Lively v. Baldoni 58 - Metadata Reveals NYT Worked on Lively/Baldoni Story BEFORE Publishing It

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:26 Thomas: Gavel in, gavel in. It's Thomas and Lydia. How's it going, audience? I messed that up. I shouldn't have spoken for you. Yeah. What? Sure. I'm not even here. You ask me. I don't know what to say. How do you do this part? How do

0:00:29 Lydia: Hello. For me? Oh, yeah. Thank you. I appreciate that. Sit down, man. I don't know. It's time for me to take over. Time for me to takeover this production. Hello. How are you? I don' t know how to do this side either. I think our roles make sense the way we've been doing. Can confirm. Like ballroom dancing. Really? Oh, OK. Oh, weird. Yeah. Yeah,

0:00:55 Thomas: You do this side? I've never been this side. It's like when you try to dance. Stupid confession time because I've ever been much of a dancer. I really did not know that the, you know, just like the traditional, you know, dancey thing, whatever you call that. There's probably some dance name. I mean, I say everybody does. I guess that's dead. Anyway, confession time. I didn't think about the fact that that wasn't symmetrical until like, I don't know, college or something because I'd always hear them say like, oh, I've never led before. I'm like, what's the difference? What would that matter? And then like, for some reason and something, I have no idea what it was, but I was like standing in or doing something and was on the other side. I was like, Oh, it's my right arm. That's weird. I never thought about it. Literally never thought of it. That is what

0:01:44 Lydia: It's funny because I think for women, especially if they've done theater, I think they've had to be in both positions, like any show that you're in. You know, if any sort of couples dancing happens, you know, a promenade or something like that. I think most women have been in both slots. So we're switchier than you, I guess. Yeah, we do. Can you believe it? Can you

0:02:05 Thomas: They say. Well, we covered the important topics here on Gavel In, Gavel In. And speaking of something something as important and relevant is the rest of this drivel. Believe what? Can you believe we're still on this fucking thing over a year later? Yeah. And it's rotten because it's been sitting out too long. We are on section L, I guess. I don't know. Page 157. And yeah. But

0:02:18 Lydia: Believe? I mean, we're not done yet, but we are so close. I can taste it. I can taste the next document. Please. Yeah. It's true. It wasn't refrigerated properly. Yes. Of the narrative. I know. I think we are close.

0:02:42 Thomas: The thing is, we're so close. We can see the finish line when it comes to the exhibits bits, which I think has to mean we're close. It's got to mean we're close. Yeah, skip that so fucking hard. Oh my god, I'm

0:02:51 Lydia: I think we're getting so close to, like, the jurisdiction header on the narrative, too. I know it's there. It's just around the river bend. Oh, my God.

0:03:00 Thomas: Gonna skip that. I'm gonna throw my computer away when I get to that part. Don't even need it anymore. Nope, don't need it. I already threw it away. I don't know how I'm talking to you right now. And then unfortunately, we have to do a thing where we can just see we can see the finish line, but we have to turn back to talk about you know, talk about Stephanie

0:03:01 Lydia: I can't wait. Yeah. Well, we need to get to the causes of action eventually, but. Yeah.

0:03:18 Lydia: Got a record scratch and, like. Go backwards a little bit.

0:03:21 Thomas: Jones. So that's the plan. We're doing that. And And then we should, by the way, programming note for our three listeners, if you want to tell like the other listeners that just listened for like other stuff, I don't know if you know them. I assume you all know each other. I don'T know. Maybe that's racist of me, but yeah, but let them know that the sandwich trial is coming.

0:03:35 Lydia: They have a group chat. Oh, yeah.

0:03:40 Thomas: Like that sounded so ominous.

0:03:42 Lydia: That's in the edit pipeline.

0:03:45 Thomas: Like it was like tombstone.

0:03:45 Lydia: It's coming.

0:03:46 Thomas: The sandwich trial's coming and I'm coming with it.

0:03:49 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah. Grab your friends, wear your aprons. How dare you make light of sandwiches? Well,

0:03:50 Thomas: For the end of the month here, we're going to put out several of those. So that's coming. And tell your sandwich buddies, bring your friends, wear your aprons, grab your friends wear aprons. Ah, so good. We'll take our break. And if you want to hear all the sandwiches sooner than everybody else, go to patreon.com/gavelpod. But I don't know why I'm telling our three listeners that they're all definitely patrons. Oh, weird. Is there like, I thought you

0:04:14 Lydia: Here's the thing. There's some battles happening in the patron threads because I'm seeing different groups of three. I don't know who the true three listeners are. No, there's a battle.

0:04:25 Thomas: Were going to say like, oh, there's a fourth or something, but like a different group of three is funny. That's like an alternate slate of electors. We've got an alternate slate of electors that is trying to like say that they're the real electors of of gavel pod uh that's interesting dominance nice the first person you see no I say that it's such a nice kind

0:04:31 Lydia: Yeah. And here's The Thing. If you're a listener and you're not on Patreon, I just want to tell tell you you might want to get on patreon to assert your authority in this space because there are some people that are gallivanting around pretending that they're you so I know

0:04:55 Thomas: Environment there could be that we're doing a topic where there's more women listening than

0:04:57 Lydia: Oh it's a good space to be in and we make zero dollars as opposed to the manosphere yeah

0:05:00 Thomas: Like typical shows that I've done which is nice everybody's kind and it's fun yeah and there's three of them okay uh yeah so yeah oh my god the minute we sold out to the manosphere it's you just you're handed a jet like a private jet I don't want a private yet I mean no I don'T want

0:05:18 Lydia: I do too they're just like they're so entertaining honestly at this point

0:05:23 Thomas: A private I mean if no one was using one I guess all right well we'll take a break and get on with it okay section l I love I love their headlines lunch I'll let I'll LET YOU read it oh that

0:05:44 Lydia: Right. Lively plays the final card in her hand. False accusations of a smear campaign deployed in The New York Times.

0:05:53 Thomas: That classic. You know what I mean? Like it's the first part. It sets it up like it's that classic final card. Incredibly specific nonsense like false accusations of a smear campaign deployed in The New York Times. Oh, yes. Yeah. I can't imagine there's much of this we haven't covered. Right. So we'll see if we can skip through it. Yeah, so we've been all through this.

