S09.E01: Lucy Lucy Apple Juicy

[hoodooznoodooz]

19 hours ago, RHJunkie said:

I thought of the potential waste as well the sanitary issue of having cheese and meat sitting out for a long period of time as people finally moved on to the main foods of the event. It does look beautiful...and it does look like food art, but the sheer scale of it was unnecessary except to be a focal point that others can talk about. Even in the comments, people are talking about the visual of the display more than anything else. That display could have easily been done in a smaller scale and could have been replenished as certain items began dwindling. At least most of the meat and cheese untouched would have been in the refrigerator and could have been used for something else. 

I didn’t think it was particularly beautiful. I thought that most careful 10-year-olds could have purchased a bunch of groceries, washed the produce, and opened packages on a table, yielding the same result. Kyle overpaid. YMMV, of course.  

[chenoa333]

On 2/16/2019 at 9:29 PM, Giselle said:

I loved Kyle's charcuterie table. 

Looks like enough food to feed all the Marines at Camp Pendleton. 

[lezlers]

5 hours ago, Higgins said:

It depends on the judge though doesn't it? It is relevant if it it is applied arbitrarily.  That's my experience.

Not really.  If you're going to try and invalidate a contractual clause for a contract you signed (and when you sign a contract you're presumed to have read it.  Ignorance is not an excuse under the law) you'd have to show a steady pattern of non-imposition of that clause.  Basically, she'd have to show that Lisa NEVER imposes that clause and, in fact, hasn't imposed it previously against the person trying to invalidate it now.  Or you'd have to show it's unconscionable, which this isn't.

Again, contracts exist for a reason.

[Higgins]

1 hour ago, lezlers said:

Not really.  If you're going to try and invalidate a contractual clause for a contract you signed (and when you sign a contract you're presumed to have read it.  Ignorance is not an excuse under the law) you'd have to show a steady pattern of non-imposition of that clause.  Basically, she'd have to show that Lisa NEVER imposes that clause and, in fact, hasn't imposed it previously against the person trying to invalidate it now.  Or you'd have to show it's unconscionable, which this isn't.

Again, contracts exist for a reason.

I understand contracts.  She might not have to make evident the clause is never imposed but that it is imposed capriciously and arbitrarily. I would never do what Dorit did...Ever but if I was in the position of the having to defend my failure to perform that condition, that's what I would go with.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Higgins

[Juliegirlj]

I love a good charcuterie platter- I bought a large wood cheese board and love to serve a good selection of cheese, meats and accoutrements- but not for a giant party. Kyle’s spread was like a giant salad bar with no sneeze guard. Plus, if they didn’t eat it all it seems gross to save food that sat out all day. 

[Mr. Miner]

45 minutes ago, Juliegirlj said:

I love a good charcuterie platter

I would of been bummed out when I didn't see the FatBurger truck parked out front.

[nexxie]

On 2/16/2019 at 11:29 PM, Giselle said:

I loved Kyle's charcuterie table. 

Me too - it was a visual feast! 

[RHJunkie]

4 hours ago, hoodooznoodooz said:

I didn’t think it was particularly beautiful. I thought that most careful 10-year-olds could have purchased a bunch of groceries, washed the produce, and opened packages on a table, yielding the same result. Kyle overpaid. YMMV, of course.  

While I do think it was beautiful...in fairness, I happen to find charcuteries to be beautiful displays of food that is really easy to do. So our miles may vary there but I do agree with you that it doesn't take a professional to assemble a visually pleasing charcuterie and it seems almost certain that Kyle overpaid because that was easily something she and Porsha could have done themselves and it doesn't take a genius to figure out the assortment of ingredients to get.

[kokapetl]

LVP can put a $5000 penalty in a contract, but that doesn’t necessarily make it lawful or enforceable.

[lezlers]

5 hours ago, Higgins said:

I understand contracts.  She might not have to make evident the clause is never imposed but that it is imposed capriciously and arbitrarily. I would never do what Dorit did...Ever but if I was in the position of the having to defend my failure to perform that condition, that's what I would go with.

