Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1091711

Shown: posts 2 to 26 of 32. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Lou Larry Hoover

Posted by Clearskies on September 5, 2016, at 0:21:19

In reply to Lou, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2016, at 23:50:08

Now there's a thought. Lou certainly has driven traffic away all by himself. That seems negligent to me.
CS

 

Lou's response-Larry wants to sue Hsiung Larry Hoover

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 8:07:06

In reply to Lou, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2016, at 23:50:08

> I am perplexed.
>
> Over the years, I have seen people banned for apologizing to someone, because unbeknownst to them, a new rule had been created, called the "do not post rule". That allowed anyone having a hissy fit to restrict the actions of another poster, when it was themselves who should have taken a walk, and a period of reflection.
>
> After reflection by a poster following a dispute, the first post here, an apology, yielded a 16 week ban because of this new rule? I struggle, emotionally, to even mention Alexandra. Fist pump, girl, you know the real rules.
>
> And then there's Lou. What rule has he not broken? Who has he not offended? Good God, Bob, I'm wealthy enough to fund a class action, and force you to explain yourself. Methinks you will lose, with punitive damages. And some really bad publicity.
>
> Lar
>
>
>
> Lar

Larry,
Mr. Hsiung has impunity from what he does here in this jurisdiction. He has freedom of speech although he denies the members that same freedom.
Now he could be hacked to death in Bangladesh or beheaded or flogged to death in Saudi Arabia and Tunisia and some other countries by being charged with insulting Islam is refusing to post a repudiation of the statement [..No non-Christian will...] which is analogous to no Islamic person or no Jewish person or no person that has in their faith that are non-adherents of Christendom that they can enter heaven without being a Christendom person along with other statements that insult Islam that he allows to stand as being supportive where they are originally posted.
Your idea of a class action suit fails to state a claim under which that could be brought against Mr. Hsiung. He does not have to abide by title 7 or 8 as the university has posted a disclaimer on each page. He also removed his u of Chicago email.
As far as defamation, he is immune from 3erd parties posting defamation as of now but that could change this month.
You see, unbeknownst to you and others, I am going to appear to the high court in Ohio on Sept 28 as the commission justices have invited me to argue a religious discrimination charge that I have made as Jews are being discriminated upon as I am the charging party. The respondents have attempted to justify anti-Semitism where that means denying equality to the Jews as I contend that Mr. Hsiung is doing the same here by denying me equal treatment in respect to his enforcement policy as in the notification policy.
That is the same issue I am arguing in front of the high justices and they will rule that same day. If I prevail, and my original brief is very persuasive as the justices want to make a determination that will cause districts in the U.S. to be accountable for religious discrimination against Jews. Hsiung's arguments will fall apart if I prevail and the ruling could dramatically change sites like this that allow anti-Semitic propaganda and discrimination against Jews to be seen as being supportive by a psychiatrist as he shows his thinking to be against his own goals to accommodate hatred toward the Jews.
If I prevail, you could use my decision but Mr. Hsiung is allowing you to post anti-Semitic propaganda with impunity and rampant defamation of me so you will not get far as Hsiung's lawyer could get a dismissal on the clean hands doctrine. Then he could conceivably counter sue you for frivolous prosecution. He could also show malice possibly, but he is a public figure and could have a tough road to hoe to do so.
If you want this site to expel me but allow you to post anti-Semitic hate here, is that not encouraging others to defame the Jews here also?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's lawsuit

Posted by Tabitha on September 6, 2016, at 14:37:36

In reply to Lou's response-Larry wants to sue Hsiung Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 8:07:06


> You see, unbeknownst to you and others, I am going to appear to the high court in Ohio on Sept 28 as the commission justices have invited me to argue a religious discrimination charge that I have made as Jews are being discriminated upon as I am the charging party.

I couldn't resist checking out this important legal case. Lou complained to his condo board because there were holiday wreaths in the complex. Presumably, he didn't get justice there, so he filed a complaint to the Ohio civil rights commission, saying the the display of wreaths is discrimination against Jewish people.

