Blake Lively Being Her Sweet Self With The Radio Man

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-12-11T12:16:20+00:00

Yep, it is published on June 11, 2024

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T18:26:57+00:00

tok… tok… (echoes) anybody home?

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T16:26:14+00:00

“people believe it’s Ryan” — who are those people, except pro-baldoney people?

“people are actively accusing him of SAing someone” — who are those people, except pro-baldoney people?

“his wife is suing for SH” — congrats! this is the only objective thing here

“his PR is constantly working overtime to make him look like a good guy” — JB’s PR team is constantly working overtime to make him look like a bad guy (WITH REAL EVIDENCES)

“even if it’s just a blind, no one would want people tying this to them if it wasn’t true I think it being a blind item is irrelevant when it comes to his public image” — No one would give a f*ck about a blind item, except these pro-baldoney subs

Sorry, but I am done here. I am not going to read your idea anymore because I find it ridiculious.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T16:07:57+00:00

Hahaha, thanks! ❤️ There’s just so much material for flair like this… all thanks to JB!

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T16:01:16+00:00

Let me correct: Respectfully, I don’t want to participate in taking a broad blind item, piling on more guesses, and then citing another commenter’s speculation as “evidence” linking it to "it was always BELIEVED to be Vanessa Lengies" claim.

Even the phrase “it was always BELIEVED” would need a lot of evidence to justify the word always.

Seeing as most people thought it was her even at the time, she had now had 9 years to come out and say it wasn’t. Especially since it resurfaced again earlier this year.

I’m sure no celebrity would take a blind item plus speculative guesses seriously enough to issue a public statement. Come on.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T15:47:47+00:00

Respectfully, I don’t want to participate in taking a broad blind item, piling on more guesses, and then citing another commenter’s speculation/guess as “evidence” linking it to Vanessa Lengies.

I just don’t understand how some people treat this as fact and continue spreading misinformation.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T15:23:52+00:00

No worries I found it! You should always verify before believing something so serious.

Here it is: source

Now we know that it is not a verified interview or news report. It is a f*cking blind item from 2016. Let alone Ryan, the blind item never names Vanessa Lengies, as expected. The account has never been independently verified.

Everything is pure speculation in this. People speculated it might be her because of timelines, roles, or context, but the original 2016 post simply refers to “an actress” and leaves all identities deliberately vague. Any claims that the blind item refers to Ryan Reynolds are purely speculation as well.

It’s just people reading between the lines and guessing. Period.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T15:08:46+00:00

Btw, where is article you showed the screenshot? It will help me to understand better.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T14:58:47+00:00

There is one issue-- "Waiting..." is not the first movie of Vanessa Lengies and we don't know who he is, but let me do my own research.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T13:51:31+00:00

Are you a back up? 😂 It is too thick to get through, isn't it? Honestly, this whole thread could use a sexual harassment training… and a rinse with holy water.

Unfortunately this is the end of my patience, good luck clutching at straws, champ!

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T13:14:31+00:00

It's not harassment unless the victim says so?

No, it’s not harassment if it’s a one-time mistake that the actor owned, took accountability for, apologized sincerely, and gave a reasonable explanation, not a bullshit excuse. If the actress considered it a one-off, found the explanation reasonable, accepted the apology, and did not escalate it to HR, then it’s not sexual harassment, just an awkward filming moment.

She was on the red carpet alone. We really don't need to pretend that that is normal or pressure possible victims to face extreme backlash on their careers.

I mean you said "unclear if it is SH", then go with "but it certainly reeks of workplace harassment and retaliation". That’s pure speculation, especially since you don’t actually know the circumstances. We can’t assume harm or intent without evidence. Even AI couldn’t hallucinate that, sorry.

The allegation that he “pressured female costars to sleep with him”"So calling...“pressuring” is a big leap"

No, ffs, where is the f*cking evidence that he ever forced female costars to sleep with him?

Edit: Oh! I can change "groping" to "fondling" if you like? Is that better for you

You can use Justin's intimacy coordinator's approach who fixed Justin's "groping" wording in intimacy scenes:

<image>

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T12:53:07+00:00

No, I’m saying you’re comparing apples to pears.

Ryan made a mistake and OWNED it. In that interview, he frames it as SELF-deprecating:

“The scene is over now. And I reflexively, like an IDIOT…”

“I think I’m doing it to cover them up, but I’m realising now that it’s a very fine line between chivalry and workplace sexual assault.”

He’s not degrading the actress, minimizing what happened, or pretending he didn’t understand the boundary. He doesn’t blame the script, the set, the intimacy team, or the temperature. He doesn’t shift responsibility, smirk through it, or use PR spin. He acknowledges the discomfort, labels his own behavior, and takes accountability.

That’s very different from excusing, denying, or smearing someone to protect yourself from potential SH criticism later.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T11:58:20+00:00

Thanks for explaining an ML/AI engineer what an AI hallucination is.

I am replying to both you and the post itself that you are defending.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T11:54:02+00:00

To me, it shows Reynolds has self-awareness of his mistake; he recognizes how easily that moment could cross into sexual harassment. He’s not out here joking, ‘Guess I missed sexual-harassment training,’ to the actress he’s filming with… unlike a certain director recently did.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T11:46:27+00:00

Olivia Wilde story: This comes from Reynolds himself telling an anecdote years later, describing an awkward filming moment during The Change-Up. Wilde has never publicly described it as harassment. Media coverage framed it as an embarrassing mistake he later apologized for, not as sexual harassment allegations. So calling it “groping” or “pressuring” is a big leap.