Except if you were in a position to defend your failure then that would necessarily mean she WAS imposing the clause.   And if she's imposing the clause against you, her presumed friend, I'm going to go ahead and assume she imposes it as a matter of course.

[Higgins]

37 minutes ago, lezlers said:

Except if you were in a position to defend your failure then that would necessarily mean she WAS imposing the clause.   And if she's imposing the clause against you, her presumed friend, I'm going to go ahead and assume she imposes it as a matter of course.

I'm not her friend. I'm Joe Blow who watches RHBH. Of course I would be in that position that's why I would be the defendant.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Higgins

[Keywestclubkid]

While PK and I were away, we were burglarized and came home to find that every handbag and piece of jewelry of mine and PK’s along with some art and other items had been stolen...change pk to Mauricio and .that is word for word what Kyle said when she was robbed......What the What?

Dorit's blog 

https://www.bravotv.com/the-real-housewives-of-beverly-hills/season-9/blogs/dorit-kemsley/dorit-kemsley-im-back-and-feeling

Edited February 19, 2019 by Keywestclubkid

[dmeets]

Maybe between filming seasons there was a new Bling Ring on the loose, targeting RHOBH handbags? :)

[raiderred1]

Am I the only one that doesn't like LVP?  I appreciate her love of animals and I feel sadness for her losing her brother but I just have never warmed up to her.  She seems phony and snobbish to me. Anyone else, or am I on this island alone? 

[Reality police]

5 minutes ago, raiderred1 said:

Am I the only one that doesn't like LVP?  I appreciate her love of animals and I feel sadness for her losing her brother but I just have never warmed up to her.  She seems phony and snobbish to me. Anyone else, or am I on this island 

I have liked her from day one. But you are not alone. There are several on the blogs that don't care for her. To each his own. Still friends?

[raiderred1]

18 minutes ago, Reality police said:

I have liked her from day one. But you are not alone. There are several on the blogs that don't care for her. To each his own. Still friends?

Hugs! Of course still friends. 

[BodhiGurl]

Rewatching b4 the new one - up to the scene with stretchy tee shirts PeeKay etc at lunch - and Dorito says "we found her a good home, with a good woman" - yeah - that woman was so good she gave it up to a shelter. MMkay, Also - I noted how Lisa was putting Teddi out there in a subtle but clearly under the bus kind of way... why even mention Teddi? She babble about Teddi being good friends with one of the Johns (I didn't hear which one LVP was referring to). What does that have to do with anything? Maybe time will tell. Maybe not. But I do think it was LVPs attempt to take the heat off of herself and put it on to someone else, in this case - Teddi.

[walnutqueen]

On 2/16/2019 at 2:38 PM, chenoa333 said:

I think LVP choosing Beverly Hills for her dog rescue location is going to limit the number of loving homes available to these dogs. "Regular folks" (like most of us here) who are more than qualified to provide a forever home, aren't going to drive to an OTT  Beverly Hills shop to find a dog to rescue.

In the past year & a half, LVP's rescue has found homes for over 800 dogs.  Not bad for a snooty BH doggie boutique.

[smores]

5 hours ago, BodhiGurl said:

Rewatching b4 the new one - up to the scene with stretchy tee shirts PeeKay etc at lunch - and Dorito says "we found her a good home, with a good woman" - yeah - that woman was so good she gave it up to a shelter. MMkay, Also - I noted how Lisa was putting Teddi out there in a subtle but clearly under the bus kind of way... why even mention Teddi? She babble about Teddi being good friends with one of the Johns (I didn't hear which one LVP was referring to). What does that have to do with anything? Maybe time will tell. Maybe not. But I do think it was LVPs attempt to take the heat off of herself and put it on to someone else, in this case - Teddi.