On May 19, 2016, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission dismissed his case as "No Probable Cause."

On June 9, 2016, he filed a "Request for Reconsideration Vacate Original No Probable Cause Finding and Grant for Further Review"

What a nuisance!

http://www.villageatbeckettridge.com/document_view.asp?id=343
http://crc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Minutes/2016-05-19.pdf
http://crc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Minutes/2016-06-09.pdf

 

Re: Lou's lawsuit-Lou's response

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 15:52:57

In reply to Re: Lou's lawsuit, posted by Tabitha on September 6, 2016, at 14:37:36

>
> > You see, unbeknownst to you and others, I am going to appear to the high court in Ohio on Sept 28 as the commission justices have invited me to argue a religious discrimination charge that I have made as Jews are being discriminated upon as I am the charging party.
>
> I couldn't resist checking out this important legal case. Lou complained to his condo board because there were holiday wreaths in the complex. Presumably, he didn't get justice there, so he filed a complaint to the Ohio civil rights commission, saying the the display of wreaths is discrimination against Jewish people.
>
> On May 19, 2016, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission dismissed his case as "No Probable Cause."
>
> On June 9, 2016, he filed a "Request for Reconsideration Vacate Original No Probable Cause Finding and Grant for Further Review"
>
> What a nuisance!
>
> http://www.villageatbeckettridge.com/document_view.asp?id=343
> http://crc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Minutes/2016-05-19.pdf
> http://crc.ohio.gov/Portals/0/Minutes/2016-06-09.pdf
>
> Friends,
This is the only case like it in the U.S. The original finding of NPC was set aside and then the commissioners after hearing from me personally and also hearing from the board's lawyer will make a determination that will be far reaching.
As of now, since my request for reconsideration was granted, there is then the aspect that there is probable cause. That is what the hearing will be for.
Each side gets 5 minuets and then the commissioners ask questions to make their determination and vote.
This will be held at Dennison University near Columbus, Ohio and those that want to see me show what religious discrimination does in a community, are invited. I am up against a high profile Cincinnati lawyer and my only legal training is that I watched a few TV episodes of Perry Mason as a child.
But I have already had his argument set aside in my first rebut. So I think that I can also show at the hearing that a finding of intentional religious discrimination is to be found.
The important thing is that the ruling will set a standard for equality in religion. Now this involves the Fair Housing Act in 3604 a-c that I can transfer to sites like this that are open to the public. This is not only a Fair Housing issue, but also precedent to what constitutes religious discrimination. That is why this case is so important that the commission reversed the no probable cause and set aside the association's argument. I consider the case to be equivalent to Dread Scott and Brown vs Topeka.
For those that want to see me bring justice to not only Jews that have to suffer the humiliation of discrimination that puts them in bondage to someone else's hate, come to the hearing and I think that you will go out in joy, and say thank God almighty, I am free at last.
Lou

 

Re: Lou Larry Hoover

Posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2016, at 21:13:08

In reply to Lou, posted by Larry Hoover on September 4, 2016, at 23:50:08

aw. i had forgotten about that. i was reading your post and was like... oh, yeah... i remember that... that happened to me... i remember apologising and then i got blocked :(

who was i apologising to? I don't even remember, now. was it pc? was it dinah?

oh my, that was ages ago...

i remember the first time i got blocked... sort of... something political... i was so upset... i thought i would never ever ever ever ever be blocked before that. and then over time... there were times when i thought i would never ever ever ever ever be unblocked. haha.

 

Re: secular holiday displays Lou Pilder

Posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 12:55:00

In reply to Re: Lou's lawsuit-Lou's response, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 15:52:57

> This is the only case like it in the U.S. The original finding of NPC was set aside and then the commissioners after hearing from me personally and also hearing from the board's lawyer will make a determination that will be far reaching.