0:05:55 Lydia: Yeah. Mm hmm. That card. Yes. Yeah. Yeah, we'll we'll see. But the rhetoric in here, I think some of this is going to be new, like the immediate line after that heading. When the Wayfair parties refused to take the fall for Lively's disastrous promotional campaign. Oh, you mean the thing that resulted in $350 million for your movie where everybody was saying, oh, my God, this exceeded expectations? Continues. Lively was true to her word. The gloves came off. To Brian Friedman.

0:06:40 Thomas: I don't know how much to go back through it, but there is in the timeline, in the exhibits, there's an email from Megan Twohey to Jen Abel that I swear we've never seen. I think we saw the ones that were like, they're like short ones to Friedman. Yeah, I think we saw that, but this one to Abel is extensive. I don't know if we need to, why don't you start reading? I don't know if we need to read the whole thing, but it's important to read parts of this, so why don't you just start reading, we'll see where we get. Okay. So yeah, I mean, there's more of

0:07:09 Lydia: Miss Abel, we are reporting about a crisis communication operation conducted on behalf of Justin Baldoni, Jamie Heath, and Wayfair Studios to protect their reputations and harm Blake Lively's, as described in a legal complaint filed today. Our reporting found that you participated in the effort, which was undertaken last summer out of concern that complaints Ms. Lively had made during the filming of It Ends With Us would become public during the movie's rollout. We have learned that Ms. Lively filed the legal complaint against you, Mr. Baldoni, Mr Heath, Steve Sarowitz, Wayfair, Melissa Nathan, and Jed Wallace, alleging sexual harassment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting of harassment and retaliation among other claims. The complaint claims misconduct on the part of Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath during filming, including repeatedly violating physical boundaries and making sexual and other inappropriate comments. Right. Right among Miss Lively's

0:07:55 Thomas: That the private text messages and emails that she obtained through a subpoena in the documents the crisis communications operation. They include exchanges involving you, your team, Mr. Baldoni, The New York Times reviewed these along with other documents. Now what's interesting here is that they specifically told Jen Abel in this email here's the text, essentially like, here are the allegations, here — essentially. So that's the part I think we should maybe go over a little bit here because she's asking for comment on specifically, here's these text exchanges kind of thing. I don't know how she would respond to that, but okay. I guess a

0:08:30 Lydia: Allegations in May, several months after the filming wrapped, Mr. Baldoni was worried when he realized that Ryan Reynolds had blocked him on Instagram. Quote, we should have a plan for if she does the same when movie comes out. Mr. Baldoni wrote you in a text message. Quote, plans make me feel more at ease. You were already working as a publicist for Mr. Baldoni and Wayfair.

0:08:49 Thomas: Lot of this is like confirming facts, like you can, yeah, confirm or deny kind of things. Mr. Baldoni and Mr. Heath hired Melissa Nathan, a crisis communication specialist, who in turn brought in Mr. Wallace. The plan was to harm Miss Lively's reputation. So there's that. Okay. Planning document that I think you guys need to be tough and show the strength. Yes. We still got that. Okay. So they have in here, we can't write it down to him. We can't, right. We will destroy her. Imagine if a document saying all these things that he wants ends up in the wrong hands. I imagine these New York Times reporters gleefully were like, here, well, comment on this quote. Imagine If anyone saw the stuff we're saying right now. So we got the, this is what we would need thing, full social account

0:08:50 Lydia: Right. Confirming facts. Yeah. You know, we can bury anyone. Yeah.

0:09:27 Lydia: Yeah, exactly. Comment on this quote that we saw from the thing that you didn't want us to see.

0:09:35 Thomas: Takedowns, threads of theories. You wrote to Ms. Nathan, I think we need to put the social combat bat plan into motion She responded, so do I. Yeah. It's pretty bad. Point is, it's very detailed. I'm trying to see if it specifically touches on the part where I said it was like bad that the New York Times left out the even if it's not true thing. Oh, it's right here. Yeah. The whispering in the ear. Miss Nathan texted you, he doesn't realize how lucky he is right now, we need to press on him just how fucking lucky. The whispering in the ear, the sexual connotations, like, Jesus fucking Christ, other members feeling uncomfortable watching it. I mean, there's just so much. So this would have been a great time for them to say, hey, here's the part where I said it isn't true. So they had that opportunity. Yeah. I also think it does obviously put them at a disadvantage to say here's all this stuff respond in 12 hours. Like, no, no. That is does seem to be the norm. It's just what they kind of have to do to check the boxes that they're letting them respond.

0:09:55 Lydia: Yeah, I don't, I know. And we talked about this before in the last one, but like the way that they handled the New York Times article at all, just, I think it was wrong. I don't think they handled that well at all. And I guess it's because they didn't really have a play there at that point. But as you're saying, like, that would have been a good opportunity to say, oh, let me pull up that text message thread. Hey, Melissa, can you pull up the text message thread? Hey, remember when we said, too bad, none of it's true, or whatever, and then highlight that to give a little more meat? Yeah. Yeah. You've got this all wrong. Yeah and I think like the New York Times is going to be cautious about that right like if you raise things that seem to be red flags like no you got this

0:11:03 Thomas: But I just want to point out that in a world where this was all made up, like that would be enough time for them to be like, what? No, here's a thing where I said, oh, actually, Jed Wallace, never mind. We don't need to do anything. Oh, we were going to do social combat, but then we didn't need to, or just — there would be a — if it was all fake, you know, that would be more than enough time to offer something. You'd have some sort of something to be like, Hey, why don't I get you on the phone with Jed Wallace? Why don't you, something. Yeah. Like you'd be able to in a world where this wasn't a smear campaign that was a, you know, shadowy smear campaigning, and trying to bring down Blake Lively, like, I think you would have ways of being like, what, how did they, first off, how'd they get under this impression? Secondly, let me clear this up pretty easily. And, you know, I guess if it's ambiguous, then that's like the worst case scenario for you is like, oh, I don't, I can't immediately find a way to refute this, but you'd still have something.

0:12:12 Lydia: All wrong you know here's a piece of this I'm going to need more time to show you some of the other things if it's bad enough the New New York Times is not going to press publish like they're not.