I felt that when LVP mentioned Teddi she was trying to be pretty upfront with Dorit and make sure there was nothing that could come out later to bite anyone.  Basically, I believe PK had said "We're sorry we didn't bring the dog back" and then LVP replied "That ends it right there."  Then she basically said I want to let you know that Teddi and Kyle are aware of this situation, Teddi had heard about it from John who is her friend/contact and then it came up while we were there the other day.  I took it as LVP wanting to make sure that it didn't get back to Dorit that they were gossiping about her, and she wanted Dorit to know upfront that this is who it had been discussed with, who was aware of it, and that as far as she was concerned, the situation is done.

Dorit then takes the situation and runs with some thing about Teddi telling strange stories, and then Teddi seems to be trying to blame LVP for saying to Dorit that Teddi was gossiping, but she was just pretty aboveboard about it all.

[renatae]

On 2/13/2019 at 9:50 PM, Smacky55 said:

I believe that. I just rewatched it. They were all standing around and he had the dog then Lisa shut down the conversation. Then they all moved to the couches and Teddy said to her daughter “Don’t you recognize her?” and John ran with it

Yes! I noticed neither Teddi nor Kyle wanted to drop it. Kyle wanted the down low and Teddi was only too happy to oblige and kept the conversation going. Now she wants to shade Lisa and act as if the fallout is all Lisa's fault. BS

[renatae]

On 2/14/2019 at 11:21 AM, RHJunkie said:

I see what you're saying, but that's not really proof. Without proof, we can all see the situation in whatever way we want and is probably why LVP still has so many fans despite how many times these accusations are thrown at her because no one ever comes with any proof and given how many times they claim it, they even more stupid than I thought that none of them think to actually bring receipts. At the heart of it, I think the truth is in the middle of what both sides are arguing. If either side were completely wrong, than after so many years, there would be real proof to support the accusations being made...but in fairness, the season just started so I'm leaving room for consideration that maybe LVP may get caught with her hand in the cookie jar but we'll have to agree to disagree about what her exact crime is at this moment. She is meddlesome and manipulative (almost all of them have displayed this behaviour at some point or another) but what makes LVP dangerous to the women isn't that she's so good at it, it's because they're all idiots that are so reactionary that they're willing to sabotage themselves in order to react in the moment. It's easy to deny something if you're being accused of something that you technically are not guilty of. Again, while LVP is no more guilty than many of the other women when it comes to manpiulation and pot stirring, but you know why she always rises above them in the court of popular opinion? Because she's constantly being accused of something that no one can seeminly prove AND it seems like people can only confront LVP in a pack where they take turns as if she's under interrogation. If any of them had a lick of sense, they would keep their nerves and they would address LVP by saying 'this is how I took what you said and I can't say what you meant, but I FEEL like this is what you were trying to do'. When you make it about your perception, you sow the seeds that others will naturally become more observant to and they'll see what you see. When you accuse someone of somethig in a factual manner, it's harder to make your case when you can't actually prove anything you say.

I agree. She has been accused so many times of all sorts of things without any real proof. It seems as though when one of them gets caught doing something, sooner or later they say, "Lisa put me up to it." We all saw LisaR suggesting  Munchausen's in one of the more infamous incidents, and what we didn't see is LisaV suggesting to LisaR that she bring it up. All we have is LisaR's claim.

Over and over this happens and over and over it's a gang up. And this is the most idiotic of all. It's people not taking Dorit to task for what she did, but instead it's supposed to be a horrible thing  Lisa did when they all decide she went behind the scenes to get the truth revealed. We are not to believe our lying ears when we hear her say multiple times that she does not blame Dorit. Whatever. It's just too petty.

[FreetheGirlses]

On 2/17/2019 at 3:43 PM, gingerella said:

Ha, most of what's on that table comes from Trader Joes...so much for being hoity toity Vyle...

Are we looking at the same grazing table? Good charcuterie, when done right, isn't cheap. Yeah, you can get pre-sliced cold cuts at Trader Joe's, but I doubt Kyle did that. I'll admit I don't buy prepackaged sliced meats at Trader Joe's, so perhaps you're seeing something I'm not here...but uhh...I would be the happiest person ever to go to a party with a giant charcuterie/grazing table. 
There is SUCH A difference between the good stuff and the stuff you get pre-packaged at Trader Joe's or in vacuum sealed mass produced package. The flavor difference is unreal. 

