“I mean, ffs, this is like, Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky shit. Bill, it does not matter that she came on to you. YOU were the most powerful man in the world. She was a goddamn intern less than half your age! YOU knew better!”

Anyone who knows who Dykstra is knew within seconds who she was talking about. Zero credit awarded for “not naming”.

I’m not going to name the commenter this is in response to, but it rhymes with “Milla May”.

That they “haven’t ruled out the possibility you’d make a false accusation” is possible, but it’s also possible that they haven’t ruled out the possibility that an ex may be presenting things through the most biased viewpoint which spins negative wherever possible.

I’m wondering how many people taking “his ex said so on the Internet” as all the evidence required to go after him would apply that same standard to themselves.

What are you talking about? Within my lifetime, the only time I’ve ever seen a one-sided media pile-on against a female accuser was when Bill Clinton’s victims were treated as lying stalkers and trailer trash.

Commenter “recognitions” might be a serial killer. I don’t have any evidence for this, but let’s treat them as such just to be sure.

“I’m not going to say his name, but he’s a prominent Scientologist and actor who played a fighter pilot and bartender in the 80’s, a vampire in the 90’s, and has started in several Mission Impossible films. But I’m not going to say his name.”

If Hardwick’s name isn’t important to her narrative, because it’s about the general idea of this happening, then she should have left her name off too.

“A post not naming him”

If these people have actual facts to talk about, then I’m happy to listen. But this is just emoting. And Kazinsky isn’t exactly an unbiased source, considering his relationship with Dykstra.

There’s “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and then there’s “Your attempt to fix it has a 100% chance of breaking it”.

What do you suggest instead?

“Based on not a fucking thing.”

So you don’t know. But you’re talking like you know.

This is illegal and was never done in the places I worked. The way we let people know we were closed was by telling them we were closed.

Ironically, “Lock the door” is the most offensive thing about this story. Ifntuats Your take, then you’re saying that these women can’t be expected to respond to being told “We’re closed”. No, they have to be blocked from entering like they’re animals who can’t help themselves.

It is completely normal for a restaurant which has closed for the night to have the door unlocked while earlier diners are still there. In fact, in some (maybe most) states it is illegal to lock the door and serve alcohol.

“This is completely ridiculous. If you do not want anyone else to enter your restaurant, then lock the damn door!“

“Interesting how you assume the manager and the pig are both truthful and reasonable.”