#also I didn’t claim op is presently a child. note the ‘was’ in my post

[mxrp-haters]

I'm not a child, on the abandoned account, "iwaslike14" arguing that fictional content is...fictional. something that you dont seem to comprehend. The account was made when I was like 14, over a decade ago. I'm sure you won't post this this, but that's why it's called that. Not because I am currently a child. Note the "was". I bet you enjoy being so smart.

How was I supposed to know when you made your blog dude. Sorry I saw that it was called “I was 14” and assumed you were 14. But yea I guess assuming makes an ass out of u and me, etc etc. Hope your new blog is a better experience than your old one tho, not many people who delete their old tumblrs just make a new one in my experience - most just leave the whole site behind and run lol

Not sure why you’re using your new blog to look at the same old shit tho.

[hearts-kingdom]

@didilydee I really appreciate you critically considering my discussion points and showing an interest in not spreading misinformation! OP blocked me so my post debunking their’s wouldn’t show up in their notes where other people could see it being criticized and to ensure I couldn’t respond to their reblog directly so it would look like I failed to offer a counter argument in order to give the illusion of them being in the right since it would apparently be too much of an effort for them to engage in an actual discussion where their claims could potentially be debunked. In any case, since their response involved you I felt as though you might be interested in considering giving it a look :)

Start Photos

End Photos

I used this particular article because it was a convenient compilation of facts from various certified legal sources that’s geared towards relaying those facts— not unsourced gossip. It contains links and references to the court documents and other certified sources within the article and the judge is not the sole source within each point that relays facts— not opinions. Therefore, it’s not clickbait unless you consider summaries of legal documents and testimonies clickbait. If you see something specific that’s not a fact outside of the closing statement that includes the author’s opinion, you’re more than welcome to say so.

I didn’t spam every single person who reblogged it with tags— I only brought this to the attention of those who had posted their own comments implying they were open to a discussion given their willingness to reconsider things when presented with facts. Even then, I didn’t tag everyone who commented— only a handful of people. You act like I was making a callout post towards them when I said, “This isn’t a callout post of course I just wanted to bring this information to the attention of individuals I noticed were reblogging with comments. Dylan Farrow and Soon-Yi are often mixed up with each other so I can see how this might be confusing in that sense. You’re not obligated to reblog my fact-checks of course but please consider at least deleting OPs misleading post from your dash to prevent spreading misleading information”, which can be found in my reblog. If they want to say something, let them say it— you don’t have to put words in their mouth akin to how you’re putting words in mine given the unwarranted accusations you attempted to make throughout your post.

It’s very telling of you to claim people who make an effort to be informative when encountering misleading information are “loony” while also acting as though my request for others to consider information you refrained from relaying was a callout rather than a request. I generally refrain from making unwarranted accusations towards people I discuss things with, but given your reaction it’s evident I’m not the one with issues here, so don’t try to project your own problems onto people who consider things critically just because you expect them to believe you with ease and without question on a public platform given how that would be rather loony. Everyone else I’ve had a discussion with on this matter thus far have at least been receptive regardless of where they stand agenda-wise. However, your decision to block me so that my post debunking your own wouldn’t show up in the replies along with your decision to attack my rhetoric without giving me a chance to defend it or criticize your own is another story entirely.

Again, you clearly care more about pushing an agenda here through being selective about the facts you choose to relay rather than addressing the fact that you purposefully left out legal information that didn’t align with your own. Your comments about the #MeToo movement make that evident given how you didn’t address the fact that I said, “Both Woody Allen and Mia Farrow were horrible people and the abuse they committed should not be politicized for the sake of pushing a feminist nor anti-feminist agenda.” You’ve become so obsessed with spewing misleading information to push your own agenda that you’d rather jump through obstacles than acknowledge that your cherry-picking argument is based off of that very agenda rather than the facts that overshadow your personal bias.

It’s interesting that you said, “the words of the person known to have abused and manipulated”, in regard to Moses given how this is known because of his and his siblings allegations that didn’t result in Mia being imprisoned yet you still obviously believe these allegations— as people should given the evidence despite Mia trying to dispute as much. However, you’re dismissing the allegations of Dylan, her mother, three witnesses, and Woody’s therapist who saw him for inappropriate behavior towards Dylan before Woody was even caught cheating. Bringing attention to your hypocrisy isn’t idiotic but nice try.

It’s also odd but not unsurprising that you’re saying Moses should be trusted in regard to denying Dylan’s trauma since that evidently aligns with the agenda you’re trying to push here in favor of dismissing all the other witnesses and legal officials that conflicts with your argument— such as Dylan, Mia, the three witnesses whose timelines aligns with Dylan’s story, the judge, the state prosecutor, Woody’s therapist, Dylan’s pediatrician, investigating officers, and even the state attorney.

I want to reiterate what I said before: “I don’t doubt Moses Farrow was abused by Mia in the least, but the source also brings attention to how Dylan’s story aligns with [four] other peoples [accounts]— not just Mia’s. Moses likely wasn’t present during the assault [itself], so he can’t say she wasn’t assaulted anymore than Dylan can say he wasn’t abused.”