Kyle does a lot to critique, but IMHO this table aint one of those things. 

Also, yeah, if you haven't noticed; I'm FreeTheGirlses, and I have a charcuterie problem. 

[Crs97]

The rehoming clause issue has arisen with Ellen, Chris Pratt, and now here.  When I adopted my first dog from a shelter over 25 years ago, I was a new lawyer who still read every word of a contract before I signed it.  I came across the "you must return the dog to the shelter" language and asked how often they had that happen.  i remember that the woman helping me told me the language had to be in the contract, but the dog would be better off if I found it a new home because the shelter was so full that a returned dog didn't really have a chance.  Of course, I didn't need to rehome my dog, who was a beloved family member until her death from cancer many years ago, but I am reminded of her every time I hear about someone being in trouble for not returning a dog to the shelter.  Have the rules tightened up, or was my person wrong when she told me that?  Since we only hear about it after the rehomed dog has popped up in another shelter, I wonder how much is boilerplate CYA and how much of it actually makes sense as a policy.

[jumper sage]

If the dog didn't fit the family then why wouldn't Dorit take it back to LVP's place?

Like Denise!

Edited February 20, 2019 by jumper sage

[RHJunkie]

3 hours ago, Crs97 said:

The rehoming clause issue has arisen with Ellen, Chris Pratt, and now here.  When I adopted my first dog from a shelter over 25 years ago, I was a new lawyer who still read every word of a contract before I signed it.  I came across the "you must return the dog to the shelter" language and asked how often they had that happen.  i remember that the woman helping me told me the language had to be in the contract, but the dog would be better off if I found it a new home because the shelter was so full that a returned dog didn't really have a chance.  Of course, I didn't need to rehome my dog, who was a beloved family member until her death from cancer many years ago, but I am reminded of her every time I hear about someone being in trouble for not returning a dog to the shelter.  Have the rules tightened up, or was my person wrong when she told me that?  Since we only hear about it after the rehomed dog has popped up in another shelter, I wonder how much is boilerplate CYA and how much of it actually makes sense as a policy.

I think a shelter's preference would vary...or it could just be the preference of the individual and maybe she didn't actually give you right information. I'm assuming shelters have some kind of process they go through before finalizing an adoption. I know my local shelter has a 4 step process which includes questionnaires, a meeting with an adoption counselor and meet and greet all before the adoption can be finalized and the shelter has the right to deny you the pet if they feel you aren't a good fit for it. If there's a real passion for caring for the animals and making sure they find good homes (which I assume most of these shelters are), that clause is likely there to give control back to the shelter in case the new owner is having buyer's remorse. It's unlikely an individual is going to go through a fraction of that effort as a shelter would. This is just theoretical as I don't know what the particular process Vanderpups follows.

And I can certainly understand not reading this kind of contract in full before signing. I personally always scan a contract to make sure there aren't any hidden fees but other than that, I'm not doing a thorough read of it. However, I think there's little excuse for not having the common sense to refer to the contract once it was decided that they no longer wanted the dog. There would be no reason for the contract if there was no chance of something going wrong. If it was a foolproof, permanent transaction, then they would have just gotten a receipt and not made to sign a legally binding contract.

[yourmomiseasy]

On 2/16/2019 at 2:38 PM, chenoa333 said:

I think LVP choosing Beverly Hills for her dog rescue location is going to limit the number of loving homes available to these dogs. "Regular folks" (like most of us here) who are more than qualified to provide a forever home, aren't going to drive to an OTT  Beverly Hills shop to find a dog to rescue.  LVP has to make it about herself. She would NEVER open a dog rescue anywhere less chic than BH. She's a snobby selfish bitch. 

