futureshock

Then I'm in good company, with everybody else seemingly being totally fine with the whole "What, you're fucking my 21yr old daughter? Police! He molested my 7yr old daughter!" timeline against a man with no other public allegations of sexual misconduct against him.

Perfect example, actually. They're talking about a person, and there's no reference or contextualising with objects such as dicks, just the person.

Your finger is an it, my arm is an it, his shoulder is and it and her head is an it. You can't possibly say the word can't be used with vagina. The entire universe is an it, along with everything that has ever existed and has yet to exist. "It's dehumanising." - I agree. To refer to a person like that is dehumanising. The problem is, I wasn't referring to a person. (And to those who are quick to jump up with "Yes you did! Liar!" - no, I'm afraid you don't get to tell me my own mind, but thanks for letting me know you think you're telepathic.) I didn't refer to Mia, I was talking body parts, that's why I said "dick". If outrage addicts took it as meaning a person then there's nothing I can do about that. I think it's a pretty sick that some people chose to read it that way.

Wow. Do you want to compare voting records?

Tears running down both cheeks? Is this like your interpretation of the Alien 3 thread between me and Gorf, where you insisted it was a bad tempered argument when it actually was just two guys laughing about which was the better of two bad sci-fi movies? You need to up your reading skills, K. I never said Woody wasn't a pervert. I never said I hated feminists. Keep trying, though. You'll get that zinger one day! Come on, tell us what you do when somebody refers to a vagina as "it" - do you scream?

And how do you refer to inanimate objects? Or body parts?

I'm talking about body parts. That's what "it" is for. The clue is the word "dick" Idiot.

Well, to be accurate, Woody asked if she wanted to go to Paris and got politely turned down, while Frank actually stuck his dick in it. I'm not sure saying they're both (equal) creeps properly describes the situation, but sure, knock yourself out.

Did you mean oeuvre? I'm not sure this is the thread for analysing his library of work. Some of the people in here thought Ghostbusters 3 was good. I'm defending the facts of the matter after the same old Vanity Fair article was regurgitated. And besides, it's an interesting story on the whole - for example, Mia Farrow was 18 or 19 when she lost her virginity to Frank Sinatra, who was nearly 50.

I'm dying to play it, but scared at the same time - what if it doesn't live up to expectations! etc Go and play and let us know.

Released today

There were no Dylan claims until a couple of months after the Soon Yi affair exploded. Mia hated him for it (who wouldn't?), the children all knew about it over the summer, and the stage was set for the claim of child molestation a short while after. The context of when and how it all happened is just 'one more thing' in that long list.

Jesus. Could you be any more of a walking cliché? I'll tell you what, seeing as you're happy to spout slanderous shite like this, you'll have no problem if I address you as Benny the Paedophile from now on, right?

Absolutely true. Only, you couldn't possibly say that about Mia Farrow. That's the difference. It doesn't mean that it's impossible, it's just 'one more thing' in an increasingly long list that points to a far more simple explanation. You mean the same judge (page 10 of his report, if you care) who observed that Mia's first claims of child molestation were actually against Woody's affair with 21 year old Soon Yi, and that it was - and this is coincidence of the century, I'm sure - only a matter of weeks later when she decided to change it to being about Dylan. That's the linear narrative that you're wholeheartedly accepting? I maintain you have to either be really quite thick to believe that, or that you want to believe it.

I prefer to base my thoughts on evidence and reason, rather than blind belief. I already did. Go back and read what I wrote months ago if you can be bothered, where the case for him being an evil paedophile crumbles on the revelation that Mia Farrow signed off on his Lifetime Achievement Award. Or in another Vanity Fair article where she talked about speaking with Frank Sinatra , who offered to send some guys round to break his legs, and she insists that Woody was left unharmed, making her probably the only mother on planet Earth that had it in her to protect the abuser of her child. That's ODD, isn't it? Or how about even though they were together 13 years, only a few years before their breakup, she stood in court and swore he was of sound enough character to be the adoptive father of some of her children. That's WEIRD, isn't it? On and on, the holes appear, all pointing towards a spurned bat-shit crazy ex. That Guardian article, (and Weide's Daily Beast article) are both inescapably damning. That's the reality of it.