Have you done any research at all? There have been many, many cases at state and federal level about holiday displays. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, and established that wreaths, Christmas trees, and lights are secular, not religious displays. Even nativity scenes were judged to be secular, depending on the context. In fact the court itself displays wreaths and trees during the holidays! Your complaint doesn't have a snowman's chance in hell.

Here's an overview http://www.llrx.com/2003/01/features-the-establishment-claus-a-selective-guide-to-the-supreme-courts-christmas-cases/


> Each side gets 5 minuets and then the commissioners ask questions to make their determination and vote.
> This will be held at Dennison University near Columbus, Ohio and those that want to see me show what religious discrimination does in a community, are invited.

Perhaps some Babblers could attend, and meet you in person.


> I am up against a high profile Cincinnati lawyer and my only legal training is that I watched a few TV episodes of Perry Mason as a child.
> But I have already had his argument set aside in my first rebut. So I think that I can also show at the hearing that a finding of intentional religious discrimination is to be found.

Do you know who's paying that lawyer's fees? Your own condo association! You're taking your own and your neighbors' money that is needed for repairs, maintenance, and updates, and diverting it to this frivolous lawsuit. I hope you enjoy the increased HOA fees that will result.


> This is not only a Fair Housing issue, but also precedent to what constitutes religious discrimination. That is why this case is so important that the commission reversed the no probable cause and set aside the association's argument. I consider the case to be equivalent to Dread Scott and Brown vs Topeka.

What? Somebody has delusions of grandeur. BTW, Dredd Scott lost his case and failed to win his freedom :-(

> For those that want to see me bring justice to not only Jews that have to suffer the humiliation of discrimination that puts them in bondage to someone else's hate, come to the hearing and I think that you will go out in joy, and say thank God almighty, I am free at last.

You look pretty free during your recent trip to the beach with Elsa. Why don't you drop this nonsense and appreciate the good life that you have?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1193634467346476&set=a.138886566154610.20153.100000998031789&type=3&theater

 

Lou's reply-Allegheny and Lych support Jews Tabitha

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 15:17:58

In reply to Re: secular holiday displays Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 12:55:00

> > This is the only case like it in the U.S. The original finding of NPC was set aside and then the commissioners after hearing from me personally and also hearing from the board's lawyer will make a determination that will be far reaching.
>
> Have you done any research at all? There have been many, many cases at state and federal level about holiday displays. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice, and established that wreaths, Christmas trees, and lights are secular, not religious displays. Even nativity scenes were judged to be secular, depending on the context. In fact the court itself displays wreaths and trees during the holidays! Your complaint doesn't have a snowman's chance in hell.
>
> Here's an overview http://www.llrx.com/2003/01/features-the-establishment-claus-a-selective-guide-to-the-supreme-courts-christmas-cases/
>
>
> > Each side gets 5 minuets and then the commissioners ask questions to make their determination and vote.
> > This will be held at Dennison University near Columbus, Ohio and those that want to see me show what religious discrimination does in a community, are invited.
>
> Perhaps some Babblers could attend, and meet you in person.
>
>
> > I am up against a high profile Cincinnati lawyer and my only legal training is that I watched a few TV episodes of Perry Mason as a child.
> > But I have already had his argument set aside in my first rebut. So I think that I can also show at the hearing that a finding of intentional religious discrimination is to be found.
>
> Do you know who's paying that lawyer's fees? Your own condo association! You're taking your own and your neighbors' money that is needed for repairs, maintenance, and updates, and diverting it to this frivolous lawsuit. I hope you enjoy the increased HOA fees that will result.
>
>
> > This is not only a Fair Housing issue, but also precedent to what constitutes religious discrimination. That is why this case is so important that the commission reversed the no probable cause and set aside the association's argument. I consider the case to be equivalent to Dread Scott and Brown vs Topeka.
>
> What? Somebody has delusions of grandeur. BTW, Dredd Scott lost his case and failed to win his freedom :-(
>
> > For those that want to see me bring justice to not only Jews that have to suffer the humiliation of discrimination that puts them in bondage to someone else's hate, come to the hearing and I think that you will go out in joy, and say thank God almighty, I am free at last.
>
> You look pretty free during your recent trip to the beach with Elsa. Why don't you drop this nonsense and appreciate the good life that you have?
>
> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1193634467346476&set=a.138886566154610.20153.100000998031789&type=3&theater
>
> Tabitha,
Lynch and Allegheny support my position as that the association committed intentional religious discrimination. You see, you do not know what the issues are.
Let me ask you this. Could the condo association place symbols related to Christendom and refuse the Jews to be allowed to have thee menorah included with those symbols? Also, symbols used by religions are religious if those symbols have other symbols placed on them. Like if a Christmas tree has a star on top, then that tree is a religious symbol if it stands alone as per Allegheny and Lynch.
I ask:
A. Can you find my response to the OCRC to the lawyers attempt to justify the display that the commission used to set their argument aside?
Lou

