Jump to content
This Site Uses Cookies. If You Want to Disable Cookies, Please See Your Browser Documentation. ×

Catazaro Declines NYCB Reinstatement; Ramasar to Rejoin


Recommended Posts

Eta: I don’t agree with the contents of the petition nor do I think Ms. Waterbury’s SM is helping her legal case. However I do think that if a public figure does something stupid and ill advised ppl will say mean things. That’s part of life. Amar has a splashy gig on Bway. I’m sure he’d rather be where he is now than unemployed with no one saying mean things. None of this is defamation. Simply being mean on social media towards someone is not illegal. You have a choice to make your account private, go off the grid, block people. 

Link to post
2 hours ago, Leah said:

Waterbury is behaving emotionally and to be fair unwisely for someone currently a party to a civil suit. She was in a relationship with a severe power imbalance with a man who degraded and humiliated her to his friends.

How was there a "severe power imbalance" between Waterbury and Finlay?  While he was some years older they were both adults.  He was not her professor or her boss.  Unlike the Weinstein case,  Finlay could not affect Waterbury's career as a model or a dancer.  She has not maintained that he ever beat her or intimidated her (although now she's claiming that Ramasar threatened her).  Just because he was a principal dancer didn't give him power over her.

 

2 hours ago, Leah said:

To be clear, this is the quote: “You have manipulated the women you violated into claiming they consented when, even if they had consented to you taking photos, they were unaware of them being sent." She is stating what he actually did - take photos and send them. In the context it's very clear that she is not accusing him of physical sexual assault.

It's not at all clear that it was Finlay who took photos of Waterbury.  And by using "countless women" she is implying that Ramasar was exploiting a number of people.  It appears to the general public that she has put all of her eggs in the Ramasar basket - she is ascribing all of the bad behavior and the vulgar terms to him.  For example holding up a big sign in front of the Broadway Theater reading "still not your farm animal" when Ramasar never said that about her or anyone else.

I am genuinely curious to know what Ramasar can do,  other than spontaneously combust,  that would satisfy Waterbury and her band of teenage acolytes.  (I don't think he needs to do anything,  and considering that she's suing him it would be unwise for him to reach out to her anyway.).   She reminds me of another Columbia student - Emma Sulkowicz,  the "mattress girl",  who turned her claim of being a rape victim into a form of performance art.    At this point Waterbury's protest in front of the theatre is more performative than effective.  

Link to post
1 hour ago, Rock said:

Could someone clarify where this complaint stands? What happens when the DA declines to prosecute? I assume this case is ongoing so I'm confused. It hasn't been dropped has it? I would understand if they couldn't find evidence about involvement of the NYCB or SAB, but surely those pictures and emails would be sufficient to continue a case against Finlay (and possibly Ramasar) - no?

There is an ongoing civil case. The defendants have asked that charges be dropped. There were oral arguments last month (January 21) and now they are awaiting the judge's ruling.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/21/lawyer-for-ex-ballet-benefactor-calls-clients-lewd-texts-obnoxious/

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/arts/dance/amar-ramasar-west-side-story.html

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Leah said:

 

Waterbury did not say countless women. The girl behind the petition did. 

But Waterbury stands arm in arm with that woman at the protests as well as promotes her petition in her Instagram bio. We can reasonably assume that she has read the petition and since she knows her personally, would be easy to correct.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Leah said:

 

Waterbury did not say countless women. The girl behind the petition did. And who exactly do you think took the photos of Finlay and Waterbury having sex? Do you think there was a third person in the room?

According to the post,  Waterbury participated in disseminating the petition.  She should have made sure that its meaning was clear.

No,  I don't think there was a third person in the room with Waterbury and Finlay.  But the text of the petition could lead one to believe the guy was Ramasar.  Few people know as much about this case as we do.

Link to post
Just now, Leah said:

Yep, I was correcting someone else. To your post- Ramasar did ask for more photos, and I highly doubt that they have only done this to two women. I think it’s probably irresponsible but I don’t think Waterbury’s silence is defamatory in itself. But I haven’t seen all the details.

Let’s look at this from another viewpoint. Had the petition only stated Waterbury’s grievance that Amar asked her boyfriend for her naked photos, would people pay as much attention?

There was no incentive for Waterbury to change any of the language in the petition if a) she isn’t culpable for any defamation from it and b) it helped get more protesters involved.

