 |
| Thomas Plouff |
An Alabama attorney, who has a practice in Chicago and a physician wife in Birmingham, is a paying customer of the Ashley Madison (AM) extramarital-affair Web site, records show.
Thomas Plouff, a Notre Dame graduate and former assistant U.S. attorney, has taught at Samford University's Cumberland School of Law. He is married to Dr. Anne Marie Oberheu, who had a rehabilitation-medicine practice in Birmingham, for a number of years.
The couple has two daughters, Lauren and Caroline Plouff, who both attended Altamont High School. Lauren Plouff will graduate this year with a civil engineering degree from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Indiana.
Dr. Oberheu had a major impact on the direction her husband's legal career took. From Thomas Plouff's bio at his Web page:
I left the United States Attorneys Office in 1993. I knew I wanted to continue as a trial attorney, which in my mind left two options: defending criminals or personal injury work, as these are the areas where trials are most frequent. My wife having eliminated the former, I became a personal injury attorney in Chicago. It was the right decision. I have had the good fortune of being the lead trial attorney on jury verdicts that include a record $5.3 million jury verdict for a knee injury in a trip and fall case; $1.2 million jury verdict for an unoperated compression fracture at L5 in a construction case; and most recently, June 2007, $11.11 million medical malpractice jury verdict for failure to diagnose bacterial meningitis.
The family's home base had been Birmingham, but it recently became Durham, North Carolina. Oberheu and Plouff purchased a house there, and she now is medical director for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.
 |
| Dr. Anne Marie Oberheu and daughter, Caroline Plouff |
Anne Marie Oberheu's uncle is Gerry Faust, who was the famed football coach at Moeller High School in Cincinnati before moving into the college ranks as head coach at Notre Dame. He later was head coach at the University of Akron. Dr. Oberheu's mother's full name is Marilee Faust Oberheu.
Dr. Oberheu clearly comes from a distinguished background, and she has raised two daughters who apparently are heading down a similar path. Why is her husband fooling around on Ashley Madison?
We don't have an answer to that question. We twice contacted Thomas Plouff, seeking comment for this post, and he has not responded.
Previously:
(1) Edgar C. Gentle III--attorney at Gentle Turner Sexton and Harbison, Birmingham, AL (3/8/16)
(2) Stewart Springer--attorney, solo practice in Birmingham, AL. (3/9/16)
(3) Richard W. "Dick" Bell--attorney, solo practice in Birmingham, AL (3/14/16)
(4) Robert M.N. Palmer--attorney and bar association president in Springfield, MO (3/15/16)
81 comments:
Man, you reeled in a big fish with this one, Schnauzer. This guy, and his wife, are heavy hitters.
I think I've run across Dr. Oberheu in Birmingham. I think she's an avid runner. She certainly looks familiar. Sorry that her husband is well . . . I'll leave that for others to decide.
Bringing his daughter into this????? What is the justification for that??? You'll get what's coming to you I'm sure you asshole.
Let me explain this one last time, even for simpleton's like you, @12:15. A key issue in reporting on this matter is whether the subject is married and/or has a family. That is central to the whole notion of apparent extramarital cheating. Nothing in the story suggests the daughter, or the wife, engaged in wrongdoing. If anything, it suggests they were victims.
If you can't understand that, then you don't have the brainpower to be reading this blog--or any blog, for that matter.
I don't know where people get the notion that children are incredibly fragile creatures who must be protected from anything that has to do with the real world. This daughter is college age, so she likely is old enough to fight and die for her country. I suspect she can handle this post.
You, and people like you, remind me of the goofy character on The Simpsons who was forever yelling "What about the children?" The answer, as a song once stated is, "The Kids Are Allright."
It's "adults" like you who need to grow up.
Naming the daughters is seriously low.
It is truly disgusting to bring the children of these men into this. You can excuse it any way you like, but it's still a low, vindictive, disgusting thing to do.
LS...you've never had a child, so how would you know what it feels like to have a kid drug in to a story like this?
You don't. You can't. Period.
I agree with others...way off limits.
Fuck you, Shuler. Fuck you and everyone who looks like you. You are the one victimizing this family. You're scum.
Roger:
If you want to make the point that he has children, you could just say he has two kids. Putting their names in your blog, then adding their names as "labels" at the bottom, will make it more likely that their father's mistake will show up when people google the name of the daughters. That doesn't seem fair to me. The daughters can't choose who their dad is and choose to make him not their dad.