 

Leave us alone, spend time with your family Lou Pilder

Posted by AlexCanada on September 7, 2016, at 16:35:51

In reply to Lou's response-Larry wants to sue Hsiung Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 8:07:06

> > I am perplexed.
> >
> > Over the years, I have seen people banned for apologizing to someone, because unbeknownst to them, a new rule had been created, called the "do not post rule". That allowed anyone having a hissy fit to restrict the actions of another poster, when it was themselves who should have taken a walk, and a period of reflection.
> >
> > After reflection by a poster following a dispute, the first post here, an apology, yielded a 16 week ban because of this new rule? I struggle, emotionally, to even mention Alexandra. Fist pump, girl, you know the real rules.
> >
> > And then there's Lou. What rule has he not broken? Who has he not offended? Good God, Bob, I'm wealthy enough to fund a class action, and force you to explain yourself. Methinks you will lose, with punitive damages. And some really bad publicity.
> >
> > Lar
> >
> >
> >
> > Lar
>
> Larry,
> Mr. Hsiung has impunity from what he does here in this jurisdiction. He has freedom of speech although he denies the members that same freedom.
> Now he could be hacked to death in Bangladesh or beheaded or flogged to death in Saudi Arabia and Tunisia and some other countries by being charged with insulting Islam is refusing to post a repudiation of the statement [..No non-Christian will...] which is analogous to no Islamic person or no Jewish person or no person that has in their faith that are non-adherents of Christendom that they can enter heaven without being a Christendom person along with other statements that insult Islam that he allows to stand as being supportive where they are originally posted.
> Your idea of a class action suit fails to state a claim under which that could be brought against Mr. Hsiung. He does not have to abide by title 7 or 8 as the university has posted a disclaimer on each page. He also removed his u of Chicago email.
> As far as defamation, he is immune from 3erd parties posting defamation as of now but that could change this month.
> You see, unbeknownst to you and others, I am going to appear to the high court in Ohio on Sept 28 as the commission justices have invited me to argue a religious discrimination charge that I have made as Jews are being discriminated upon as I am the charging party. The respondents have attempted to justify anti-Semitism where that means denying equality to the Jews as I contend that Mr. Hsiung is doing the same here by denying me equal treatment in respect to his enforcement policy as in the notification policy.
> That is the same issue I am arguing in front of the high justices and they will rule that same day. If I prevail, and my original brief is very persuasive as the justices want to make a determination that will cause districts in the U.S. to be accountable for religious discrimination against Jews. Hsiung's arguments will fall apart if I prevail and the ruling could dramatically change sites like this that allow anti-Semitic propaganda and discrimination against Jews to be seen as being supportive by a psychiatrist as he shows his thinking to be against his own goals to accommodate hatred toward the Jews.
> If I prevail, you could use my decision but Mr. Hsiung is allowing you to post anti-Semitic propaganda with impunity and rampant defamation of me so you will not get far as Hsiung's lawyer could get a dismissal on the clean hands doctrine. Then he could conceivably counter sue you for frivolous prosecution. He could also show malice possibly, but he is a public figure and could have a tough road to hoe to do so.
> If you want this site to expel me but allow you to post anti-Semitic hate here, is that not encouraging others to defame the Jews here also?
> Lou
>


You're such a nasty disgusting and evil person Lou. You truly represent everything that is wrong with the world.