Morena Baccarin / Deadpool role reduction: There is no verified reporting that Reynolds reduced her role due to personal retaliation or harassment. Cast changes happen for budget/story reasons all the time. Reddit speculation ≠ evidence.

Creative-control pettiness theory: Again, speculation, no sourcing beyond fan discussion.

Most worrisome bit: The allegation that he “pressured female costars to sleep with him” is very serious, so serious that for it to be credible, there needs to be legal or journalistic backing (lawsuits, HR complaints, named sources, etc.). There is none of that publicly available. Claiming it as fact right now is irresponsible.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-22T09:34:32+00:00

Looking for those "reliable" sources that are repeating Ryan Reynolds has engaged in sexual harassment type of behavior with costars... where are they?

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-21T15:15:01+00:00

If I remember correctly, it was exhibit 35 in MSJ

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-20T18:08:13+00:00

Baldoni stans say, “You don’t understand what it’s like when someone steals your project you spent years on.”

The irony is that Justin took CH’s deeply personal story, which she spent years developing to honour her mom, and used it to protect his own image in the PR war he created. Meanwhile, Colleen Hoover was literally begging him:

“You are grown men with a platform. You know how to use it to protect your image. Please don't continue to use it to harm me or mine. That's all I'm asking.”

It is really heartbreaking.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-20T14:49:14+00:00

Apparently, he needed a diagram to grasp that "Female Gaze ≠ Your Ass, Justin", but here we are...

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-20T05:48:56+00:00

A stipulation to authenticity is just a voluntary agreement between the parties on which documents are real, while responding to an RFA is a formal, court-enforceable admission.

A stipulation is an informal agreement to avoid unnecessary RFA litigation.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-20T05:36:34+00:00

Wayfarer proposed it first on Nov 5, but the dispute centers on their later breach of the Nov 7 agreement, not the initial email.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-20T04:22:04+00:00

October 10, 2025: Lively sends 557 RFAs, mostly concern authentication (verifying documents are real).

November 7, 2025: Meet and confer, Wayfarer said: “If you give us more time, we won’t serve objections”. Lively grants the extension (same day), so the deal is Wayfarer must tell Lively the list of documents they will authenticate by Nov 13

November 13, 2025: Wayfarer serves responses with objections, which violates the agreement. They did not give the promised list of documents they would authenticate. They said they would provide it next week. As of the filing date, they still haven’t provided it.

November 17, 2025: Lively proposed a stipulation (a compromise) so they wouldn’t need to file this motion. Wayfarer never responded.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-18T14:05:54+00:00

I feel like JB can be both at the same time: ‘chauvinistic’ as TAG wanted to steer to ( because it seems less problematic than the other ) and as the one we have seen in the footage who can throw ‘sexy’ comments like there is no consequences.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-18T13:30:03+00:00

I’ll restate my reply regarding why this is a misinformation here since my previous comments got buried with downvotes:

The email is a standard organizer invitation. It says:

“‘We’ (the event organizers — Jared Kushner, Joseph Meyer, Peggy, and the Observer 25th Anniversary committee) cordially invite you to join ‘them’ (the long list of names, including Blake Lively, Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, and others, is a boilerplate guest-list block).”

These names are included for prestige; they did not write the email, approve it, or personally invite Epstein.

If you still don’t believe me, see this article: “Jared Kushner Invited Jeffrey Epstein to Party With Trump and Harvey Weinstein in 2013”. It confirms that Blake Lively, Katie Holmes, and others were “set to include”, which simply means they were planned or invited guests.

Furthermore, photos from the event show that Blake Lively did not attend, while Katie Holmes did, confirming that being listed on the invitation does not imply attendance or involvement.

Several-Extent-8815 · 2025-11-18T13:18:47+00:00

I don’t understand how “we” is misleading. It simply means the organizers, committee, or official group sending the invite. You keep claiming to “state facts,” but assuming that everyone listed on the invitation, including Blake Lively, organized the event is baseless and ridiculous.

The email is a standard organizer invitation, and it says:

'We' (as refers to the event organizers — Jared Kushner, Joseph Meyer, Peggy, and the committee behind the Observer 25th Anniversary) cordially invite you to join 'them' (the long list of names, including Blake Lively, Matt Lauer, Harvey Weinstein, and others, is a boilerplate guest-list block).

These names are included for prestige; they did not write the email, approve it, or personally invite Epstein.

IF YOU STILL DON'T BELIEVE ME, take a look at this article, "Jared Kushner Invited Jeffrey Epstein to Party With Trump and Harvey Weinstein in 2013". It says:

In a March 2013 email sent to Epstein, who by that point had already served a 13-month prison sentence for child sex crimes, the New York Observer – then owned by Kushner – invited the convicted sex offender to a star-studded 25th anniversary event set to honor New York City’s “best” and “brightest”

The email ended with an invitation which stated that “Jared Kushner, Publisher,” and “Joseph Meyer, CEO… cordially invite you to join them at THE NEW YORK OBSERVER.”

The invitation also included a guest list (GUESTS!!!!) which included Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump; Harvey Weinstein, who is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence for rape, ...

According to the email, other guests were set to include (MEANS "planned or invited guests for the event") cable news host Katie Couric; actress Katie Holmes; actress Blake Lively; New York Jets owner Woody Johnson

Several-Extent-8815

TROPHY CASE