I'm bored with this. Gory details please. Any of these guys like it up the ass?
Smith v. Doss
Oh FFS!!! You people are idiots.. The hysteria here over coverage of this man's family/grown kids is truly laughable. The dude should have considered them before he tried to step out on his wife. He didn't give two shits about his wife or his kids! He's the one who's the asshole in all this. Not LS!
He's posted pictures and/or names of at least one minor child. I'm really hoping the parents sue the crap out of him.
I'm not seeing the news here. So what if he or she screws around. These people are not holding office nor running for one. Why should I care who or how they fuck? Get back to reporting real news. This reporting is a discredit to the many real stories you report on.
When some guy's house gets hit by a tornado or they are found murdered or injured in an accident or decide to commit a serious crime, do journalists only report on the man??? And make no mention of their family? Of course not. People don't exist in a vacuum. When a person makes news, reporters put them in context with description of who they are & that includes children & spouses etc.
Sue him for what, @3:14? It's a tort to post a picture of a minor child on the Internet? If that's the case, there should be millions of lawsuits being prepared--with many of them against parents of minor children.
Surely you aren't this stupid on most days.
Your comment made me spew milk out of my nose, @1:43. Hilarious. More people need to get down to "brass tacks" the way you do.
Classy comment, @12:57. When you don't have the intellect to make a point, resort to the "F word." What a grownup you are. And you claim to be concerned about the welfare of children? Maybe they could do without the kind of language and empty logic you use.
The one point you try to make--that it's Mr. Schnauzer victimizing this family--is absurd. Mr. Plouff is the one who signed up for Ashley Madison, and if his family feels any pain, it's because of him.
Not sure what point you are trying to make, @1:44, with the Smith v. Doss reference. If you had actually bothered to read the case you would see that the plaintiffs lost on their right to privacy claim. In other words, the case (and many others) supports my reporting on this matter:
https://casetext.com/case/smith-v-doss
My thoughts exactly!
Hey, Schnauzer, what do you think of the story about Adam LaRoche, Chicago White Sox' first baseman? He retired after team told him to "dial it back" on having his 14-year-old son in the clubhouse and around the field on a regular basis?
http://abc7news.com/sports/white-sox-players-considered-boycott-to-support-adam-laroche/1250055/
I think LaRoche's reaction was ridiculous. The team had every right to make such a request; in fact, the team has every right to make the clubhouse off limits to all family members. In my sportswriting days, I was in several baseball clubhouses. For the players, the clubhouse and the field are their workplaces. Both places can be dangerous--with balls and bats flying around--and clubhouses and dugouts are full of colorful language that kids probably don't need to hear. In fact, baseball players are the most foul-mouthed athletes I've ever been around, by far.
My feelings are well summed up by USA Today's Bob Nightengale in this story: "Adam LaRoche may not like it, but White Sox request is fair." http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/bob-nightengale/2016/03/16/adam-laroche-retires-drake-laroche-white-sox-kenny-williams/81885844/
Nightengale says former Atlanta Braves manager Bobby Cox, allowed no kids in the clubhouse and players could listen to music only on headphones. Cox had it right. Kids have no place in a baseball clubhouse, and no one should dominate the atmosphere with their own brand of music blaring from a box.
To be blunt, I think Adam LaRoche is a dilweed, who isn't much of a player anymore--and he's doing the White Sox a big favor by retiring and removing his oversized contract. To me, he sounds like a guy who's all proud he reproduced (as did Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden) and wants to show off his crotch fruit.
Laroche stinks. Didn't the team almost threaten not to play because of this? We live an entitled culture. It's distracting to have your kids at the clubhouse. I bet he even hid by the all american kid loving I'm a good dad persona. We've really gotten out of hand with this PC crap. It's rotting our brains and turning us all into wimps. Americans can hide behind the flag, the Bible, and CHILDREN. The kids are fine!
Sounds to me like just another lush fat cat lawyer running people over and playing fast with his marriage vows.
Just a guess, but I don't think the whiners on here, with their potty mouths, give a flying fiddle about the Plouff daughters. They just don't like it when investigative journalism gores one of their sacred oxes--the legal community.
You are stepping on their sense of entitlement, Mr. Schnauzer, and it hurts their little feelings.
A Rhinelander couple is facing two felony charges related to the possession and distribution of marijuana after a package allegedly containing just over 140 grams of the substance was delivered to their residence by the United States Postal Service.