This is why I cannot stand to post on this forum. All you cause is stress and heartache for the people here. You are an absolute monster.

For the record: I love and appreciate anyone depending on their character. This includes Jews. I have loved many jewish people through out my life.

People cannot stand you because you a soulless evil sociopath. Not because you are a jew.


Why don't you leave us all alone and go spend time with your family? Unless your family hates you? And why would your family hate you? Is your family anti-semetic? Why does everyone hate you? If the only reason people have to tolerate you is because you are so financially well off then you need to look deep into your character and realize that you are a deeply rotten excuse for a human being.

 

Re: Allegheny Lou Pilder

Posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 16:57:21

In reply to Lou's reply-Allegheny and Lych support Jews Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 15:17:58

> Lynch and Allegheny support my position as that the association committed intentional religious discrimination. You see, you do not know what the issues are.

No, it's not at all likely that the Allegheny case supports your position. The decision was mixed and involved multi-element displays on government property. To think it means that a wreath in a condo complex violates your civil rights is ridiculous. Why would the supreme court itself display holiday wreaths if it had ruled it to be unconstitutional? As usual, you take a grain of a grain of reality and warp it into nonsense.

> Let me ask you this. Could the condo association place symbols related to Christendom and refuse the Jews to be allowed to have thee menorah included with those symbols?

Yes, they probably could refuse. It happened at Boston Public Library, and the request was refused because wreaths were considered secular.
http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2014/12/06/does-a-wreath-mean-merry-christmas-or-happy-holidays

The EEOC has also stated that wreaths, trees, and lights are secular as determined by the SCOTUS. It's extremely unlikely that you'd see a different ruling under the fair housing laws.

> Also, symbols used by religions are religious if those symbols have other symbols placed on them. Like if a Christmas tree has a star on top, then that tree is a religious symbol if it stands alone as per Allegheny and Lynch.

Maybe, but all you have to do is add a plastic reindeer. Then it's secular. Happy Holidays!

 

Re: Allegheny Tabitha

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 17:06:25

In reply to Re: Allegheny Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 16:57:21

> > Lynch and Allegheny support my position as that the association committed intentional religious discrimination. You see, you do not know what the issues are.
>
> No, it's not at all likely that the Allegheny case supports your position. The decision was mixed and involved multi-element displays on government property. To think it means that a wreath in a condo complex violates your civil rights is ridiculous. Why would the supreme court itself display holiday wreaths if it had ruled it to be unconstitutional? As usual, you take a grain of a grain of reality and warp it into nonsense.
>
> > Let me ask you this. Could the condo association place symbols related to Christendom and refuse the Jews to be allowed to have thee menorah included with those symbols?
>
> Yes, they probably could refuse. It happened at Boston Public Library, and the request was refused because wreaths were considered secular.
> http://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2014/12/06/does-a-wreath-mean-merry-christmas-or-happy-holidays
>
> The EEOC has also stated that wreaths, trees, and lights are secular as determined by the SCOTUS. It's extremely unlikely that you'd see a different ruling under the fair housing laws.
>
> > Also, symbols used by religions are religious if those symbols have other symbols placed on them. Like if a Christmas tree has a star on top, then that tree is a religious symbol if it stands alone as per Allegheny and Lynch.
>
> Maybe, but all you have to do is add a plastic reindeer. Then it's secular. Happy Holidays!
>
then what if they do not add the plastic reindeer?

 

Re: Allegheny Lou Pilder

Posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 17:21:48

In reply to Re: Allegheny Tabitha, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 17:06:25

> then what if they do not add the plastic reindeer?
>

Are you serious? What do your wife and daughter think about your lawsuit? Do they support you?