 

Link to post

"West Side Story opens on Broadway on February 20, and Amar Ramasar, one of the main parties involved in the picture and video exchange, is starring as Bernardo. There is no reason why someone who has taken advantage of his power and violated countless women, while stating his intent to violate more,"

This is language used when referring to a rapist, and not merely in an "old-timey" sense. It's intentionally sensational and misleading.

Link to post
23 minutes ago, dirac said:

"West Side Story opens on Broadway on February 20, and Amar Ramasar, one of the main parties involved in the picture and video exchange, is starring as Bernardo. There is no reason why someone who has taken advantage of his power and violated countless women, while stating his intent to violate more,"

This is language used when referring to a rapist, and not merely in an "old-timey" sense. It's intentionally sensational and misleading.

The preceding three paragraphs of the petition's text lay out what the accusations are, and rape is not at all the implication. Even in what you've quoted above, in the immediately preceding sentence, it clearly states that Ramasar was "one of the main parties involved in the picture and video exchange" — i.e. not that he's a rapist. In context, the nature of the "violation" is absolutely clear. The language may be intentionally sensational, but there is no evidence that it's intentionally misleading.

And it wasn't written by Waterbury.

"Countless women" is pretty obviously incorrect. Otherwise, the petition's text is actually pretty clear and accurate, if one reads it with any degree of care. True, if one reads it quickly and less than carefully, one could make some mistaken assumptions — but that's not defamation, and it's not evidence of an intent to mislead.

Edited by nanushka
Link to post

One could ask a passerby or even one of the demonstrators exactly what they believe Ramasar did to gauge whether the material is misleading or not.  Realistically,  not that many people are going to parse each sentence carefully.  I'm not the only person to notice that even some experienced journalists,  who have a professional obligation to seek accuracy,  have misstated the facts of the case.

It's obvious that it's Waterbury's aim to paint Ramasar as negatively as possible,  otherwise there would be little justification for demonstrating in front of the theatre.  As Ramasar is still on the roster at NYCB,  and NYCB has much deeper pockets than Ramasar,  it would make more sense to be demonstrating at Lincoln Center.  But standing next to the new,  high profile production of West Side Story garners more attention.  Because that's really what this is about.  Waterbury seems to be energized by the psychic income the attention brings her.  She's even got an Oscar-winning movie star validating her cause,  not to mention the endless articles and opinion pieces in the press and online.  

If Waterbury's primary motivation was justice,  she would have settled this matter quietly,  and the general public would be totally unaware of the existence of humiliating images of her.  But she doesn't want mere justice.  She wants revenge.

Link to post

As anyone who has spent any amount of time on social media should well know, it is very easy to find plenty of examples of people who express misguided opinions because they have been careless readers and sloppy thinkers. It just isn't that hard to find, on really any topic, and individual examples of it really prove absolutely nothing.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, nanushka said:

As anyone who has spent any amount of time on social media should well know, it is very easy to find plenty of examples of people who express misguided opinions because they have been careless readers and sloppy thinkers. It just isn't that hard to find, on really any topic, and individual examples of it really prove absolutely nothing.

Take a look at the messages that get posted on West Side Stories social media pages then. These are not individual cases. 
 A lot of people seem to believe that Amar either took photos of Waterbury and shared them or he physically assaulted Waterbury.

Link to post
1 minute ago, Fairandlove said:

Take a look at the messages that get posted on West Side Stories social media pages then. These are not individual cases. 
 A lot of people seem to believe that Amar either took photos of Waterbury and shared them or he physically assaulted Waterbury.

Understandably so.

Quote

"Countless women" is pretty obviously incorrect.

I'll say.

 

Link to post
1 minute ago, Fairandlove said:

Take a look at the messages that get posted on West Side Stories social media pages then. These are not individual cases. 
 A lot of people seem to believe that Amar either took photos of Waterbury and shared them or he physically assaulted Waterbury.

I find that very unsurprising. As I said, social media is full of such junk. People are drawn to controversial topics and many of them write dumb things in response. It just doesn't indicate that Waterbury is deliberately misleading. (Misguided, sure.)

Link to post
9 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

They definitely intentionally use plurals to indicate this was a larger incident than it was. 

Yes, that "women" should be "a woman."

Is that "definitely intentionally" misleading? No. It certainly may be intentionally misleading, but whether it is or not is not apparent from that post. Just as likely, the person who wrote it is passionate and confused. Certainly an imperfect spokesperson. Also not, apparently, Waterbury.