As for the New-Haven Sexual Abuse Clinic, if you actually bothered reading through the article’s legal sources, accounts, and testimonies then you’d know that the doctor who signed off on the legal report you’re referring to never actually met Dylan personally to make an in-person assessment, no psychologists or psychiatrists were assigned to her panel, the notes regarding her evaluation were destroyed, her confidentiality wasn’t respected, this institution welcomingly invited Woody to profess his innocence when they should have remained professionally unbiased, and the judge and state prosecutor deemed this claim as unacceptable given that.

As for your defense of how Woody being a pedophile and assaulting Dylan would have been irrational... yes— you’re right. That’s the point and yet you still missed it somehow. Pedophiles aren’t rational in the risks they take as pedophiles. Your rhetorical questions usually don’t bode well for defending people accused of pedophilia given how it relies on defending their character and the characters of pedophiles don’t have much worth defending since their judgements are skewered, impulsive, and dangerous.

As for inconsistencies, you fail to address the inconsistencies about Woody’s story changing and you honestly just dug a deeper hole for yourself in regard to the attic thing given how Woody’s story pertained to a police report in which he told them he’d never been in the attic before changing his story and saying he had gone up there before.

Oh, an on another note... demeaningly claiming that an issue as complex as this one is something people should “obvious[ly]” be able to make sense of in attempt to make people feel foolish for not unquestioningly agreeing with you is not a very good look at all. It’s dangerous to suggest people shouldn’t be critical of the concepts you push onto them.

I can quote things, too, but from multiple sources instead of just cherry picking ones that align with pushing a specific agenda.

Judge Elliott Wilk, the presiding judge in Allen’s custody suit against Farrow, concluded that there is “no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen’s contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi.”

In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.”

“You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”

Another babysitter told police and also swore in court that on that same day, she saw Allen with his head on Dylan’s lap facing her body, while Dylan sat on a couch “staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.” A French tutor for the family told police and testified that that day she found Dylan was not wearing underpants under her sundress. The first babysitter also testified she did not tell Farrow that Allen and Dylan had gone missing until after Dylan made her statements.

The state attorney, Maco, said publicly he did have probable cause to press charges against Allen but declined, due to the fragility of the “child victim.”

[kidsviral-blog]

Last minute smear job: Dems claim Scott Walker fathered ‘love child’ 24 years ago; Update: Debunked by reporter

New Post has been published on https://kidsviral.info/last-minute-smear-job-dems-claim-scott-walker-fathered-love-child-24-years-ago-update-debunked-by-reporter/

Last minute smear job: Dems claim Scott Walker fathered ‘love child’ 24 years ago; Update: Debunked by reporter

http://twitter.com/#!/laynier/status/209264610442874880

With two days to go before Wisconsin’s recall election, Gov. Walker is looking very strong in the polls. According to Intrade, he has a 96 percent chance of winning on Tuesday. Democrats clearly aren’t winning on the issues, but they hope they have found something else that can turn the tide for them.

Late Saturday night, a left-wing anti-Walker website reported an unconfirmed, second-hand rumor that Gov. Walker fathered a “love child” 24 years ago.

The website, Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op, describes itself as “a group of citizen journalists who began covering the Wisconsin Uprising in February, 2011. We came from different walks of life, different professional backgrounds and different parts of the state to document the dismantling of democratic process and tradition taking place in our state under the rightwing onslaught of the Scott Walker regime.”

Here is the Wisconsin Citizens Media Co-op’s “scoop”:

Bernadette Gillick was a college freshman in 1988 when she first met Scott Walker. It was spring semester, and she had just transferred to Marquette University. She was assigned a room in O’Donnell Hall (then a women’s dormitory), which she shared with her new roommate, Ruth (not her real name). Ruth was dating Scott Walker, who was 20 at the time, and, according to Bernadette, Ruth was deeply in love with him.

Midway through that spring semester, Bernadette alleges, Ruth found out she was pregnant. She informed her boyfriend, Scott, and initially he was supportive. That support changed to callous indifference for his girlfriend’s predicament after Scott informed his parents of the pregnancy.

Bernadette reports that at this point Scott began denying that he was the father of the baby, and when Ruth said she was considering an abortion, he claimed he didn’t care, as he wasn’t the father anyway.

Bernadette remembers being present when Ruth was dealing with the wrath of Scott’s mother, who allegedly admonished Ruth for trying to “ruin [her son’s] reputation.”

“I supported her [Ruth] as he [Scott] went from encouraging her to get an abortion, to telling me it was in my best interest to keep my mouth shut, to denying that he was the father and having his own mother call her and tell her to stop erroneously accusing her son of paternity,” Bernadette recounts.

It was a “horrible time” for her friend. “Imagine her being 18 years old and pregnant, walking around Marquette’s Jesuit Catholic campus with her boyfriend denying he was the father,” says Bernadette.

