1923: The Art of Charm

[Scumhook]

Originally Posted by PatDixonNYC

"Let me finish"

That's a good rule to live by when dealing with women in general.

Whether it's talking, sex or your fries; this beacon will guide you through the treacherous waters of the Great Estrogen Ocean.

That, and its partners "I'm sorry" and "You're right".

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by lovebird

Woody Allen's arguments against Dylan's allegations are that Mia Farrow coached her into believing she was a rape victim from the age of seven?!

What makes you dismiss that notion? Is it because the Soon Yi situation creeps you out? Or is it because you don't know that false accusations are relatively few compared to substantiated accusations (under 10%) but that they do happen and the large majority of them happen due to coaching by one parent against another during a divorce?

Originally Posted by lovebird

By refusing to take sides, people dismiss the issue and allow Woody Allen to continue receiving unquestioned praise. People blinded by Woody's artistic input are willing to place him on a pedestal and write articles that focus on discrediting Dylan's story.

By taking sides without having researched the subject to any meaningful degree people come at the issue like frothing-at-the-mouth goons, even when their heart is (apparently) in the right place. People blinded by their disgust over Woody's relationship with his former lover's much younger daughter place him in the stocks and yammer into microphones and write posts that focus on perpetuating false information.

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by Scumhook

That, and its partners "I'm sorry" and "You're right".

And "Please help me"?

#RIPSpooky

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

This was very difficult to listen to.

Pat ignores K&C when they say that the doctor said it was INCONCLUSIVE, not FALSE, that Dylan was molested.

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."

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

He says it's "irrational" to think he came on her. I really hate it when people use "reason" incorrectly, and only to discount the other side's point. What part about that is so irrational?

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

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

Pat twisting around the reason why Woody wasn't prosecuted. The statement clearly said they that have probable cause, but they can't do it without Dylan's testimony, and she's too fragile to go on the stand and testify. Pat laughs off the fact that a 7 year old would be "too fragile" to testify against her molester. Because that's soooo fucking irrational.

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?

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

Pat thinking that the police are only trying to get a conviction, and not to get to the bottom of things for the sake of the public (as WhiskeyApprentice points out).

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.

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

Pat rationalizing Woody's decision not to take the police's lie detector test because "that [the police] would be a hostile environment for Woody". Poor, poor Woody. He's actually very sensitive to hostile environments.

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.

Originally Posted by EllaMacFarlane

Another point for Pat being a misogynist. People like him are the reason so many victims never speak out.

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.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by vezione

I, too, am sick of the continued Woody/Dylan debate mostly because I'm sick of people trying to defend Woody.

Too bad, fuck you.

Originally Posted by vezione

The custody battle has been published and is out there floating in the ether and judge makes clear that Dylan needed protecting from Woody. That should be the end of the story.

Floating in the ether? here's the link. In this decision you'll find that:

Dr. Susan Coates says Woody Allen didn't do it.
Dr. Nancy Schultz says Woody Allen didn't do it.
The Yale-New Haven Child Sex Abuse Clinic who studied the case for 6 months said he didn't do it.
Dylan's brother Moses said he didn't do it.

READ IT FOR YOURSELF. IF YOU'RE TOO LAZY TO READ THIS, YOU SHOULD SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT WOODY ALLEN BEING GUILTY.
JUDGE WILK'S DECISION
http://www.vanityfair.com/dam/2014/0...stody-suit.pdf

Originally Posted by vezione

Pat's defense of Woody comes mostly from what Woody himself has to say

No, it doesn't. I've read a lot about this from a variety of sources, and my main reason for coming on KATG was to clear up misinformation from some of those sources, not to defend Woody. You seem to be a mental defective.

Originally Posted by vezione

Woody Allen was denied visitation BY A JUDGE so quite saying nothing legal happened.

Honestly, if I was Woody, I would've been grateful not to spend any time with those ungrateful little shits, particularly Ronan, as he now calls himself. However, Woody truly was a loving father (in the GOOD way. As late as 1991, Mia had written a GLOWING appraisal of Woody and his parenting skills and moral fiber to support his motion to adopt Dylan, Satchel and Moses) and he was crushed by his inability to see his daughter again.

So as Mia said after she discovered Soon-Yi had fallen in love with Woody: "He took my daughter, now I'll take his." This would've been after she physically attacked Soon-Yi by hitting her in the face and neck. (it's in the judge's decision, read it if you dare).