It's not in Beverly Hills.  It's either in the Beverly Grove or Fairfax neighborhood.  It's on 3rd St a little west of The Grove.  It's on a stretch of 3rd with a lot of little eateries, some boutiques, pilates studios, and various random things like an awesome button store.  The only thing that would keep people from going is that parking is shitty unless you go right when things open, but there is a public valet for that stretch of 3rd.  One of my favorite brunch spots used to be the location of the Pepto Pooch Palace, but I hardly ever went because of parking and last time I tried to go I was pissed to see that pink monstrosity in its place.  It really is  garish shade of pepto pink.  I've never gone in because my dogs don't wear clothes and do not want any new siblings and it isn't worth parking just to poke my head in and if I am parked over there it's probably to buy buttons and that's a couple blocks farther west and it isn't worth the walk just to look.

On 2/18/2019 at 7:59 AM, KungFuBunny said:

I see what you're saying Higgins, should another person give away their adopted pet to a 3rd person and LVP finds out about it, I could see them saying well you waived the fee for the Kemsleys so we're not paying. The rule should apply across the board otherwise you are showing favoritism because someone is your alleged friend.

I'm curious about this microchipping - why wasn't information updated to Dorit Kemsley as the owner of the dog on the chip?

Because the information wasn't updated - what is the Vanderpump Dogs practice of transferring ownership - what is the time frame?

If a microchipped rescue shows LVP Dogs as the registered owned even though it has been adopted - who is liable should said rescue dog bite and hurt another person or dog?

The microchip records do not determine legal ownership of a dog.  Likely the rescue would be contacted and asked to check their records for the actual owner.

5 hours ago, Crs97 said:

The rehoming clause issue has arisen with Ellen, Chris Pratt, and now here.  When I adopted my first dog from a shelter over 25 years ago, I was a new lawyer who still read every word of a contract before I signed it.  I came across the "you must return the dog to the shelter" language and asked how often they had that happen.  i remember that the woman helping me told me the language had to be in the contract, but the dog would be better off if I found it a new home because the shelter was so full that a returned dog didn't really have a chance.  Of course, I didn't need to rehome my dog, who was a beloved family member until her death from cancer many years ago, but I am reminded of her every time I hear about someone being in trouble for not returning a dog to the shelter.  Have the rules tightened up, or was my person wrong when she told me that?  Since we only hear about it after the rehomed dog has popped up in another shelter, I wonder how much is boilerplate CYA and how much of it actually makes sense as a policy.

A shelter and a rescue are two different things.  Lisa runs a rescue.  

[MrsWitter]

On 2/20/2019 at 2:14 PM, Crs97 said:

The rehoming clause issue has arisen with Ellen, Chris Pratt, and now here.  When I adopted my first dog from a shelter over 25 years ago, I was a new lawyer who still read every word of a contract before I signed it.  I came across the "you must return the dog to the shelter" language and asked how often they had that happen.  i remember that the woman helping me told me the language had to be in the contract, but the dog would be better off if I found it a new home because the shelter was so full that a returned dog didn't really have a chance.  Of course, I didn't need to rehome my dog, who was a beloved family member until her death from cancer many years ago, but I am reminded of her every time I hear about someone being in trouble for not returning a dog to the shelter.  Have the rules tightened up, or was my person wrong when she told me that?  Since we only hear about it after the rehomed dog has popped up in another shelter, I wonder how much is boilerplate CYA and how much of it actually makes sense as a policy.

Building on what @yourmomiseasy said, it sounds like you adopted your dog from a kill shelter, which is why the woman suggested rehoming yourself instead of returning. It depends on the local laws, but high-intake shelters can and do euthanize surrendered dogs immediately (some don’t even go to a cage-they are just brought to the back room). Stray dogs have to be held for a certain period of time to allow an owner to reclaim them, which gives them a better chance of being pulled by a rescue group or being adopted once their stray hold is up. Honestly, depending on the shelter, they might care very little about that language in a contract (and not have the time/resources to enforce it), but a rescue cares a lot. Because rescues don’t euthanize for space, there’s no reason that you wouldn’t return a dog directly to the rescue because the dog would not be in danger. The woman at the shelter you adopted from might just been advising you on the side so you knew the potential consequences for your dog if returned. I’m happy you had so many wonderful years together with your girl. ❤️🐾

Also, just as an FYI for those asking about microchips: the name of the rescue is usually never taken off the microchip. I adopted my dog eight years ago and the rescue’s name is still on the chip. You add your name and contact information (and an emergency contact person if you can’t be reached) as well, but the rescue’s name stays there forever- precisely because of situations like this one with Dorit & PK.