Link to post
7 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Is that "definitely intentionally" misleading? No. It certainly may be intentionally misleading, but whether it is or not is not apparent from that post. Just as likely, the person who wrote it is passionate and confused. Certainly an imperfect spokesperson. Also not, apparently, Waterbury.

Here’s one from Waterbury herself, again using plurality. 

”You have manipulated the women you violated into claiming they consented”


 

 

Link to post

Right, but then "the women" and "they" shifts abruptly to "she" in the next sentence. As an IG caption, it seems unedited, was likely typed on a phone, and has the same sorts of inconsistencies (of grammar, syntax, reference, etc.) that are commonplace in speech. As a result, in a variety of ways, it just doesn't really hold up to careful parsing.

And it doesn't strike me as evidence of malicious intent to deceive.

Is Waterbury behaving in rash, misguided, careless, unwise ways? Yes, I think so. Is she demonstrating malicious intent to deceive the public about Ramasar? No, I don't think so.

Link to post
13 minutes ago, nanushka said:

Right, but then "the women" and "they" shifts abruptly to "she" in the next sentence. As an IG caption, it seems unedited, was likely typed on a phone, and has the same sorts of inconsistencies (of grammar, syntax, reference, etc.) that are commonplace in speech. As a result, in a variety of ways, it just doesn't really hold up to careful parsing.

And it doesn't strike me as evidence of malicious intent to deceive.

Is Waterbury behaving in rash, misguided, careless, unwise ways? Yes, I think so. Is she demonstrating malicious intent to deceive the public about Ramasar? No, I don't think so.

This is why words matter. If you’re trying to get someone fired your message and reasoning needs to be clear.

One thing that was pointed out in a comment on social media that I totally overlooked is that in the lawsuit Waterbury says that on May 15th 2017 she discovered her image was being shared, yet it wasn’t until May 21st that Amar asked Finlay to send her photo.

 What happened in those 6 or more days? Presumably Waterbury remained with Finlay if she was able to retrieve more messages from his laptop at a later date. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, Fairandlove said:

This is why words matter. If you’re trying to get someone fired your message and reasoning needs to be clear.

One thing that was pointed out in a comment on social media that I totally overlooked is that in the lawsuit Waterbury says that on May 15th 2017 she discovered her image was being shared, yet it wasn’t until May 21st that Amar asked Finlay to send her photo.

 What happened in those 6 or more days? Presumably Waterbury remained with Finlay if she was able to retrieve more messages from his laptop at a later date. 

Why does that matter?  This is like the Harvey Weinstein “you talked to him” defense, this is why rape prosecutions don’t want women on the jury, because of judgmental stuff like this.

Edited by canbelto
Link to post
42 minutes ago, canbelto said:

Why does that matter?  This is like the Harvey Weinstein “you talked to him” defense, this is why rape prosecutions don’t want women on the jury, because of judgmental stuff like this.

Of course it matters. Waterbury stated that Amar “specifically asked for this violence to be done against me”. 
 Again, is asking for a photo of someone ‘violence’, and if her photos had already been shared prior to Amar asking, his actions didn’t contribute to anything that hadn’t already happened. 

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

Of course it matters. Waterbury stated that Amar “specifically asked for this violence to be done against me”. 
 Again, is asking for a photo of someone ‘violence’, and if her photos had already been shared prior to Amar asking, his actions didn’t contribute to anything that hadn’t already happened. 

She feels it is violence. Many sex abuse survivors feel that photo sharing is violence. Many victims of child molestation are haunted by digital photos that they find of themselves years later. What we think doesn't matter. If victims feel that it's violence, it's violence.

Edited by canbelto
Link to post
7 minutes ago, Fairandlove said:

...and if her photos had already been shared prior to Amar asking, his actions didn’t contribute to anything that hadn’t already happened. 

So if her photos had already been shared with others, it didn’t matter that Ramasar asked for them to be shared with him too? No further harm? How do you figure that?

Edited by nanushka
Link to post
8 minutes ago, nanushka said:

So if her photos had already been shared with others, it didn’t matter that Ramasar asked for them to be shared with him too? No further harm? How do you figure that?

Not what I said, I was purely stating that her comment that Amar specifically asked for ‘the violence’ to be done against her makes no sense.

In the sense that all of this is somehow Amar’s fault. It sounds like she’s saying that Finlay created material to share with him at his request.

Edited by Fairandlove
Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...