Dylan herself is the most compelling evidence, but Allen's denial is well-crafted enough that it gives me true pause. That's the only thing that I think. Your absolute certainty sets on warning bells in me.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Grampoo

Allen's denial is well-crafted enough that it gives me true pause.

His clever, "Any sane person knows I didn't do it" threw you?

Well, what can I tell ya. Stay sane.

[Grampoo]

Originally Posted by Keith

His clever, "Any sane person knows I didn't do it" threw you?

LOL sincerely.

I don't know. I'm vulnerable to the 'false accusations' defense.

[Sakugenken]

I haven't listened to today's podcast yet but yesterday I couldn't help shaking my head angrily during the debate (people in the mall were giving me a wide path) as Pat kept slitting hairs. Was there semen or wasn't there semen, photos or no. Let's look at the forest! Basically it is a fact that a middle-aged man went after the 15 daughter of his girlfriend. That is sick in most anyone's book. Then another women claims she was abused at an even younger age and we keep splitting hairs?