Edited February 22, 2019 by MrsWitter

[aussieinsydney]

It might have been mentioned but I wonder if Lucy bit Dorit's kids because they're small and may have been a little rough with her?

[KungFuBunny]

[ButterQueen]

On 2/11/2019 at 4:56 PM, nexxie said:

imo it’s high time LVP is called on her shit - and I have to think it’s deserved, since even Kyle has finally unstuck her lips from Lisa’s ass.

Kyle just wants to be queen bee....damn her friendship with Lisa.

[Carolina Girl]

On 2/20/2019 at 11:14 AM, Crs97 said:

The rehoming clause issue has arisen with Ellen, Chris Pratt, and now here.  When I adopted my first dog from a shelter over 25 years ago, I was a new lawyer who still read every word of a contract before I signed it.  I came across the "you must return the dog to the shelter" language and asked how often they had that happen.  i remember that the woman helping me told me the language had to be in the contract, but the dog would be better off if I found it a new home because the shelter was so full that a returned dog didn't really have a chance.  Of course, I didn't need to rehome my dog, who was a beloved family member until her death from cancer many years ago, but I am reminded of her every time I hear about someone being in trouble for not returning a dog to the shelter.  Have the rules tightened up, or was my person wrong when she told me that?  Since we only hear about it after the rehomed dog has popped up in another shelter, I wonder how much is boilerplate CYA and how much of it actually makes sense as a policy.

I adopt my German Shepherd Dogs from a Northern California Rescue organization.  They are thorough and actually come out to your house and inspect it before they allow you to take possession.  The contract demands that if for any reason you cannot keep the dogs, you are to contact them and they will even retrieve them from your home.  

One day, my dogs (a brother and sister) got out when my gardner didn't latch the gate well enough upon leaving and they were picked up by Animal Control and taken to the local shelter.  They, of  course, were microchipped, but the Rescue Organization hadn't processed the paperwork to transfer ownership to MY name and when they got the call from the County (KILL) Shelter they lambasted me over the phone and told me to get those dogs out of the shelter by the end of the day or they would pick them up and fine me $500 PER DOG.  

I see upthread that someone mentioned it's NOT customary for Rescue Organizations to change contact information for microchips.  Good to know.

Edited February 22, 2019 by Carolina Girl

[ButterQueen]

On 2/12/2019 at 10:24 PM, ChitChat said:

She should.  Kyle bugged me when Lisa mentioned that she wasn't doing well since her brother's death and Kyle had to chime in that she's had some problems too.  Did she have something as tragic happen as a sibling who committed suicide?  If she had something that serious, well then, ok, but if not, just STFU Kyle.  

Kyle is not a good friend.  She came on like a bitch at the dog place.  She looks bad too.

[nexxie]

19 minutes ago, ButterQueen said:

Kyle just wants to be queen bee....damn her friendship with Lisa.

I posted that before the new season began. In the first episode LVP screwed over three “friends” (Teddi, Kyle and Dorit) right from the get-go - it’s not hard to see where this train is headed.

[ButterQueen]

On 2/12/2019 at 10:43 PM, TexasGal said:

Denise seems really nice, but I’m surprised by the couple people saying she looks natural - I think her face looks awful and Rinna level messed up!

I agree.....plastic Barbie face.

[ButterQueen]

On 2/12/2019 at 11:24 PM, jaybird2 said:

i'm tired of the piling on lvp every season.  i will watch a few more episodes but if this continues i won't be watching.  i only like lvp.

I skipped most of the last seasons, after that icicle, Eileen Davidson, was such a stealth bitch to LVP.  

I hate Kyle’s hair.  It’s just there.

LVP looks gorgeous in her TH’s, in the black top.