A drug detection dog alerted postal inspectors to the package, according to the police reports attached to the criminal complaints filed Sept. 17 against Nathan M. Plouff, 34, and Amanda K. Plouff, 29.
The two made their initial court appearances the same day before Branch I Judge Patrick O'Melia. Both are charged with manufacture or deliver THC (under 200 G) and possession with intent to deliver THC (greater than 200-1,000 g).
Members of the Northcentral Drug Enforcement Group (NORDEG) first became suspicious of the Plouffs back in January, according to the report, after a source told investigators that they had a marijuana growing operation in another residence. After further investigation, two NORDEG investigators received permission from the resident of the house to search the premises. No sign of the alleged operation was located, however.
On Sept. 11, a postal inspector contacted a NORDEG investigator tp report that a drug detection dog had alerted on a suspicious package addressed to a "Nate Plouff" at a different address with a return address in Portland, Ore. The inspector obtained a search warrant on the package and the report stsates that he found a vacuum-sealed bag weighing .310 containing a pound of what tested positive for marijuana.
Connection Richard?
When engaged in battle with a superior force, never try to defend one position.Always engage the enemy. If all you can do is piss in their kool-aide, Do it. Eventually they will quite drinking the kool-aide,get dehydrated, and make a foolish mistake. Ask the Riley clan?
Roger -
Could you please confirm that yOU WORK AT PIGGLY WIGGLY? aND ALSO which Pig it is?
Joe
Roger, god bless you, sir!
No other media outlet outside of the Sudan would do what you are doing, but I applaud it. It is your version of Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump ordering the deaths of the families of terrorists. Why not destroy the reputations of teenagers who just happen to be the children of someone you claim without real evidence was on a website you don't understand? After all, the parent in question should have foreseen seven years ago that a mentally ill bottom-feeding homeless blogger who was just fired from Piggly Wiggly would get his hands on a list of random names and then accuse only the lawyers on it of maybe-but-we-didn't-say-it-I-swear cheating on their spouses.
Why, I can just imagine to whom else you would extend your shaming if you had any indication whatsoever that the parent had actually in fact cheated! Perhaps cousins could be dragged into this. And if they had committed some sort of real crime, or maybe a traffic violation? Oh my dear! Even relatives they have never met and friends-of-friends could be shamed!
Roger please keep this up. Your expertly rationalized ethical rage, tinged though it may be by paranoid madness, is a shining wonder to behold. I am sad, of course, that this can only end in some misfortune for you, but I have plenty of popcorn ready for any eventuality.
I implore you to quit listing the kids names. I just googled one of the daughters names and the 4th return was this article. That means any employer, potential love interest, friend, anyone will find this out and she will have to explain. You can say "well her dad did it so he deserves this". He may...she doesn't.
As Ghandi said--An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. Don't poke the daughters eye because of what the dad did. Can't believe you can't see this.
Roger I just drank a lot of Muthin suds, the same suds that the sumerians invented. No joke. I took classics in uni. There's a poem aboot it or some shit. No lie.
Look dude I have to say what we're all thinking. You write your own comments agreeing with you. Someone said 'flying fiddle ' which only someone with brain damage like you would say. Or your braindamaged wife. you will not rest until her other arm is broeknm am I right?
here's the deal with this ashley Madison stuff. I was on the site. I actually fucked chicks I met on the site. I guess thery were married. Lot of fat chicks on there man, so many. Not hot chicks just horny ones. so I don't know if they were married or not. hole point of the site is getting laid, dude. no shit.
so I'm no lawyer obviosuly! but when you ghet to me on your list, please email me aty and please DO NOT publish my name. My pig here don't like it when I tell her I'm getting smokes and what is really happenking is I am getting a bj
Hard to explain I'll tell you
I knew Corey Luwandowski back years & he would only pull a woman to the floor to fuck her, man/. Hey roger you ever do that? you ever had sex you fucking hyedgehog? cause your Pure White wife only has sex w the mayor of Jasper AL & about five Followers we call The Bulls of Mammon.
She is drugged at night
taken from your bed
taken to the alter in the woods to Mammon
filled with the seed of the Bull the seed of Mammon
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,
where moths and vermin destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal
Roger Shuler vermin the vermin
You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
You cannot serve God
Wow, thanks for a fascinating comment, Bull. I always wondered what it would be like to get a comment from someone who was stoned into oblivion, like a big Grateful Dead fan. Or are you more into Phish?