0:12:18 Thomas: They would hold. Yeah, for sure. Yeah. And they couldn't do that because it was true. That's the thing. Like there's minor quibbles like there would be in anything because it's even the best journalists trying to do a good job covering a basic thing are going to get stuff wrong. It's just the nature of journalism. Like that's journalists are people who aren't involved in or aren't experts in the thing they're covering, trying to cover it for normal people. Like there's always errors there. Just how it is. But substantially speaking, like the reason they couldn't muster a good response is because they didn't have a good response. There isn't anything they can say, really. So it's hard because we've done all this, but also I feel like 259, like the end of 259, We get the, but The Times did not care. They kept that. They kept that. They're so proud of, but The Times did not care. Given the breadth of the article and the coordinated drop, it has long been readily apparent that The Times had been quietly working in concert with Lively's teams for weeks or months. A fact that has now been confirmed. Has it? Has it been confirmed? You're just saying that.

0:13:22 Thomas: Also, what do you mean quietly working in concert with? Do you mean they were working on a story in the exact way that journalists always work on stories? Do journalists normally do public hearings about their confidential sources and like, and the people they're talking to for stuff?

0:13:39 Lydia: And provide progress reports along the way.

0:13:39 Thomas: Yeah. Yeah. New York Times, like daily. Hey, here's all the stuff we're working on that no one should know about because it's confidential. Yeah, we're about to really fuck over someone someone named Justin Baldoni. It's just so stupid. Okay. But we've definitely covered this so we can try to skip through a lot of this. There's not much in the exhibits. The exhibits just kind of goes through like it gives the statement, which by the way, just to remind you, Wayfair, Friedman, whoever prepared a statement, the New York Times included the statement in full on their website, like link to it and quoted from it said, you can read their full denial here. They had every chance to put everything they wanted to in that. And they had every chance to like update that if they needed to. And the whole dropping the article two hours ahead of the quote unquote deadline is just so funny. God, but we've been over that a million times. No need to go through

0:13:49 Lydia: We're pending comment from these individuals. Yeah. We're not their boss.

0:13:57 Lydia: They're not going tell us the things that they're working on right now. Yep.

0:14:35 Lydia: Oh, I know. I do want to point out, though, from their statement here, these claims are completely

0:14:38 Thomas: It again. Yeah. Yeah, it's a little too far of a denial. Yeah it probably would have been more

0:14:44 Lydia: False, outrageous, intentionally salacious. And even Wayfair agrees on various facts. They don't agree regarding the context surrounding actions that occurred. So the claims completely false that no, that that's just not accurate at all. Uh-huh. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. It's a

0:15:07 Thomas: Effective. I mean it's hard to say but and I you know I do I do understand they did have to respond respond pretty quickly that is kind of tough I I couldn't understand that being a hard thing to do properly but I could imagine it being a more effective denial if they're like look this was a public feud that took place and there are two sides to this like they they smeared us you know in their in their words if they were like they smeared us we we thought they were smearing us we think we have evidence that that's true all we did was fight back in the basic ways that But like Brian Friedman can't do that. He has to do this like insanity. That's like, you know, the whole system's out of order. I'm not even he's not even named Justin Baldoni. Blake Lively doesn't even exist. You know, it's just like has to go so far over the top. I think it would have been more effective to provide something that like, hey, this was a dispute that maybe got out a little out of hand, but nothing.

0:15:46 Lydia: Conspiracy. Yeah yeah exactly. Yeah yep yep yep. This is part of the reason why they did the

0:15:59 Thomas: We didn't do anything illegal, and the New York Times is just taking a side in a celebrity dispute that has two sides, you know, that are both flawed. Like, they could have done something a little more human that I think probably would have been more effective. Oh, oh, oh. This is the first time we're getting to the metadata crap. We've never talked about this crap. Oh, my God. It's been, it's so stupid. Oh, yes.

0:16:22 Lydia: The amended complaint was because of Reddit sleuths talking about the metadata, and this was a major change from their original complaint to the amended complaint, was adding in this section.

0:16:33 Thomas: So funny. We finally get to talk about it. Okay. Why don't you do 263? I think that's a good place to start for this metadata crap, right?

0:16:40 Lydia: The 4,000-plus words of the New York Times article dropped less than a day after Lively apparently filed her CRD complaint. The close coordination between Lively's team and The New York Times, likely over a matter of months before the CRD complaint was filed, is plain and has now been proven beyond doubt, thanks to Internet sleuths from around the world. On Reddit. Upon information and belief, The New York Times loads images and other data files for its website using a file naming convention that indicates the date that the data file in question was created or loaded onto the website.

0:17:04 Thomas: Oh man wait sorry as early as four days before what do you think they're doing do you

0:17:13 Lydia: Site. As members of the public soon discovered, the URLs for various images in the article point to dates as early as December 16th, 2024. Four days before they contacted you. Wow. Bombshell.

0:17:30 Thomas: Think they come up with like I honest to god I haven't looked at this before like I've been I've been saving myself for marriage with this with this metadata crap because I already knew it was stupid and I just figured we'd get to it but like their gotcha is that it's four days before the article. How do you think they wrote that? Like, do you

0:17:47 Lydia: It's honestly crazy. You've acknowledged how long the piece is. Megan Toohey is not a god. Yeah, it's honestly crazy I I can't figure out how this is how this

0:17:56 Thomas: Think they just did it in a day? Like what, what is the alternative? Like I don't even understand what, what is their version of what should have happened here? Like how would this process go? It's so funny. God, this is what they have. Oh man. Dates as, as

0:18:15 Lydia: Is like such a dagger to the heart for the wayfarer team yeah yeah this is

0:18:19 Thomas: As early as December 16th. Okay. Sure. So we see a few images. One says 2024, 12, 16, lively topper. And they've circled it. How long do they think the New York Times graphics department needs?

0:18:32 Lydia: One of their graphics that they have of the lively and baldoni faces lead time yeah for a big article yeah oh could be yeah yeah at least a couple

0:18:40 Thomas: Hey, we're working. Yeah. They're a big corporation. They're like a workplace. They're not like 911. Like, I don't understand. What do they thing? Maybe it's because these idiots are used to TMZ journalism, where it's just like, you just post fucking bullshit. Even, even those, like we've seen from the inner workings that even those stories, like the TMZ type stories, they're working on them for, you know, days, like often, you know, it's, it, this is their bombshell. I, this is so funny. I swear to God, I've never looked at this. I thought it was going to be something at least like, Oh, two weeks. It's mind you, it still means nothing. It, I, no part of this means anything because you can be a source for a story you can talk off the record you can do all that you can do whatever you talk on the record ahead of time there is a slight amount of nuance to like the litigation privilege thing I think that is the main point they will eventually be trying to make here is well if the crd complaint wasn't out then you when you publish this you didn't have yeah litigation privilege from my understanding that's also not really true though

0:19:38 Lydia: It wasn't active. Mm-hm.