[ButterQueen]

3 hours ago, nexxie said:

I posted that before the new season began. In the first episode LVP screwed over three “friends” (Teddi, Kyle and Dorit) right from the get-go - it’s not hard to see where this train is headed.

I didn’t see it that way at all.  I saw Kyle showing zero compassion for her friend going through a very hard time.  What did LVP do to Dorit and Teddy?  From where I am watching, LVP let Dorit off the hook very graciously.  And I saw nothing that was done to Teddi.

[langford peel]

Dorito isn’t a friend. She is one of those birds that eat the ticks out of a rhinos asshole.

I think they are called oxpeckers.

As opposed to PK who is what you call a limppecker.

[renatae]

On 2/19/2019 at 8:38 AM, chenoa333 said:

Looks like enough food to feed all the Marines at Camp Pendleton. 

Haha! I was actually bowled over, because, except for the big White Party types of affairs, these women barely eat a couple of crackers at their luncheons, so I knew this was going to go to waste. I always laugh when I see a Fatburger stand, because I wonder who in BH  would admit to eating such a thing, much less do it in front of others!

[renatae]

On 2/14/2019 at 2:11 PM, Jel said:

This year it looks like the "Lisa is a master manipulator" "Chess player" "sniper from the side" stuff is going way beyond.

Lisa says she didn't do something? No matter, we, the supporting cast of BHoBH say she did, so she did. Apparently LVP no longer gets so much as a say in what she does or thinks. Eyeroll!

The ladies can dress that shit up any way they like, and admitedly, they have fancified it up some, but it's still just a variant of gas lighting.  

This! All this "Lisa is a chess player, etc." has been going on so long that one can't help but wonder that, if Lisa really rolls this way, why are they still so dumb to be able to be victimized by her? Hearing, "Lisa said I should say this or do that, it's not my fault" makes me wonder why they would idiotically allow themselves to be led around by the nose by someone who is supposedly a master manipulator.

Which is exactly why I think they are all less than truthful, to put it mildly.

Edited February 24, 2019 by renatae

[renatae]

On 2/17/2019 at 9:08 AM, candle96 said:

Given this crowd, I'd also be sad to know how much of it went uneaten. Hopefully at least the Bravo crew ate some. I had to chuckle when both Erika and Lisa were saying, "I love a good hot dog at a barbecue," and they're both eating a plain hot dog, sans bun, with a fork and knife. Oh ladies. That barely counts.

Let's not forget they both qualified their "love" of bunless hot dogs with "one or two a year." These people slay me!

[Aunt Kiki]

Just an observation from a sporadic viewer of this franchise - I wonder if Lisa really was conflicted about Dorit and PK wanting to adopt a dog from the get-go but eventually relented so as not to create an automatic conflict before the season began.  Same as Kyle and Maurcio agreeing to "sell their house" that really didn't  100% belong to them, and giving them air time on MDL.  Dorit managed to screw both of them.  Talk about biting the hand that feeds you......no joke intended....

Maybe one of the reasons that John was so angry was that the rescue put a lot of effort into proper placement (twice) and the return of the second dog to a kill shelter was the last straw.  

I don't care for Dorit and PK; IMO they are grifters of the highest order.  I smell desperation from Dorit this season.

Not impressed with Kyle or the new Teddi this season.  The others.....meh so far.

[Alonzo Mosely FBI]

On 2/22/2019 at 5:59 PM, ButterQueen said:

Kyle is not a good friend.  She came on like a bitch at the dog place.  She looks bad too.

Kyle is a child stuck in her teen acting days to the brat pack Bethenny days. She is Vyle and incapable of friendship.  She is so immature.  I have always given her (somewhat) of the benefit of the doubt because Mauricio seems to stick with her but then I think what is his angle? I feel like she handles the kids and the home and he handles The Office and her celebrity from the show keeps him from running for zee hills. 

PS to Mauricio you are gorgeous but you need to lose 10 lbs the weight he has put on make his head look shunken. We lost David Beador who I thought was, though a whiny ass, HOT, we need ripped Mauricio back. I mean we need it. MMMMmmmk?