For the record, I've never worked at a Piggly Wiggly. Haven't even been in a Piggly Wiggly in probably five years.
I've got Thomas Plouff's e-mail address, @4:23. I would be glad to give it to you so you can contact him about making this right with his daughters. You are imploring the wrong guy. I would suggest you focus your attention on the father who caused this.
Please post Plouff's email address.
Thanks.
your Pure White wife only has sex w the mayor of Jasper AL & about five Followers we call The Bulls of Mammon.
She is drugged at night
taken from your bed
taken to the alter in the woods to Mammon
filled with the seed of the Bull the seed of Mammon
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,
where moths and vermin destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal
Roger Shuler vermin the vermin
You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
You cannot serve both God and Mammon.
You cannot serve God
Just call me Bull.
Roger is playing a form of Russian roulette with these posts, isn't he?
Hey Shuler, remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs? You watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched and a hundred baby spiders came out... and they ate her.
You're the fucking spider.
Bull of Mammon? I imagine is a huge black buck shiny with sweat, his muscles rippling. Mmmm.
Hey Roger, care to comment on the following?
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/19/business/media/gawker-hulk-hogan-verdict.html?_r=0
I hope this doesn't chill your ongoing efforts to do whatever it is you're doing.
Here is Plouff's Web site, @9:48, which includes contact info:
http://ploufflaw.com/
Thanks for sharing, @1:19. I hadn't heard about the Hogan verdict. I find it interesting, but the case has nothing in common with my reporting or issues related to the Ashley Madison story, which has been reported by news sites around the world. I could give you a dissertation on privacy law and the differences between the Hogan/AM cases, but I don't have time for that, and I doubt you are interested in legal analysis anyway. The country's No. 1 legal blog is reporting that it expects the Hogan verdict to be overturned on appeal, and I suspect they are right. That, however, will be interesting to watch:
http://abovethelaw.com/2016/03/let-me-tell-you-something-brother-the-hulk-hogan-victory-is-going-to-be-reversed-on-appeal/?utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=27478965&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-_QMZyY2WjQ-sbp4xW8EfRDpOnJ0MaEzDNFfGLGrLIPt3jVXl2DcSbB4oZBM8hN2vguBd42137CkpfxuHi5UfDE6FGojg&_hsmi=27478965
Note to commenters: We've had a number of comments submitted recently that (a) Make no sense; (b) Use foul language; (3) Resort to taunts and threats; (4) Raise questions that already have been answered here multiple times; (5) Add zero value to the discussion.
We welcome comments that are at least semi-intelligent, timely, and rise above the level of third-grade playground threats. Comments that can't reach that low bar will be sent to the trash bin.
We've worked hard to build an audience of intelligent, thoughtful readers, and I know from my blog data that we, in fact, have a very bright group out there that follows this blog. I'm not going to have the comment section cluttered up with yahoos who can't think for themselves or express a point with any clarity or a sense of respect.
It's obvious my reporting on AM is goring some sacred oxes, but commenters who can't deal with that without hysterics and such will find their nasty words cast into the darkness, where they belong.
A few of these commenters are a "few bricks shy of a load," if you catch my drift. What nuts, and low class, too. Funny that they get their panties bunched about Plouff's daughters and then repeatedly refer to your wife as a whore and a slut. They claim you are "shaming" people, and they call your wife a whore and a slut. Hypocrites, hypocrites.
I seem to recall a post you wrote about Jessica Garrison's tendency to express herself in hysterics. So I looked it up:
http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2015/10/corporate-ass-kisser-jessica-medeiros.html
That these commenters seem to be in a state of hysterics, it makes me wonder if they are somehow connected to Ms. Garrison. Just a thought. Keep up the great reporting. You clearly are pushing some hot buttons that need to be pushed.
Have any of these douchebags contacted you when you've invited them to do so and given your e-mail and phone info?
Nope, not a one.
Re 5:34 PM
Roger, you know this to be untrue. You simply stopped responding to me when I told you I was an expert in the AM data and site, and that you were making fundamental errors about both in your reporting. At that point I was really only trying to help you avoid making over generalizations. But you have gone ahead and done these thing anyway, exhibiting a very destructive sort of bad faith and willful blindness.