0:19:48 Thomas: Like it protects the litigation privilege. I think from my memory, this is legal analysis and we'll see if we ever need to go deeper into this. I'm not sure. But I think I remember reading, if you're publishing stuff that's like related to a dispute and it eventually leads to this being in litigation, it's not like you don't have the privilege for talking in an earlier phase, you know?

0:20:06 Lydia: Yeah.

0:20:10 Thomas: Because think about that. When would it really matter effectively? Is it the published date on when the court website puts up a thing? I think the legal system is like, if it's part of a litigation process and you're publishing in good faith on it, fine. I don't think it matters that four days before they had the header ready, the header image is just so fucking ridiculous.

0:20:32 Thomas: Ridiculous. But that's like the best they can do, I think, is to try to make the argument that since the CRD complaint wasn't out yet. It's just silly. I mean, it's just grasping at straws. 12/18. Oh, my God. multimedia/0000smear-Baldoni.

0:20:39 Lydia: It's incredibly petty, like, playground-level accusations. Yeah.

0:20:54 Thomas: That's there. That's, you know. OK, so it's related to the smear campaign article about Baldoni and that's two days before.

0:20:56 Lydia: Before they reached out for comment.

0:21:02 Thomas: So good okay but I think they've got hold on they might have us here oh huh but and then it's this

0:21:04 Lydia: Mm-mm. Okay. As other members of the public pointed out, web crawler data appears to indicate that the PDF of the CRD complaint linked within the article was uploaded to Time's servers even earlier. Year. Specifically, using a search engine to search for the CRD complaint within the Times Static Document Repository, where the CRD complaint is stored and referenced by a link in the article, shows that a web crawler, a program that scours the internet to locate and catalog websites and files, recorded the CRD complaint PDF as having been uploaded as early as December 10th, 2024. And then we get an image here of them doing a Google search. But I think, right. Well,

0:21:47 Thomas: Is funny so so site static dot okay they're searching that's interesting I guess I could do that search too just for fun I see that search result so I'll give them credit there but what's funny is the next sentence for them so we see december 10th again still I don't think this matters but what's funny is it says interestingly the pdf file itself appears to have been created no earlier than December 21st, 2024, at least according to the file's properties. So yeah, then that would mean definitionally they couldn't have had it. Like, what are you even talking about? Like that, that like undermine, that's something you would put in to undermine their point to be like, well, that must be a date related to, I don't know, some other internet goblin thing. Who knows? Who knows what the internet demons do? Sometimes there's like, Like, whenever I try to do a search based on time on Google now, it never works anymore. It used to. Now it never worked. There's something about the way webpages work now to where if I want to search like, oh, I want to search, you know, 12-1-2019 to 12-30-2019, I get everything from every date. It's just broken now. I don't know what they do. It's something About the way Webpages Work Now. It's Just Fucking Useless for the Most Part. So it probably has something to do with that. I don't know.

0:23:01 Lydia: Well, so someone did kind of a deep dive on this on Reddit. So shout out to user several_extent_8815. The problem is that Google's crawler determines the date of a document, usually using PDF metadata like creation or modified dates. Crawling by Google doesn't happen all the time. The wild theory was that the document was uploaded, yada, yada, yada. And the technical reason why the theory is not proven is that it's not uncommon for Google to pick up a date from the content of a PDF. Google might pick up a date mentioned within the document itself, which could be different from the actual upload date. If the PDF lacks proper metadata, like creation or modification date, or if those dates are ambiguous, Google might fall back on content extraction, including pulling a date from the text. Then the example that they give is from Blake's complaint on page 11. There's an image where there's a published date, August 16th, 2024, and there's an updated date, December 10th, 2024. So because that date exists in the PDF, they might use that. It may show the latest update and then use that as like the most recent date for that document itself. Then they say, and finally, there's no need for such a fuss when you can use a Wayback Machine to see when the file first appeared on WebArchive. And you search the PDF link as an output, saved 20 times between December 21st and January 30th, 2025. So it did not actually exist on that server until And here's another good example, too. One of the top comment in response to this is, according to their logic, Deadline must have had Baldoni's amended complaint since December 12th. And there's an image and it says December 12, 2024. So it's nonsense. It's stupid. And they used their first amended, like their freebie amended complaint. They used it up to include nonsense about metadata. It is not real.

0:23:29 Thomas: Oh, huh. Interesting. Hmm. Oh, there you go.

0:24:30 Thomas: Oh, that's awesome. Oh that's awesome. That's so fucking funny. Yeah. So funny. I think what's so good though is again, that

0:24:47 Lydia: Mm hmm. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Yeah well the way that they approach this in their narrative too is as various online commentators have noted this may indicate that a web crawler cataloged an earlier created version of the document that was then replaced with a new version that was identical except for the creation and modification dates.

0:24:50 Thomas: That's all great. I don't, whoever did that credit to them, but even just without getting into that, if they say the PDF file itself appears to have been created no earlier than December 21st. They add that in the complaint, like it's part of the conspiracy or something. And you're like, no, that confirms that this date is just wrong. Like the December 10th date is wrong. You can't have had a document on December 10 that was not created before December 21. Like, well, you can't, that can't be true. Okay. Drat! Those bastards.

0:25:33 Lydia: In other words, one plausible explanation for the mismatch between the web crawler's date and the file's created modified dates is that the New York Times re-uploaded the CRD complaint at the last minute specifically to cover up the fact that they had been colluding with Lively and the other Lively parties for weeks.

0:25:47 Thomas: Oh, that's so good.

0:25:49 Lydia: That is paranoid.

0:25:49 Thomas: That's so fucking good. You absolute nut jobs oh boy I well yes and the the internet people that probably came up with

0:25:51 Lydia: That is so insane. That honestly, that's Friedman written all over that for me. Like that's crazy making. Yeah. Oh, yeah, totally.

