= new reply since forum marked as read
but obviously didn't make big news. 
pedophile too? 
He now has 2 grown adult children that agree that he is a child molester,if he was just some schmuck plumber,no one would doubt their side of the story. Wealth and power gives him great privilege,they also cloud people's judgement about him and I think he's a pedophile.
What does that make your statement? 
vs
But you hate me for standing up for someone who was never even charged with the crime. Makes sense. 
Your hatred for child molesters seems to be very selective.
It says the prosecutor was sanctioned because his comments could have a negative effect on the adoption hearings. It says the prosecutor made the statements knowing that he would get in trouble for making them, which to me underscores the importance he placed on making the statements. And it says that the sanctions were overturned.
So, it doesn't do much to discount the prosecutor's statement.
The rest of it can be paraphrased, "but I like the guy!"
Since that's all you got, you've got nothing.
But you have no clue, do you?
Now you're just fighting with yourself!
You do the grammar Nazi routine then misspell words and won't even see how small that makes you look.
enjoe yur "viktery." 
Thanks for the laugh 
It was really necessary after wading through this dirt, again. The obsessive moralizers never tire to go for another repeat of their lies. Almost as disgusting as imagining goldilocks fucking the vomit-inducing, ugly, mobster and Reagan friend Sinatra.
"She also said that Ol’ Blue Eyes was the great love of her life and “we never really split up.”"
Induced traumatic memory operates and functions like trauma.
We deal with what we believe to be true the same whether it is objectively true or not. That is what it means to believe something to be true.
Your introduction of the notion of *lying* is a meaningless and rather cheap diversion. I don't think this person is *lying* and I doubt many of the folks who you, in your weird black and white worldview, see as wicked for not *believing* her think she is lying.
It does not, however, follow that she is recounting real events.
The intellectual framing you ought to have is not a child who has been told to lie but rather a child who has been convinced of something.
And yes, people who have been convinced of things operate ike people who are convinced of things.
Nobody is born believing in Jesus. Children are instructed. Most all adults who are, today, devout Christians were convinced of things as children. Were they being "told to lie"? Would anyone seeking truth about people or about the world say, "All people who believe in Jesus as God have been told to lie."
Delusions are not false testimony, they are delusions.
It is possible that her version of events is accurate and possible it is not. (Note how I didn't turn that statement into nonsense by larding it with nonsensical baggage like "telling the truth"
But either way, your mode of analysis and understanding the question is worthless. Your approach has convicted many people we know, for a fact, to have been innocent so it a worthless approach.
Whether you are "right" or "wrong" about the event, you have no rational basis for your bitterly strong opinion that you are right.
My first response was "Bananas"! Then I realized it wasn't a thread about movies.
is there a greater chance of the victim lying about it?
I think he is scum for pursuing the young adopted daughter of his partner of 12 years - who only discovers what is going on by finding explicit pictures of her - I've never looked at Woody the same ever since
what an adult does is come clean with that person they've been with, not allow them to find explicit photos
Many homophobes do the same thing.
So you keep posting things that aren't true and I'll keep laughing at them.
And now that you're being called on your hypocritical bullshit, you're just backtracking. I've dealt with people like you often enough to know the technique.
Child abusers seem to be the sort prone to it, incidentally.
Excellent sign of when a passive-aggressive insulter has gotten their balls caught.
There was no comprehensible reason to refer to homophobes in your response to Skittles. It was out of the blue. Further you are clearly alluding her to homophobes by doing so.
Here's your post to Skittles, in image form:
You do not outright say "you are a homophobe" - but then you don't actually need to, as the statement is made very clear by what you did say.
Welcome to literacy 101; context and author intent.
are a member already, since you're gay and all.
Before you answer, you should know: when I was seven years old, Woody Allen took me by the hand and led me into a dim, closet-like attic on the second floor of our house. He told me to lay on my stomach and play with my brother’s electric train set. Then he sexually assaulted me.
This post is about a woman talking about her sexual abuse when she was a child. That is the child rape I am talking about. You come into a thread about the guy and say "It's even creepier how there are always people rushing to condemn innocent people." making it clear you 1) consider him innocent and 2) don't give the victim the same reasonable doubt you give the old white guy.
And when people comment further on his character, you comment with: Merely pointed out that homophobes use the same logic to condemn consenting adults.
So here we were, criticizing the molestation she talked about in the OP, when you decided the criticism pointed towards him was just like unwarranted hatred that gay people face. ...Because a white, rich old man who is accused of sexually assaulting a kid is so much like how people treat an oppressed population. So while you weren't particularly clear, you nevertheless made the connection.
The thing is, comparing how people respond to him because of this child molestation case to homophobia has the unpleasant undertone of linking child molestation with gay men. I'm sure you're familiar with that horrible stereotype. One of the best-publicized anti-gay campaigns of the late twentieth century, Anita Bryant's "Save Our Children" crusade during the early 1980s, capitalized on the stereotype of gay men as child molesters.
If you are gay I am sure you wouldn't perpetrate such a harmful stereotype.
to watch a Woody Allen movie again. It was incredibly disturbing.
Poor girl. Poor woman.
And people wonder why sexual abuse victims have a hard time reporting it.
get the third degree from others because they didn't want to go through the system.
Me too.
This is not the time or place to talk about his movies. If anyone is doing that and completely ignoring what happened to her, that is callous behaviour.
Response to JaneyVee (Original post)
because the gun made of soap has always stuck in my mind. Sleeper would've been second choice.
I've seen him play live with a jazz band here in the UK which was part of a European tour - he's very talented.
There. Fixed it for ya'.
TYY
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]
just commenting on the title.
Annie Hall is the only one I have seen, I was in Jr High... I have seen it since - still good.
But I, at 49, have seen the dark side through news outlets on both sides of the continental US.
He is - to my mind - an UBER - CREEP.
Child molestation, from mere light touching to full blown rape, happens way more often than one would suspect and children are often not believed. Many defending Allen here simply like his movies. Period. I will stand by the now-woman who has vivid memories of what he did to her at age 7 and how it made her feel at the time and years thereafter. And read the Vanity Fair article. These molestation charges only became public after the Soon-Yi matter exploded in public. However, Woody was in counseling over his inappropriate behavior with Dylan (separate from the "attic incident" before the affair with Soon-Yi became known to Mia. Also from VF article:
According to Dylan, “There’s a lot I don’t remember, but what happened in the attic I remember. I remember what I was wearing and what I wasn’t wearing.” She tells Orth, “The things making me uncomfortable were making me think I was a bad kid, because I didn’t want to do what my elder told me to do.” The attic, she says, pushed her over the edge. “I was cracking. I had to say something. I was seven. I was doing it because I was scared. I wanted it to stop.” For all she knew, she tells Orth, “this was how fathers treated their daughters. This was normal interaction, and I was not normal for feeling uncomfortable about it.”
What happened to her in the attic is what triggered the molestation charges brought by officials and only after Mia was told it was mandatory for her daughter's pediatrician to report it. However, the abuse did not begin there. Nor has it ended yet as she has to deal with those trying to deny what happened to her.
Adults defending Allen enable and embolden all child molesters.