So now I will be more than happy to assist any of the men you have or will attack by providing them and their legal counsel with accurate information about AM. I know they will find it very useful.
Of the dozens of people I have spoken to about AM over the past six months, I have never come across someone quite like you, Roger. I don't understand what is your real motivation, and at this point I don't really care.
Do you think Jessica Garrison is responsible for this? Why would she bother? Roger himself said she is an airhead, as I remember.
Rather than seeing them continue to guess what kind of job you have, are you willing to tell everybody what you do for a living other than this blog? I'm not talking about specific company or location, because lord knows what they would do with that information.
I'd be glad to tell you what I do for a living. First, you tell me who you are, where you live, what you do for living, and your contact information. We'll go from there.
I didn't bring up Ms. Garrison's name. A commenter above did that. Not sure what I think about any role Ms. Garrison might have in this. But nothing would surprise me.
I think you are a bit confused, @8:37, and I might be, too. I took the commenter to mean other commenters whom I have invited to contact me via e-mail or phone. Most such commenters are Anonymous, as are you, so I have no way of knowing who you are, no way of telling one from another.
Are you saying you've contacted me via phone or e-mail. If so, what is your name? I get a lot of feedback and communications here, and with no name attached, I have no way of knowing to what you are referring.
The jury awarded the damages to compensate Hogan for alleged pain and economic injuries he sustained when a secret tape of his consensual sexual encounter with a friend's wife was publicly aired by Gawker. Though on appeal the award is likely to be reduced, it is a warning shot fired across the bow of a rapacious tabloid press.
Re 2:55 PM
I am finished with emailing you, Roger. In our last exchange you demanded my home address! Why?
Roger, there is doing what is legal. There is doing what is morally right.
And there is doing what makes sense for reputation management, or in lay terms, for public relations. Sometimes, these areas overlap. Other times, they diverge.
Don't you think this is an example of that?
Why do you need to know where someone lives or works to talk to them? We don't know where you live and work, Shuler. So much for transparency. I thought you were a coward and now I know you're a coward.
Coward: You wanted to know where I work, so I asked the same question of you. You know, the old "what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander thing." I don't owe transparency to someone who is too big a coward to present transparency himself.
No, I don't, @9:56. My reporting is legal and morally right, and my reputation is fine among those who understand the principles of journalism. My blog is ranked No. 37 among all the legal blogs in North America, so among people who actually understand Web-based reporting, my reputation hardly could be better.
You are finished e-mailing me, @6:44? Do you promise? That's the best news I've received in a while. I asked for your home address because, if you recall, you asked for mine.
I also asked for other identifying characteristics--your real name, your work address, clients you have worked for (now and in past), etc. You didn't supply any of that information, other than to say you are in Toronto. Isn't Ashley Madison based in Canada, by the way?
Based on what I've seen, you are a con artist. BTW, CBC referred to AM as a "site for cheaters." I guess you are going to get all wound up about that.
Just because you claim to be a data analyst and an "expert" on AM, etc. I have no reason to believe that you are an expert in anything.
So please keep your promise and stop e-mailing me or commenting here because you have zero credibility.
Court cases aren't designed to be "warning shots," @6:41. They are supposed to present justice, based on proper application of the facts and law. I'm not an expert on details of the Hogan case, but I suspect it will be overturned completely. Hogan was not defamed because the tape was of him, and I don't see how Gawker invaded his privacy. They didn't set up the camera, and they didn't shoot the "action." As I understand it, someone sent them the tape, unsolicited. Am I correct about that?
Hulk's problem is that he chose his friends poorly and having sex with a woman who is married to a loon . . . well, that's not a good idea. Hulk's problem is that he trusted people, and engaged in dubious behavior with, people who aren't trustworthy.
I could see where the couple, or whoever, arranged for the "action" to be taped, invaded Hogan's privacy. But I don't see where Gawker did. Gawker just has the deep pockets.
Re 11:09
To be clear on context, I contacted Mr. Shuler weeks ago when I came across very serious errors in his analysis of what he believes to be the Ashley Madison data. His response was to insult me and then, as you have seen, was to attack me publicly.
Make no mistake: Mr. Shuler does not have access to a complete or accurate AM data-set. His reporting has been erroneous in several cases.
I expect a cursory search for AM data expertise will reveal my identity. Mr. Shuler knows I provided enough information for him to verify it.