 

Re: Allegheny

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 18:20:03

In reply to Re: Allegheny Lou Pilder, posted by Tabitha on September 7, 2016, at 17:21:48

> > then what if they do not add the plastic reindeer?
> >
>
> Are you serious? What do your wife and daughter think about your lawsuit? Do they support you?
>
> Your answer is important. If they do not add the plastic reindeer, according to you, that is what thwey need to do to make the wreaths kosher.

 

Re: Allegheny

Posted by rjlockhart37 on September 8, 2016, at 15:18:30

In reply to Re: Allegheny, posted by Lou Pilder on September 7, 2016, at 18:20:03

goodness Lou, you have a happy family, and kids from the facebook page i saw, have you why don't you yea....spend time with your wife, and kids, life is valuable and these statements about jews and death from medications....i was absolutely shocked when i saw that faebook page.....

 

Re: Lou's lawsuit Lou Pilder

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 10, 2016, at 22:43:47

In reply to Re: Lou's lawsuit-Lou's response, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 15:52:57

Lou, tell you what. Why don't you copy your court filings here, so that we can marvel at your legal acumen.

Lar

 

Lou's reply- Larry Hoover

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2016, at 7:00:23

In reply to Re: Lou's lawsuit Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 10, 2016, at 22:43:47

> Lou, tell you what. Why don't you copy your court filings here, so that we can marvel at your legal acumen.
>
> Lar

Larry,
I would rather you bring Scott and Tabitha and Alex and Hsiung to the hearing and you can all stand up and yell out that I am a troll and from Beelzabub and that it will be good for the condo community as a whole to place symbols used in Christendom in the common areas and deny the Jew to place a menorah equivalent to their Christmas wreaths.
Lou

 

Re: you're an ignorant man Lou Pilder

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 11, 2016, at 19:42:19

In reply to Lou's reply- Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2016, at 7:00:23

Lou, you clearly don't understand the most simple tenets of the law. Your complaint was dismissed as having no probable cause. That you got it reinstated again does not do anything other than restore it to its original form, i.e. a complaint, an allegation. The merits are still yours to argue. You've won nothing, yet.

You reference Lynch and Allegheny as supporting your cause, and then reference the Fair Housing Act.

You will first have to show that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, which limit the conduct of governments, apply to private organizations such as your condo association. And that must be shown before you even try to apply the Fair Housing Act. You will also need to show that the seasonal displays meet the test (clearly spelled out by the Supreme Court) for being religious displays, rather than secular displays. You might wish to note that in the Supreme Court ruling, for example, creches themselves are held to be secular, but that signs praising the birth of the Lord are religious. I have no idea what triggered your thinking, but wreathes are not mentioned.

I read court rulings as a hobby, Lou. I do not claim legal expertise, but I dare say, one becomes familiar with the language of the courts following lengthy exposure. Perry Mason doesn't cut it.

I have no intention of showing up for your hearing, Lou. I predict that your complaint will be dismissed, with prejudice. I hope for an award of costs to the defendants, for abuse of process.

Lar

 

Lou's response-the mole Larry Hoover

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2016, at 21:01:32

In reply to Re: you're an ignorant man Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 11, 2016, at 19:42:19

> Lou, you clearly don't understand the most simple tenets of the law. Your complaint was dismissed as having no probable cause. That you got it reinstated again does not do anything other than restore it to its original form, i.e. a complaint, an allegation. The merits are still yours to argue. You've won nothing, yet.
>
> You reference Lynch and Allegheny as supporting your cause, and then reference the Fair Housing Act.
>
> You will first have to show that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause, which limit the conduct of governments, apply to private organizations such as your condo association. And that must be shown before you even try to apply the Fair Housing Act. You will also need to show that the seasonal displays meet the test (clearly spelled out by the Supreme Court) for being religious displays, rather than secular displays. You might wish to note that in the Supreme Court ruling, for example, creches themselves are held to be secular, but that signs praising the birth of the Lord are religious. I have no idea what triggered your thinking, but wreathes are not mentioned.
>
> I read court rulings as a hobby, Lou. I do not claim legal expertise, but I dare say, one becomes familiar with the language of the courts following lengthy exposure. Perry Mason doesn't cut it.
>
> I have no intention of showing up for your hearing, Lou. I predict that your complaint will be dismissed, with prejudice. I hope for an award of costs to the defendants, for abuse of process.
>
> Lar

