My position on believing her or not is that it's neither here nor there. Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't, but I'm not involved with the family and see no reason for me to make a definitive determination. My position on boycotting or even feeling bad about watching Woody Allen movies is that that is a philosophy…

I addressed your argument. If I'm being dense, it's not for play, so please enlighten me. I sincerely don't see how your numbers affect our discussion. I am in no way arguing that child sexual abuse doesn't occur, or that it's over reported or that it's taken too seriously, or anything of that manner.

If you're not willing to answer my questions, that's fine. But you're starting to get hyperbolic. "Infinitely more possible…?" "Labyrinthine scenario…?" Come on.

Yes, but as I mentioned, many of the children from the Day Care still believe their memories, thus making my case that memories can be permanently manipulated.

You realize, of course, you just completely ignored the argument I made. My argument was well reasoned, personal but dispassionate, and directly applied to the matter at hand. I'm assuming you ignored the argument because to address the argument you run the risk of having to change your mind.

I'm sorry. Did you read my whole post? Perhaps I wasn't clear. The levitating phone was false. But I have other memories that I am told are false, but I still believe, while others in my family have memories that they believe are true, that involve me, that I believe are false. And there have been times when I…

I have a very clear memory of when I was 8 years old, sitting at my dining room table while the phone receiver levitated in the air while time passed. That memory was always in the back of my mind as I just didn't question it. It was only as an adult that I started to tell the story as a part of my childhood that I…

In this matter, the facts don't support a conclusion of abuse. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. So, to conclude that it did happen with a certainty that leads to a boycott is acting in a manner that is highly self-righteous and rigidly moral.

No. I'm saying refusing to patronize artists on the mere allegations of molestation is Puritanical, almost by definition.

I was just trying to point out that your philosophy is untenable. But that's OK, it doesn't have to be. It's yours and Godspeed. For me, your comments cause a sort of cognitive dissonance, it just doesn't make sense. I thought that you might have a broader view that would either open my eyes or vice versa.

You can certainly do what you want. More power to you. But you really didn't address any of the questions that I asked you. How is your philosophy of boycotting those that are charged with crimes workable? Don't you see how your overriding principle here is a recipe for disaster?

So, where is the morality line and how much proof does one require? Woody Allen has been accused of being a child molester, but it's hardly certain. Is the accusation sufficient for permanent offense, or must it be proven? As I mentioned, Broderick killed some folks. Kazan ratted some folks out to save his hide.…

Sorry. He's OK. He liked ladies young, but not too young. And it was a different era. And… oh, hell, just watch his movies and forget I ever said anything.

Why would you not watch his movies? Is there a gauge, you must only be SO immoral for one to enjoy your work? The most heinous accusations come and go against nearly anyone. Is the mere mark of accusation enough to discredit their entire work? Jesus, Matthew Broderick got drunk and killed some people, right? At what…

No, it's just acknowledging the known facts of the matter. Take away his fame and you have a family squabble where there's no way to know any truth of the matter. In that scenario, you chalk it up to life and pray everyone can move on.

LOL.

No more Chaplin for you, then. To be safe about it, you might want to stay away from the entire schedule on TCM.

Talking to your daughter in that tone shows the worst parts of oneself? Oh, shit. I've gotta start putting money away for my kids' therapy.

There is exactly one serious charge against him, the abuse of his daughter. From a public standpoint, the charge comes from his infuriated ex in the middle of contentious divorce proceedings and the validity of the charge is both affirmed and rejected by those who are in a position to know. He was not charged with…

As I understand it, Allen met Soon-Yi when she was in her late teens and they began dating when she was 19 or 20. His marriage to Farrow was non-traditional in that it was more a working arrangement. They didn't live together, but they did make movies together. The children were primarily Farrow's, both before and…