Unknown:
The "children" you seem to be talking about are roughly 22 and 20 years old. I didn't "talk about them," I mentioned that their parents are Mr. Plouff and his physician wife. Why are you so hysterical on this subject? Very strange.
P.S.--I don't know what happened to your comment, @6:52. Pretty sure I didn't delete it. I know I didn't intend to.
"M" (or "Kate" or whatever your name is; you can't seem to decide), I thought you promised not to communicate with me again, but here you are--and you still can't keep anything straight.
My records show you contacted me 11 days ago, not weeks ago. You gave me what appears to be a false name, one that I've yet to find on the Web. You refused to ID your contact information, social-media sites, clients (past and current), who you work for now, etc. You claimed you are from Toronto, that's the only identifier I have. You claim to be an expert on Ashley Madison data, but you've presented no evidence that you are an expert in anything. You have no idea what data I have, and you've offered zero evidence that I've reported anything erroneously.
I haven't insulted or attacked you--although you deserve both--because I don't even know who you are. I suspect you work for AM and are trying to discredit me in an effort to soften your company's legal exposure. But I really don't know, and I definitely don't care.
So now, please abide by your promise and leave me alone. I'm not interested in you, your "data," or your "expertise"--of which I suspect you have little, if any.
Roger, you remind me of those kids who perform dangerous stunts on YouTube in order to get attention. They make poor choices that can potentially harm them in the end. Like you, these kids just don't get it.
At this point I just sit and shake my head while reading your justifications because it's mind boggling. It's like listening to these YouTube kids explain why they do what they do.
As you're reading this I want you to take a moment and think about why people don't understand you. I want you to imagine your own thoughts and how you would feel if you sat and listened to these kids who didn't know any better explain why they do what they do. You'd sit there shaking your head in disbelief because there is nothing you can say to get them to see what they're doing could potentially harm them. This is what many of us are doing now with you. Because you don't realize it, you continue to argue the same point over and over and over and over thinking it's going to matter.
In your case you're an adult, and the people supporting your choices don't care about you. They're like the frat guys cheering you on as you stand on a table and suck down a beer bong. You're the useful idiot as someone else pointed out.
As of now I'm asking everyone who is bothered by this AM coverage to just ignore Roger because no matter what you say he's just not going to get it. I believe eventually he's going to either screw up somewhere, or piss off the wrong person (again) which will result in further hardship in his own life.
Many of us see it coming and there is nothing we can do about it. You just have to let it happen, like watching those kids on YouTube.
Your arrogance is impressive, @10:57. You claim to know the workings of my mind when, in fact, you know nothing about me. You say "many of us see it coming" when you have no idea what other people think--and you don't explain what "it" is.
If you want me or my readers to take you seriously, tell us who you are, give us your contact information, a brief bio, etc. Otherwise, you are just dust blowing in the wind.
@10:57
I have to assume that what is "coming" is another lawsuit or something worse, I don't know what. I take no pleasure in seeing history repeat. I don't think any of this is funny and my heart goes out to Schnauzer and his wife. I prey he gets some help and good legal advice. He's a very smart guy and I hate to say it but his worldview just isn't rational. I saw an article suggesting that he has suffered from PTSD in the past. Clearly there is now more going on. He's hurt many people but himself and his wife most of all. Too many of you read his stuff like you're rubbernecking an accident on the I‑65. Schnauzer needs support, so stop encouraging the destructive stuff.
(Obviously DO NOT give Schnauzer your personal information. Sadly he will weave you into his ideas about how people are out to get him. Schnauzer I am not out to get you!)
Here's a challenge for you, @1:32:
(1) You say my worldview isn't rational. Please provide some specifics. What isn't rational about it? Are you saying that my reporting isn't accurate? If so, please point to examples. I'd like to know. Do you believe our courts are "citadels of honor," filled with noble judges and lawyers? If so, what makes you think this?
(2) What do you mean by seeing "history repeat"? What are you talking about?
(3) What is the "destructive stuff" to which you refer, and what is destructive about it?
(4) You refer to a lawsuit that is "coming" or "something worse." What grounds would someone have to sue me? What does "something worse" mean, and who do you think might bring this about?
Look forward to your answers.
With great respect, at the end of the day Schnauzer you have to do your own work on this. I'm no mental health professional. I strongly and with great care urge you to see a psychologist or psychiatrist. Talk to them about what is happening to you and get their help in dealing with your challenges. Stick with it. That's all I can say.