0:26:03 Thomas: That and there's no way he could do this himself but yeah it's just the idea and also did they fake the fucking moon landing you fucking conspiracy nut it's just silly oh boy when

0:26:03 Lydia: Yeah. Agreed. I know. That's crazy. They apply the same thing regarding the video, but they cite the URL for the video saying that it was actually created December 12th, 2024. Yeah. I don't know. Oh, that they

0:26:30 Thomas: You're trying to denigrate reporting it's always breathlessly what what what is that in which too breathlessly reports the easily and thoroughly disproven smear campaign. It's so fucking Trumpian language narrative as what really happened. What's the breathlessly? What does that mean? Does it mean they're so excited that they're not breathing? I've never, that's in every single time anyone wants to criticize a reporter. It's breathless. I admit I'm, I've been too scared to say it. I don't totally know what that means. Like what, what is that supposed to mean? I think it's that they're just so eager, like chomping at the bit that they're like speaking so fast, they're not even breathing. Yeah, I think, I guess. I don't know. Someone, we could Google it, but I'm not going to. Whoa. Oh, yeah. Good. Yeah. That's a good point. Yeah so this one they have the video it says video slash and this is in a URL that means you know we're in a different kind of layer. Yeah 24 slash 12 slash 12 and then the video.

0:27:05 Lydia: Don't even pause to take a breath. Yeah, yeah. Do you think, because they're basically, they're insinuating that this video was created 12-12, but that's just part of the URL, which could be a folder name not necessarily because the the date isn't in the file name of the mp4 so and I mean that could be the same thing for these images too that they're collecting these images and then saving them under a date subfolder thing yeah directory video file name yeah and it's being

0:27:51 Thomas: I mean, you still could argue that means it's uploaded that day, but you could also argue, as I think you are, that like, well, maybe they started work on something on 12.12 and that's the repository that they're putting all the stuff in.

0:28:03 Lydia: Organized yeah yeah and we don't work for the new york times we don't know their organizational

0:28:05 Thomas: It also could be that the things we're saying are fucking stupid right now and it's some other technical explanation. Who cares? It's so dumb. Yeah, like it's just some minutia of the way their servers and their processes and their whatever, their IT people, like whatever. It doesn't matter. Like there is no sense in which this matters. And it's so funny that like even the best version of their story is just so fucking weak.

0:28:08 Lydia: Organizational structure of their server. Yeah, yeah, exactly. It's nonsense.

0:28:36 Thomas: You mean to tell me that the New York Times started working on a story before they put it out?

0:28:42 Lydia: Unbelievable. Yeah. That's journalism.

0:28:43 Thomas: That's crazy. They should put out only what they are saying live right now as I'm typing. This is the story I'm doing live now. Yeah.

0:28:53 Lydia: Oh, it gets better. It gets better, I know about this next one. So I'm going to close this out

0:28:53 Thomas: So stupid. Oh, boy. Well, let's see. Where does it go from here? Do we get any more? It gets better? Oh, yes. This is fun.

0:29:04 Lydia: With the video, and then we're going to get to their next amazing claim. The video presented as unquestioned fact, the false and defamatory claim that the Wayfarer parties orchestrated a smear campaign against Lively in quotes and concluded in a feigned somber tone quote this story reveals a new playbook for waging a far-reaching and largely undetectable smear campaign in the digital age. Minor quibble here but they started that quote with an end quote actually and you know it's the wrong direction but whatever. This video as much as the article itself constituted a malicious and reckless act of defamation and false light invasion of privacy by the Lively parties against the Wayfarer parties and also the Lively parties had nothing to do with

0:29:36 Thomas: No, I don't think so. Right. Yeah. Oh, hold on. Yeah, if you flip over the Declaration of Independence, it's in the back of that. Oh my God. Well, that changes everything. I'm actually on Baldoni's side now. You can't work on an article months before. You

0:29:41 Lydia: The video either. So that would be specific to New York Times. And we know how that worked out. All right, get ready for this. Paragraph 268. There is even reason. Yeah, in white ink. There is even a reason to believe that the Times had been working on the article months before, at least as of October 31st, 2024. And God, this is such a jack off. This is such a jack-off motion to careful observers reported that viewing the html source code for the article revealed references to a message embed generator that referred to a date of 2024 1031 okay that's code they use that for all their articles that's the date that that they handled that in their code it has nothing to do with this specific article it's text messages the way that they pop up you know like the image of it itself it's not a screenshot remember in like the new york Times. It's a little more interesting the way that they've embedded those messages. So that generator that they have created, it's in the code. The generator itself is in the code as of 10-31-2024. It doesn't necessarily mean it's referring to the creation of this article anyway. It could just be the date that that tool was refined. Mm-hmm. Mm-huh.

0:31:10 Thomas: Includes the content is later. So div id and then it's g dash 2024 1031 message embed generator like you say that that must be whatever version of the code so someone someone in whoever's working on this is like working on the way their website displays stuff they're probably updating all the time because that's how the internet works and the current version of as of this time the message message embed generator that shows like in a graphical kind of a dynamic way displays stuff like anything stuff on their, on their website. And the New York times website is just called G dash 2024 dash 10 dash 31 dash message embed generator. Why would that be? Why, why would that Be what Blake lively's fucking thing is called message embed generated. It's stupid. No. Yeah. It's going to be the iteration, like every five seconds,

0:31:26 Lydia: Right. Yeah. Exactly. That's the name of the item. Yeah, it doesn't indicate the date that they're working on it at all. Like that looks like a naming convention for that particular thing for code. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Exactly. Right. Right. Mm-hmm. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Right. With the text. Mm-hm. Yeah.

0:32:11 Thomas: Something changed. And now I have to update how this works because something else on the the website updated. So I'm good. Or it could be the first time. Maybe it's like, all right, here's the final version. We're finally starting this either way. That's the top. And then we're going indent in, and it's still like designating aspects of the thing. Like you haven't gotten to the content yet. You're just like saying, here's The Thing I'm going to use. And this isn't stupid people language, but just from doing some amount of this coding, you're starting with like, it's like declaring your variables. Essentially. You are like, here is The Thing. It kind of, it actually is that like, here's the thing that we're using. Here's some of the qualities of that thing. Like I'm just trying to put it into like normal people language, you know, like then below. So you're three indents in, then you're saying now class name S blah, blah, Jen Abel, you know, then I think we need to put the social combat plan into motion. So like, that's where the content has gone in. The thing before that you point out, you're absolutely right. Is just the date of the fucking delivery device on their website. Like the little thingy.

0:33:11 Lydia: Right exactly exactly so they uh acknowledge this a little bit in their following paragraph you know

0:33:12 Thomas: I don't even know what you call it anymore. The snippet of code that delivers this in a dynamic way. Very stupid. Incredibly stupid. Message embed generator. Why would that be what it's called? Oh, really?

0:33:27 Lydia: Because they're like okay this is this is too crazy even for us of course it may be the case

0:33:28 Thomas: Okay, here we go. Why don't you read it? Just happened.