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Bucho

…false accusations are relatively few compared to substantiated accusations (under 10%) but that they do happen and the large majority of them happen due to coaching by one parent against another during a divorce?

Yet another good reason not to have kids!

Originally Posted by Bucho

By taking sides without having researched the subject to any meaningful degree people come at the issue like frothing-at-the-mouth goons, even when their heart is (apparently) in the right place. People blinded by their disgust over Woody's relationship with his former lover's much younger daughter place him in the stocks and yammer into microphones and write posts that focus on perpetuating false information.

That's undeniable. With the further accusation that anyone who says otherwise is somehow intimidating victims of sexual abuse, preventing them from coming forward.

Off topic: Here's a link:

Soon-Yi Speaks: 'Let's Not Get Hysterical'

… to an interesting article written for Newsweek by Soon-Yi from August 1992, right after the molestation allegation was made in which she says:

"Please don't try and dramatize my relationship with Woody Allen. He was never any kind of father figure to me. I never had any dealings with him. He rarely came to our apartment before his own children were born."

"Mia was always very hot-tempered and given to rages which terrified all the kids. They can't speak freely because they're still dependent on her. But they could really tell stories and I'm sure one day will. It's true Mia was violent with me and I have conclusive proof, but I hope she and Woody can somehow head off a custody trial."

"The business of him molesting Dylan is so ridiculous that I won't dignify it with a comment. Why Dylan repeats her story is another matter, and a sinister one. I was not surprised that Mia made a videotape of Dylan saying these terrible things as I think the motive is obvious, but I was stunned that the tape would somehow find its way to the TV news."

"From the beginning of their conflict, which I know Woody broke his neck to avoid for the kids' sake, I have refrained from commenting, but when Mia brought up child molestation and then had her sisters and mother and kids and friends parade out in public and do her dirty work for her, climaxing with that tape of Dylan being given out, I felt I had to speak at this point."

It's only a page, and a very informative read.

[PatDixonNYC]

Originally Posted by Keith

I'm old school, and I would need to know what molested means.

Appearently it doesn't mean actual penetration because that is simply laughable.

Yeah, it is. I mean, I know you're being sarcastic, but the idea that Dylan was ever claiming to have gotten fucked by Woody Allen is laughable, and even stupid. Like, it's a stupid thing to say or believe.

Here's Judge Wilk's ruling in the custody hearing Allen v. Farrow:

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

Middle of page 12, "Dylan told Ms. Farrow that she had been with Mr. Allen in the attic and that he had touched her privates with his finger."

The creepy part is that those were her exact words: "I was with Mr. Allen in the attic and he touched my privates with his finger."

Tell me that doesn't sound rehearsed!!!!!!

Loved episode 124. I must admit, I enjoyed listening to you guys bashing me in my absence. If you listen hard, you can hear the exact moment you guys regain your composure.

Regarding my condescension to Chemda, I want to make it clear that I only spoke to her that way because I happened to know so much more about the subject than she did.

I know you're never coming around on this Soon-Yi thing, and that you think she's a victim whether she knows it or not. I mean, how could she know something about her life that you don't know better. You're you, after all. She's just her.

But here's the entire text of that stupid girl's article for Newsweek back in August of 1992. She really doesn't know shit about the whole Woody/Soon-Yi thing, I mean not as much as you, but why not glance at it, it's a quick read:

Please don't try and dramatize my relationship with Woody Allen. He was never any kind of father figure to me. I never had any dealings with him. He rarely came to our apartment before his own children were born. Even then, he never spoke and the truth is I never cared that much for him. He was always preoccupied with work and never talked to me. Not really to any of us. Only when Dylan was born did he start visiting regularly and then only to play with the baby. My own father is Andre Previn, who came to visit pretty often and took us all out frequently. When I first got friendly with Woody, he and Mia were finished with their romance and were just friends. I think Mia would have been just as angry if he had taken up with another actress or his secretary. Mia was always very hot-tempered and given to rages which terrified all the kids. They can't speak freely because they're still dependent on her. But they could really tell stories and I'm sure one day will. It's true Mia was violent with me and I have conclusive proof, but I hope she and Woody can somehow head off a custody trial. [Farrow declines to comment on the charges.] The business of him molesting Dylan is so ridiculous that I won't dignify it with a comment. Why Dylan repeats her story is another matter, and a sinister one. I was not surprised that Mia made a videotape of Dylan saying these terrible things as I think the motive is obvious, but I was stunned that the tape would somehow find its way to the TV news. I have a terrific relationship with Woody and realize it's full of dramatic overtones, but it's really quite simple. It revolves around conversations, film talk, sports talk, books and art. He's very quiet and hardworking and finds it amazing and ironic that our relationship is of such interest to people. I don't think Mia should go on adopting children and I think that all her adoptions should have been a warning signal to Woody when he met her. I don't think you can raise 11 (and soon she will have 13) children with sufficient love and care. Take it from one who's lived through it-it can't be done. Some of us got neglected, some got smothered. Anyhow, there's problems. I could say many devastating things about Mia, but I will only do it if I must in a court. From the beginning of their conflict, which I know Woody broke his neck to avoid for the kids' sake, I have refrained from commenting, but when Mia brought up child molestation and then had her sisters and mother and kids and friends parade out in public and do her dirty work for her, climaxing with that tape of Dylan being given out, I felt I had to speak at this point. I'm not a retarded little underage flower who was raped, molested and spoiled by some evil stepfather-not by a long shot. I'm a psychology major at college who fell for a man who happens to be the ex-boyfriend of Mia. I admit it's offbeat, but let's not get hysterical. The tragedy here is that, because of Mia's vindictiveness, the children must suffer. I will always have a feeling of love for her because of the opportunities she gave me, but it's hard to forgive much that followed.

Your brother in Christ.
pd

[ssgtballard]

And all of this is why Mr. Dixon is one of my favorite comedians.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

[chelseagirl19]

I couldn't possibly make better points than Pat himself is already making, but I do want to say that Pat's call for critical thinking is the most important point being expressed here. Almost all his other points are incredibly salient points, but above all else the takeaway is that hysterical rushes to judgement don't do anyone a lick of fucking good.

Soon-Yi is no victim. Dylan may well be a victim, but if we could ever know the truth and sadly I doubt we ever will, I have a feeling the the only parent Dylan was ever a victim of was Mia Farrow. She collected children in a strangely compulsive way and then seemingly used them as pawns in her revenge game.

This trial-by KATG forums is absurd, as absurd as the media circus over an alleged crime that is decades old, and had been laying dormant for decades as well. No charges were ever brought, because there was no evidence of a crime.

Mia Farrow is what appears to be a crazy old cunt, and if you think that no one has ever been falsely accused of hideous, malicious acts by vindictive, scorned women or even by the most well-intentioned do-gooder then you've missed entire historical eras and countless recent examples. (Look up Satanic Ritual Abuse or the McMartin Preschool Trial or Moral Panic or Facilitated Memories.)

You also may have no idea how poor memories can be. It is ENTIRELY possible that Dylan was induced to believe that she was molested when she wasn't. Even people with perfectly fine memories and healthy brains are susceptible to confabulation. This is not blaming the victim, this is pointing to the fact that even in the healthiest and most functioning of brains shit goes wicked wrong a lot of the time. Eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst kind, the justice system is slow to catch up to the science, but the truth is that memories are unreliable at best, and dangerously malleable and susceptible to even the most subtle and ostensibly benign of influences at worst. There needs to be corroborative evidence, not just someone saying they saw something, or they remember something. This kind of pernicious thinking cannot just idly be accepted. That would put us all in danger.

People often scream and call for justice and in the same breath tell us that we can't trust the system. Well, we have to. We all have to trust that we are entitled a fair due process. What if we could make wild accusations and just because the majority of people on a Podcast Forum think one is guilty then fuck em. It certainly didn't help this particular debate that the well was poisoned very early on by Keith talking about pictures of a 15-year old Soon-Yi, when the truth was that she was 20 something when those pictures were taken. But this particular argument doesn't matter much because this is not where justice is meted out and thank fucking christ, or we'd all be so super intensely fucked.

I'm pretty sure that this resurgent interest in Dylan's molestation allegations are not helping her in any way. Almost as bad as the trauma of abuse is the continued abusive attention that this is being given. Mia got mad that Woody was given an award at some awards show, so she just HAD to say something, right? She just had to tweet about it. Don't you think Dylan would be better served by being allowed to privately deal with how utterly fucked her life has been? Instead now we have idiots like me with an opinion about her possible childhood abuse. It's none of my fucking business.

[lattaland]

I just wish a genius would molest me.