Friends,
Larry openly insults me here with the allowing of it by Mr. Hsiung. Mr.Hsiung is underground now, but according to that Larry says he redacted his post a few days ago, that could mean that he is surfacing to look at the posts. Being underground does not mean surfacing in secret could not happen. The mole does this.
Lou

 

Lou, Lou, Lou Lou Pilder

Posted by Larry Hoover on September 11, 2016, at 23:19:10

In reply to Lou's response-the mole Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 11, 2016, at 21:01:32

I did not insult you, Lou. If the description fits, it's not an insult.

As to my assertion that a post of mine had been deleted, I could be entirely wrong about that. I have forgotten that I have to both submit and approve a post before it is actually complete. I've failed to do both on a couple of occasions over the last little while, so....

I don't know why you've turned on Dr. Bob, though. You are quite an ingrate to do that.

Lar

P.S. When you're ready, I'll critique your legal brief. I am convinced that you'll need all the help you can get, even if it's simply to try and stay on topic.

 

Lou's response-Larry Hoover disobeys Scott

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2016, at 8:30:47

In reply to Lou, Lou, Lou Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 11, 2016, at 23:19:10

> I did not insult you, Lou. If the description fits, it's not an insult.
>
> As to my assertion that a post of mine had been deleted, I could be entirely wrong about that. I have forgotten that I have to both submit and approve a post before it is actually complete. I've failed to do both on a couple of occasions over the last little while, so....
>
> I don't know why you've turned on Dr. Bob, though. You are quite an ingrate to do that.
>
> Lar
>
> P.S. When you're ready, I'll critique your legal brief. I am convinced that you'll need all the help you can get, even if it's simply to try and stay on topic.
>
> Friends,
Mr. Hoover wants to have dialog with me here. But is he not disobeying Scott? For Scott wants no one to respond to me at all.
Lou

 

Larry Hoover disobeys Scott? - Nope. Lou Pilder

Posted by SLS on September 12, 2016, at 10:03:19

In reply to Lou's response-Larry Hoover disobeys Scott, posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2016, at 8:30:47

> > I did not insult you, Lou. If the description fits, it's not an insult.
> >
> > As to my assertion that a post of mine had been deleted, I could be entirely wrong about that. I have forgotten that I have to both submit and approve a post before it is actually complete. I've failed to do both on a couple of occasions over the last little while, so....
> >
> > I don't know why you've turned on Dr. Bob, though. You are quite an ingrate to do that.
> >
> > Lar
> >
> > P.S. When you're ready, I'll critique your legal brief. I am convinced that you'll need all the help you can get, even if it's simply to try and stay on topic.
> >
> > Friends,
> Mr. Hoover wants to have dialog with me here. But is he not disobeying Scott? For Scott wants no one to respond to me at all.

Nope. This is not true. Your posts are better placed on:

Administration
Social
Faith

Your posts on the Medication board are those of a destructive and malevolent troll. You will be treated like a troll by me there. Are you aware that behaviors have consequences? You reap what you sow. If you want to be treated differently, you need to behave differently.

In the meantime, I am very interested to see how your conversation with Larry Hoover progresses. Good luck.


- Scott

 

Re: Larry Hoover disobeys Scott? - Nope. SLS

Posted by Tabitha on September 12, 2016, at 11:54:13

In reply to Larry Hoover disobeys Scott? - Nope. Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on September 12, 2016, at 10:03:19

> Mr. Hoover wants to have dialog with me here. But is he not disobeying Scott? For Scott wants no one to respond to me at all.