0:33:32 Lydia: That the New York Times just happened to load a new tool for embedding text messages within an an article as part of routine system upgrades, only to stumble six weeks later upon the perfect opportunity to show off this new graphic tool in an article that relied heavily upon cherry-picked and misleadingly reframed text messages. But the simpler explanation is that the New York Times

0:33:36 Thomas: What? What? What are you talking about? What? Okay, so that's them acknowledging that it is the tool for embedding text messages. Now,

0:33:54 Lydia: Had already begun building its defamatory article no later than October 31, 2024, including developing a slick new graphic display module to prominently feature the misleadingly edited and context-stripped text messages centered in the article yes I mean that that is crazy making because I think

0:34:12 Thomas: Are they going to claim that there's no other New York Times article ever that has embedded text messages? There's a million. Yeah, and there's a billion articles a day. No, absolutely

0:34:21 Lydia: As a consumer of new york times articles their graphics team is really good that the how how interactive and dynamic their stuff is too like this there's no way this was created for the first time, October 31st, 2024. There's no way. There is no way that's just stupid. Mm hmm. Mm

0:34:36 Thomas: Not. Absolutely not. Even if true, which we could, I mean, you would have to say that like New York Times has never done, because by the way, the October 31st, when you have a date like that, I mean, I guess I don't want to speak too broadly here, but usually that means you have a lot of versions and this is like the version you're on. It doesn't mean like we've done it. I mean I guess hypothetically you could have versions in development and then you pull the last one that has like the last date maybe, but like the odds that this is the first time they've have used this. It seems incredibly low, but let's say it was. Then that would mean that over the course of prep for this, when do we know that they got the Van Zandt subpoena? When did they actually get that stuff? September? Okay. So they could have been talking. That's what's funny is you could even just be like, yeah, no, we were talking to the New York Times in September because we found out that you did a horrible fucking thing. And so we were like, hey, hey, as part of this, we have text evidence where we, you know, and then I don't know legally when they can turn it over or how they can turn it over. But all that would have to happen if, even if, and this is a huge if, even if hypothetically the New York Times has never before had an article using this thing where they embed text. I find that impossible to believe.

0:34:57 Lydia: Hmm. Yeah, I know. September, I want to say. Mm hm. Yeah. Mm hum. All I can do is laugh.

0:36:00 Lydia: Yeah. Yeah mm hmm. So silly. OK. It may seem unsurprising and even respectable that a news

0:36:00 Thomas: But if that were true, that would just mean that someone, Megan Twohey, whoever is like, Like, I think when we publish this article, we're probably going to have texts from them and we should have a good way to display them because the form we got them in is terrible and then get it on that. And then they work on it. That's it. Okay. Go to jail. You fucking conspirators. So funny. Okay, here we go.

0:36:26 Thomas: Now they're anticipating more of our arguments. So why don't you read 269? This is fun. And even risk, you know, every, every word is just a little, like little off.

0:36:33 Lydia: Organization, even respectable, that a news organization should work for weeks or months before publishing a purported investigative report. But the significance of the timing of these elements of the defamatory article is that they strip away the legal shields that Lively, the Times, and the other Lively parties were likely relying on to protect their malicious acts of defamation, such as the litigation privilege and the fair reporting privilege. We get a footnote. Ah, a footnoted down here at the bottom. These hidden dates also put an end to the bizarre claim by the lively parties made in recent filings before the court that counsel for the Wayfair parties leaked the CRD complaint to the press before the lively Lively parties did. But I'm pretty sure we. Yeah. OK. So they're trying to say because the New York Times was working on this beforehand, then how dare Lively, you know, that that kills that Lively said that that we sent it to TMZ before they did.

0:36:38 Thomas: It may seem unsurprising and even respectable. What? Yes, no, untrue. Here we go.

0:37:17 Thomas: Oh, that's so funny. Oh, that's great. That's such an admission. Yeah. Well, not only that, because this is nonsense.

0:37:33 Lydia: No, we're saying that it was published by TMZ before it was published by the New York Times, which is true.

0:37:41 Thomas: So at first they tried to paint it like when they did the first New York times lawsuit, they tried To make like, this is an outrage. They blindsided us. And then they published ahead of their deadline and then you know I don't remember exactly how this followed but somehow you knew and others knew and maybe blake lively eventually I can't remember they were like hey actually you leaked it to tmz first you like leaked it to TMZ before the new york times thing came out and that's why they published early by two hours now this is even funnier because they're not denying apparently that they leaked it but they're just like well we found some metadata that shows you leaked first, which all that does because their metadata thing is stupid.

0:37:46 Lydia: Mm-hmm. Mm-huh. Mm-hm. Yep. Yep. Yeah.

0:38:23 Thomas: That just shows that they admit they leaked it. And they're just trying to get by on it. Having been hypothetically after, which by the way, they had no idea. Like, are they going to say that the reason they leaked? It is because they knew about this metadata thing that they only found out a

0:38:26 Lydia: Mm-hum. Yeah. No, no, it's a post hoc, you know.

0:38:40 Thomas: A month later when sleuths told them. Yeah, it's such an admission. My point is, you made it worse by trying to do this.

0:38:48 Lydia: Mm-mm.

0:38:51 Thomas: Because now you've admitted to all of that. And even if it were true, it wouldn't be a justification because you didn't know. It's like that old, what is it, a movie? Oh, I think it's O Brother Where Art Thou, where they go to the guy's brother's house. Remember with the kid? And the kid has a shotgun on him. And then they stay there. And then the eat. And then that guy sells them out. And later George Clooney, it's like revealed that he stole something from that. And the guy's like that, you stole that from my kin. He's my kin and he's like, yeah, but he sold us out. He goes, yeah, you didn't know he was going to sell us out when you stole it. It's like where it's okay. Your justification is going to be something that you didn't know about when you did your thing. That doesn't work. Yeah. Darvo stuff. Yeah, yep. And pointing

0:39:09 Lydia: Mm-um. Mm-uh. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah. That's another typical behavior from abusive people, too. Yeah. Yeah. It's just another example of them participating in the exact type of activities that people are calling them out for participating in. They're just doing it here to to try and excuse it.

0:39:46 Thomas: Scrambling to point to something that you're doing that justifies their abuse yeah what erect protection again? Looked up

0:39:52 Lydia: So going back up from the footnote, given the full scope of the article's misleading manipulations, it is unsurprising that they would feel the need to attempt to erect protection against suit. I don't know. That sentence doesn't make any sense. Someone looked up a thesaurus. You know what I mean?