All this was taking place while Walker was running for student body president. As one of his classmates, Dr. Glenn Barry recalled, Walker’s campaign was, “one of the dirtiest in school history.” The student newspaper Marquette Tribune called him “unfit for office” after his campaign was discovered collecting and throwing out copies of their paper that endorsed his opponent. Commenting on the election and Walker’s political career and style at Marquette, he noted, “Walker lost on all counts, but not before destroying a few people’s reputations, and amassing personal power.”

If Bernadette’s story is true, Ruth – and eventually their child – were just a few of the people who got in the way of Walker’s quest for power.

After consulting with her family, Ruth decided against an abortion. Bernadette was with Ruth in the hospital for the birth of her child later that year (and says Walker was not present), and later stood up as a bridesmaid in Ruth’s 1992 marriage to another man. She says Walker eventually had to concede that he was the father, after the birth and paternity test.

The website acknowledges that it did not speak to the alleged mother of the alleged child and was not “able to independently verify Bernadette’s account.” Go figure.

In addition, it says it did not receive comment from either Gov. Walker or anyone currently serving on his campaign team.

This thinly-sourced rumor looks to most people like a last-minute smear job, but that didn’t stop the Daily Kos and other anti-Walker loons from jumping all over it:

niiice… Daily Kos: OMFG!! Scott Walker's Got a Love Child?!?! http://t.co/1yA9w6tF #wirecall

— Sarah Burris (@SarahBurris) June 3, 2012

https://twitter.com/raetherese12/status/209284172550909954

More like an Unloved child. #Uppers MT @KySandy: OMG!! Scott Walker's Got a Love Child?!?! http://t.co/rT3gIRhZ Mr. Morality my ass!

— Steven Dorst (@sjdorst) June 3, 2012

https://twitter.com/tape/status/209267140581261314

Scott Walker Fathered Child at Marquette & tried 2 deny it. http://t.co/yuhiXtXi

— Btrswet (@Btrswet) June 3, 2012

https://twitter.com/EvanPrim/status/209255785702764544

@thedailybeast Have you heard about Scott Walker's Love child? This is the guy who claims he has high integrity. http://t.co/odWiiTSQ

— Molly Brown (@MollyBrown28) June 3, 2012

Did Self-Styled ‘Mr. Morality’ Scott Walker Father a Love Child in 1988?: Did Self-Styled ‘Mr. Morality’ Scott W… http://t.co/bPvht7Ar

— Green Bee Collective (@MImeds) June 3, 2012

Did Self-Styled 'Mr. Morality' Scott Walker Father a Love Child in 1988? http://t.co/vVCcFIVq from @firedoglake Oh, dear, Scotty! Really?

— Kate UniteBlue (@LeftsideAnnie) June 3, 2012

The desperation. It reeks.

. @barrett4wi Really? You're accusing Scott Walker of being a deadbeat dad without any evidence? Such "integrity". http://t.co/aWzKjNCV

— NDT (@NorthDallas30) June 3, 2012

UPDATE:

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Daniel Bice easily debunked this malicious smear:

@illusory_tenant Yeah – 20+ people had written me about bogus rumor, so I went to source.

— Daniel Bice (@DanielBice) June 3, 2012

@cindykilkenny I got tired of answering each email hyperventilating over the bogus rumor. So I went to the primary source.

— Daniel Bice (@DanielBice) June 3, 2012

@illusory_tenant I was also more than a little mad that someone would post something like that w/out checking it out. Totally irresponsible.

— Daniel Bice (@DanielBice) June 3, 2012

Because, if you don't verify it, other people will. And it may embarrass you: http://t.co/UvfIaljV

— Matthew Sablan (@mjs69002) June 3, 2012

Bice wrote:

I am getting a lot of emails because of this post. Two things: (1) I tracked down and talked to Dr. Gillick’s freshman-year roommate at MU yesterday, and she adamantly denies that Walker is the father of her child. Yes, she got pregnant as a first-year student, but she believes Dr. Gillick is mixing up stories; and (2) I Can Read CCAP has taken a family court suit involving Scott Alan Walker and mixed it up with the governor, Scott Kevin Walker.

But once progressives sink their teeth into a smear, they don’t let go.

@mysticagitator Sorry, but I'm not stupid. I contacted the professor's roommate from spring semester 1988.

— Daniel Bice (@DanielBice) June 3, 2012

@mysticagitator I posted that. I got more than two dozen emails and calls about the post. So I went to the source to respond.

— Daniel Bice (@DanielBice) June 3, 2012

@CatLadyDarcy That's not a story. That's a rumor – one that has been denied.

— Daniel Bice (@DanielBice) June 3, 2012

Read more: http://twitchy.com/2012/06/03/desperate-dems-vote-against-scott-walker-because-according-to-an-unconfirmed-rumor-published-on-some-left-wing-website-he-fathered-a-love-child-24-years-ago/