Gee, it's almost like Fluffy is trying to create discord between other posters! I'm shocked. /sarcasm

He really is acting like a bad kitty.

 

Re: Larry Hoover disobeys Scott? - Nope.

Posted by SLS on September 12, 2016, at 13:38:21

In reply to Re: Larry Hoover disobeys Scott? - Nope. SLS, posted by Tabitha on September 12, 2016, at 11:54:13

> > Mr. Hoover wants to have dialog with me here. But is he not disobeying Scott? For Scott wants no one to respond to me at all.
>
> Gee, it's almost like Fluffy is trying to create discord between other posters! I'm shocked. /sarcasm
>
> He really is acting like a bad kitty.

Fluffy will try anything in order to remain relevant.

Fluffy likes to start fires and watch others fan the flames in a predictable manner. Fluffy is a stray cat who has been allowed to take up residence and enjoy an endless supply of food.

Fluffy likes to soil carpets. We need to restrict him to a litter box and discourage him from wandering into the living room in search of catnip.


- Scott

 

Lou's response-create and develop hate

Posted by Lou Pilder on September 12, 2016, at 13:55:38

In reply to Lou, Lou, Lou Lou Pilder, posted by Larry Hoover on September 11, 2016, at 23:19:10

> I did not insult you, Lou. If the description fits, it's not an insult.
>
> As to my assertion that a post of mine had been deleted, I could be entirely wrong about that. I have forgotten that I have to both submit and approve a post before it is actually complete. I've failed to do both on a couple of occasions over the last little while, so....
>
> I don't know why you've turned on Dr. Bob, though. You are quite an ingrate to do that.
>
> Lar
>
> P.S. When you're ready, I'll critique your legal brief. I am convinced that you'll need all the help you can get, even if it's simply to try and stay on topic.
>
>
Friends,
I have not turned on the owner/operator here. Mr. Hsiung has been given the opportunity by me to post repudiations to those third party posters that post defamation against me and anti-Semitic propaganda.
This is giving him a way to remedy the hate and anti-Semitism that he allows to be seen as being supportive here. That is not turning on him at all. It is helping him to see that what he is doing here could harm Jews and others and that could be more important than having his community as a whole benefited as he thinks by leaving those posts to be seen as civil.
He could start by posting a repudiation to the post that states that all those that reject Jesus will not escape the damnation of hell. By him allowing that, it insults Judaism, Islam and all other faiths that reject Jesus that say that they will not be sent to hell for rejecting Jesus. This also includes atheists and others outside of organized religion.
This could also change what readers could perceive here and have lives saved. For the religions that are insulted by the statement, those people in those religions could have equality in membership here. As it can be seen now, Jews, Islamic people and the others can be seen as inferior members of this community to Christendom people and the psychiatrist could be seen as promoting that. Worse, it can become an endorsement by the psychiatrist for anti-Semitism to be created and developed here by him.
Lou

 

Re: Lou

Posted by alexandra_k on September 13, 2016, at 17:18:59

In reply to Re: Lou Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on September 6, 2016, at 21:13:08

> i remember the first time i got blocked... sort of... something political... i was so upset... i thought i would never ever ever ever ever be blocked before that. and then over time... there were times when i thought i would never ever ever ever ever be unblocked. haha.

and i don't mean in a 'i have frontal lobe deficiencies' kind of way. i mean in a 'i have considered and deliberated over reasons and weighed them and i really don't see how it could be the case that... kind of way.

 

Re: OHRC hearing Lou Pilder

Posted by Tabitha on September 30, 2016, at 0:27:11

In reply to Lou's response-Larry wants to sue Hsiung Larry Hoover, posted by Lou Pilder on September 6, 2016, at 8:07:06


> You see, unbeknownst to you and others, I am going to appear to the high court in Ohio on Sept 28 as the commission justices have invited me to argue a religious discrimination charge that I have made as Jews are being discriminated upon as I am the charging party.

Hi Lou. How did your hearing go?


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.