0:40:07 Thomas: Not the most embarrassing thesaurus related thing that's happened in the smith family but yeah no

0:40:08 Lydia: Looked up words in a theSaurus. I'm skipping over it in my head.

0:40:17 Thomas: That's stupid like it's evidence of them being misleading that they are trying to legally cover themselves because you're threatening to sue them or whatever. Like, okay, that's exactly what we just covered. More like it's your fault I'm hitting you or something. All right. Sure

0:40:28 Lydia: It's so weird. Yeah. Continuing on, the article refers to the 17-point letter of production conditions that Lively insisted upon. While the reasons for making many of those demands were mystifying to the Wayfarer parties at the time, once the article was published, it became clear that Lively had seeded her revenge more than a year before. By insisting on superfluous or already extant protections, in quotes, Lively laid the foundation for her baseless claims of pervasive sexual harassment. So you're saying there's a foundation there. Look up a thesaurus. When she. Oh, God. When she buffaloed the Wayfarer parties into agree. Why is that the word that you. Oh my God.

0:40:44 Thomas: Weren't. What? Boy, somebody did look up a thesaurus for this one. Check out this next, uh, because they looked up oh man boy this is this is jordan peterson-esque this is fucking who's

0:41:21 Lydia: She sealed the perfect narrative poison pill, allowing her to later claim that the Wayfarer parties agreement to the 17 point letter was proof positive that sexual harassment was endemic on the film set someone is looking to be a creative writer and is in the wrong profession yes oh god it is word vomit comedian. Christian? Oh, Russell Brand. It absolutely is like enjoyed it a little

0:41:40 Thomas: The other guy that is Jordan Peterson that turned Christian that abused people the comedian this is russell brand-esque This is Jordan Peterson-esque. This is the first I'll be honest this is the first paragraph where I've actually felt like semi-impressed like at the effort before it's It's been like a 13 year old looked up at this, but now, but this one is like, oh no, someone, okay, this is, they hit their stride when she bullied the, let me read that sentence just without pausing, just to get the weight of it. When she bullied the Wayfarer parties into agreeing, she sealed the perfect narrative poison pill, allowing her to later claim that the Wayfarer parties agreement to the 17 point letter was proof positive that sexual harassment was endemic on the film set.

0:41:56 Lydia: Bit this this is someone who like really enjoyed creative writing in college okay yep there you go Well, nothing's a surprise, but Lively had to explain away the self-inflicted mountain of bad

0:42:30 Thomas: You looked up two thesauruses. Oh, that's so good. This is also stupid. So underneath all that stupid language is a stupid claim that I love that they literally say once the article was published, it became clear that Lively had seeded her revenge more than a year before. Why would that be? You already knew about everything. You knew about every single part of this. There was nothing that was a surprise. So weird. All right. Yeah. Yeah.

0:42:59 Lydia: Press she had brought down on herself, as discussed elsewhere here, and thank you for not going into it yet again. Finally, Jones's wrongfully obtained text could be deployed for maximum damage. Yeah,

0:43:04 Thomas: Yeah, it might as well say like the podcast is getting a little long. So no, it's those were company property.

0:43:15 Lydia: Pin in that. I mean, we've already talked about it plenty, but I imagine we'll touch on that one more time yep one of their favorite phrases I do want to read this though in paragraph 276

0:43:15 Thomas: Yeah. All right. I think we've read this literal exact language with the cherry pick text messages, stripped of contacts, blah, blah. Yeah. So now it's just going to go through the article, which we absolutely have done. And we'll just check if there's anything new. This is pretty much all stuff we've done before. We've got the emoji, but we already did that. We don't have to go down that road.

0:43:43 Lydia: Talking about when Melissa Nathan forwarded a screenshot of a message from a reporter informing her for the first time of the Daily Mail article back in August 16th or whatever in response nathan wrote damn this is not fair because it's also not me followed by everything now looks like it's me perhaps unknowingly nathan was already anticipating the accusations that would soon be leveled against her and her fellow the Wayfarer parties and her

0:44:03 Thomas: And her fellow, the Wayfarer parties.

0:44:04 Lydia: Fellow Wayfair part yeah her fellow Wayfarer parties no I just think it's

0:44:08 Thomas: And her fellow, the Wayfarer parties. Yeah, that's stupid. Did you have anything else to say about that? It was just dumb.

0:44:14 Lydia: Funny unknowingly oh man she must have anticipated that that this could have happened okay yeah mm-hmm or at least

0:44:17 Thomas: How did she know? Everyone's going to think it's me doing the thing I'm doing. I really think we've gone through all of this.

0:44:33 Thomas: It's just a bunch. They're throwing their spaghetti at the wall of like, here's all our texts that say it's organic. It's organic, and I've said a million times some of that may be true. We'll see. I think that's just going to have to set. Some of this, I think, is for show. They're texting each other trying to say they didn't do anything because they know they did do stuff. Some of it, yeah, especially after Leslie started yelling at them for like, how dare you violate your end of the bargain, you know, and then they're kind of like, we didn't do it. We didn't

0:44:49 Lydia: At least one of them knows that they did something yeah mmhmm yeah mmhm yeah

0:44:58 Thomas: Do it, and I said this a few episodes ago when it was revealed to us, at least, that Melissa Nathan is a fucking psychopath, that she will just say things that are directly untrue, and I don't say that lightly. I think most people are lying by creating a version they think is true or fudging a bit. She will just say things that are plainly lies to your face, like based on the text messages we've seen. And so anytime it's her saying, oh, I didn't do nothing. It's all organic. That is zero weight. I don't know that it's always false, but it has zero, zero reliability. Like you might as well ignore it when you're trying to evaluate what's true and what's false. Yeah. Wow. They go back through all, it's like they're, God, we are so, nobody read this whole thing. I swear to fucking fucking God, nobody read this whole thing. Not even the people who wrote it. Because we're like in a, we are really, I know the joke is used too much, but this is the first time I've really felt like we're in inception because like within the dream of the dream of the lawsuit, they do the lawsuit again, like another dream of a lawsuit. And you're like, what layer are we in? Yeah.