@2:04--Are you and @1:32 the same person?
Why didn't you answer my questions?
I'll take a shot. Seems pretty obvious to the casual observer but...
1) LS's reporting isn't always accurate. The main thing I see is drawing conclusions clearly not supported by facts, with logical leaps and confirmation bias. Not seeing courts as ideal "citadels of honor" does not mean they are totally corrupt. There are substantial shades of grey within the legal community. Also: someone not being your friend does not automatically make them your enemy.
2) History repeats with LS being sued over something that didn't serve the public interest in the first place: accusing non-public figure lawyers of adultery and publicly shaming their families who have nothing to do with it. Like Garrison case, no idea how public interest is served.
3) Destructive stuff: personal attacks on people and their families not supported by facts. Again, most recently, linking to Linkedin profiles of children of men you are implying are adulterers. Vast majority of journalists would see this as unethical and destructive.
4) Grounds for lawsuit: defamation, harassment, stalking. Something worse would be someone with a grudge doing something illegal.
@2:04 + @1:32 same person? Yes.
Didn't answer the questions because doing so won't solve anything with you.
Seek counsel from psychologist or psychiatrist. Have an open mind.
Why should I follow advice of someone who is too lazy to answer a few simple questions? Plus, you are lying. Your reason for not answering the questions is bogus. You had a serious case of loose lips in your original comment, but when challenged, your lips get tight. I can only conclude you are a con man, and I don't take advice from con men. If you want to prove that you are something other than a con man, the invitation remains to answer very simple questions. Otherwise, your words mean zip because you can't back up what you claim--and you are too lazy to even try.
Pathetic effort, @2:19. Here's why:
(1) You haven't presented one example of inaccurate reporting on my part. Not one.
(2) Can you ID a tort where someone can be sued because "the public interest isn't served"? Are you serious with this BS? Where have I accused anyone of adultery and where have I "shamed" anyone. (Note: You seem to throw around words without having any idea what they mean, legally or otherwise.)
(3) My reporting is 100 percent supported by facts, and that is not even close to "attacking people." (Again, your use of the language would have to improve to be loose.) There is zero wrong with linking to someone's LinkedIn page, and you have zero knowledge of what journalists would see as unethical. The LinkedIn page is right on the Web, for all to see. Your assertions, to borrow one of Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester's favorite words, are "abzurd."
(4) Defamation, on reporting that is accurate? Again, you must be joking. There are no torts for harassment or stalking. They can be crimes, but I haven't come close to engaging in either.
I would suggest you stay out of this dicussion, unless you just enjoy looking like a fool. You are hilariously out of your depths.
Re 2:49
You can lead a horse to water...
Hah, very clever, @3:20. But your analogy doesn't fit. There is no water and there is no one doing any leading. I asked a few questions to see if there was a leader or any water. And there was nothing there--an empty suit, maybe.
These commenters, most of them, are so full of s--t. You've got them defecating in their pants , LS, and they can't even express themselves in a coherent way. It's pathetic to see these dim bulbs leave one nonsensical comment after another.
Your AM reporting is great, awesome, and I look forward to the next installment. Rock on!
P.S.--sorry for all the fecal references, but I can't help going there when reading the comments from these screwballs.
To hear people actually try to defend adulterers, adultery, and attempted adultery--not to mention one of the most low-life digital outfits in the history of the Web--blows the mind.
But mainly it just makes me laugh. No wonder these people never ID themselves. I wouldn't either if I was that stupid.
And guess what--I bet they call themselves "pro family conservatives." What a hoot!
Some of these empty skulls suggest your reporting is inaccurate, but then they hint that someone might be mad enough about your posts to do you harm.
That makes absolutely no sense. People only get that mad about reporting that is true. Does anyone seriously think Rob Riley and Bill Pryor had you thrown in jail because you reported erroneously that RR had an affair with Liberty Duke and Bill Pryor showed off his ying yang for a gay-porn Web site?
Come on. These turtle heads know your reporting on AM is accurate, and that is why they are hysterical. How stupid do they think we are?
News flash: Just because you are an idiot doesn't mean the rest of us are.
There will be serious emotional consequences to finding out your partner paid money to explore having an affair. The first of which is not knowing whether they followed through with that interest. Chances are your partner did not have an affair. It's actually much more likely they were curious, they were looking for an escape or they intended on having an affair but it never ended up happening.
Post a Comment