0:45:34 Lydia: Yeah she will always say the thing that protects her all of it it's so So obnoxious. Yeah. Yeah, it's honestly crazy. Like so many of these images that they're inserting now here and talking about again, they've already talked about in this lawsuit previously. They're in the exhibit twice. They also talk about them in the separate lawsuits that they had against the New York Times, against Stephanie Jones, like all of these things they've already said. They've already done it. It's a waste of paper. It is killing trees. I won't stand for it. The court is going to print this out. Are you kidding me? I'm pretty sure the court has to print it out.

0:46:15 Thomas: Twice. Oh God. Yeah. It's PDFs. Yeah. Yeah, it's crazy.

0:46:33 Thomas: That's the least offensive part of it is how wasteful it is paper-wise.

0:46:34 Lydia: Put it on the list, though. Tack it on. Add it there. They don't care about the environment.

0:46:38 Thomas: Put it on the list. Oh, boy. Yeah, that's pretty much all nothing.

0:46:42 Lydia: It's just all stuff we've all seen. It's ridiculous.

0:46:45 Thomas: God damn. It's like we're getting the flashbacks at the end of the movie that was what was happening during the movie that led to the end of the movie. Seriously, because they're like, the New York Times ignored all this. This. For example, the lawsuit you've already read, let's re-say all of that because that's what the Times ignored. And the reason it's doing this, I think, is because they started with the New York Times lawsuit. That was the first thing they filed. They worked on this probably. Then they just pasted the New York Times. They use the same shit. They pasted New York times into this one and that duplicated and sometimes triplicated what's happening. Yeah. Which that part's fine because they did combine them right so like it's okay except that you also repeated it before it's it's so fucking it's a mess it's an absolute mess if you turn this in to like a college course you'd fail it'd be like I the professor would be like I'm not reading this yeah come back when it's

0:47:14 Lydia: Yeah. Oh, 100%. Yeah. You go on paragraph 287, 288, 289, 290. Those are literal paragraphs from the New York Times lawsuit. There's nothing new there. Yeah. Yeah, no, absolutely. I'm not reading it yeah and cogent I know that's why I skipped all those texts and I'm on page 207 now

0:47:53 Thomas: Like 40 pages yeah boy I'm looking through yeah it's the fire her bot team, totally not from, uh, We've seen all of this. It's just the scourge. Yes. Boy.

0:48:07 Lydia: I think I'm just I'm done I'm freaking done with these text messages I've seen them all

0:48:07 Thomas: Oh, wow. That's awesome. Yeah, I'm getting there, too. I'm done. Yeah. Oh, and this is the stupid stuff about, like, Watergate, Vietnam, the reporting that the New York Times has done.

0:48:19 Lydia: Exactly yeah oh my god we did it 290 oh page 209 yes jesus christ yeah see if mj wants to join us

0:48:21 Thomas: Yeah, it's just stupid. So this is all the New York Times stuff, the death threat. Yeah, we've covered this, covered this. And then we get down to the parties. Woo-hoo, party. Yeah, 209. We do have to go back for that thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Uh, we do have to go back for that Steph Jones stuff, but we don't have time today. We'll figure that we'll, we'll do that on our own and see if there's anything important, but we may have gotten through that. And then we just have to probably do like one more to clean up and do the like causes of action. Maybe. Ooh, that would be fun. Well, we fucking did it. I think, I think we can, yes, we have to go back to the Steph Jones thing, but I think you can pop the champagne. Like we did it we we got to the end of the document having gone through all of it in one form or another I will say okay not the end because we have the parties and the cause of action but we got to the narrative bullshit and that was the most I've ever read in my entire life ever and I hated it but we dismantled it and these people suck and I'm so excited so we fucking we're free Genie, we're free, we can we can go so I think we're gonna go on vacation all right well thanks so so much for listening everyone oh boy good watch keep an eye on your metadata out there I don't know it's nine o'clock do you know where your metadata is see you next time what's the thing

0:48:50 Lydia: For that yeah yeah I think this counts oh yeah god definitively yeah hilarious god see ya I don't just what do you mean like like sorry like like middle school dancing

0:50:03 Thomas: Where your hands are the way they are your arms are the way they are in the traditional normal dance thing just together like your you know normal human dancing no I guess I don't know I I guess

0:50:14 Lydia: Like when your hands are on the shoulder okay no like ballroom dancing with the hand on the hip and the and the other hands are clasped I don'T KNOW IF THERE'S A I DON'T I'M NOT I DONT KNOW

0:50:23 Thomas: Is that the name for it there's no other name for like whatever that thing is that everybody does but just dancing weird. I mean, I say everybody does. I guess that's who does that.

0:50:30 Lydia: No hand position, I don't know I would say musical theater well it comes back a little

0:50:34 Thomas: Kind of dance thing anymore doesn't really exist does it besides in musical theater yeah so yeah okay I I agree that if I'm saying who does this anymore and you're like well

0:50:42 Lydia: Bit because they'll do especially with like shows like Bridgerton and stuff they'll do like themed events no no no I don'T mean I donT mean the show itself I mean that that

0:50:50 Thomas: Sometimes they make a period piece where they go back to a time where people did this

0:50:57 Lydia: Has created a fandom so now people seek out events like that and also also there's a lot

0:51:00 Thomas: I don't think that's much different from what I'm saying.

0:51:05 Lydia: Lot of like um latin dancing oh I was thinking darker more like um like lord of the rings style like I — I didn't — well, the — something is coming like I don't know that feels like more jovial western

0:51:06 Thomas: Ah, yeah. No, that's dark. No, Tombstone is darker than that.

0:51:19 Lydia: I don't know anyway I just felt mine was dark yeah I just, I was thinking more like fantasy

0:51:19 Thomas: I don't know what you're talking about. I'm talking about the part where he says, hell's coming and I'm coming with him and then he kills everybody. That's kind of dark, right? You know the part where he's like, he says, hell's coming, and then he shoots every living person in the entire thing? Kind of dark. Dark adjacent. Adjacent? Have you not even seen Tombstone? Work of art. Visually darker? Like the lighting is

0:51:29 Lydia: No, but also this is in the same realm where they're like, I'll see you at high noon.

0:51:40 Lydia: And then like, I don't know. I have. I'm just saying it's a Western. And so I was more in like, like Lord of the Rings. No. Anyway, anyway, at least one of our three listeners will be with me on that. And cogent.

0:51:52 Thomas: Darker? Is that what you're trying to say? What's happening? So much to edit out. We're about to really fuck over someone named Justin Baldoni. Come back when it's like 40 pages.