[Chalby]

On 2/20/2019 at 4:46 PM, yourmomiseasy said:

.  One of my favorite brunch spots used to be the location of the Pepto Pooch Palace, but I hardly ever went because of parking and last time I tried to go I was pissed to see that pink monstrosity in its place.  It really is  garish shade of pepto pink.  I've never gone in because my dogs don't wear clothes and do not want any new siblings and it isn't worth parking just to poke my head in and if I am parked over there it's probably to buy buttons and that's a couple blocks farther west and it isn't worth the walk just to look.

Regardless of its colour, or clientele, so long as dogs are being rescued and rehomed should remain the priority of Lisa's building. I commend LVP as you can see her love of animals comes from a sincere concern. At least she is doing her bit, despite having a very full plate. How many other 'wives' put their money where their mouths are?

[Chalby]

On 2/18/2019 at 11:30 PM, langford peel said:

I only mentioned the Kray’s because those are names that everyone would recognize. Their heirs lived on and organized crime was around inEngland just as it was in America. Anyone who owned a bar or especially a club had to deal with them.

I remember when the Krays were running their businesses and they were so unpredictable it was hard to ever get a read on them, or what they were up too. If Ken had to interact with them, then he was smart enough to appear to be on the peripheral while working within the restaurant industry.

[Chalby]

On 2/16/2019 at 5:55 PM, lezlers said:

...but Teddi's business is NOT a pyramid scheme.  

Thank you for clarifying this. I am sure there are plenty of people that smirk at the title "Accountability coach" but after having met a handful of people who have benefitted from the services, I understand why there's a need. Many creative people get into their heads far too much, perseverate on the unnecessary, but can't stop.  I recognize how this service helps their clients be grounded and become focused, and further assist with determining priorities (and all without impacting/interfering their creative process).

[Chalby]

On 2/15/2019 at 1:52 PM, nexxie said:

“Dorit is devastated by this,” says the source. “Lisa did eventually acknowledge that she believes Dorit had the best of intentions. But right now, Dorit is unconvinced of the same with Lisa.”

Dorit is the one who dumped the dog, yet she is questioning whether LVP believes Dorit had good intentions? Who cares? Dorit should have returned the dog, and should not be expecting a pat on the head. She messed up, and it's done. Why is she still perseverating on Lisa's reaction, or lack thereof? Time to move on.

[Crs97]

3 minutes ago, Chalby said:

Why is she still perseverating on Lisa's reaction, or lack thereof? Time to move on.

Didn’t earlier posters mention that LVP tends to rehash old arguments on air?  Maybe Dorit and LVP had already had these conversations and apologies before the cameras started rolling, and LVP blindsided her by revisiting it when filming began?  I don’t watch enough to know, it’s certainly a possibility with these women.

[Chalby]

On 2/15/2019 at 2:49 PM, Rosiejuliemom said:

The more I think about this, the more suspect Teddi is.

She did make those sly comments you noted.

Was she trying to get it on camera in retaliation for Dorit's behavior last year?

I have a feeling a lot of people were outraged at Dorit and PK about the dog, and Dorit wasn't bothered about it until she heard 'people were talking'. Only then was Dorit worried she would come off as a bad dog owner. So yes, I think Teddi was the only one in the group willing to share the Dorit and PK gossip because Teddi loves animals. I also think the group is secretly happy that the gossip got out. You can commit crime in LA, have questionable morals, but DO NOT ignore an animal. 

[Chalby]

On 2/15/2019 at 4:42 PM, lezlers said:

I think the good things Denise has done (including taking in Charlie's kids with another woman when neither of them were fit to care for them) FAR outweigh some bad decisions she made regarding romantic partners when she was young.

Excellent post. I am not about to dump on a woman for decisions made in her twenties/early thirties and I won't judge her given I do not know her. I have read all the gossip and stories that have been written about her, and so far her honesty and ability to own her behaviour (without apology) sits well with me. I remember when people were intent on dragging Camille through the mud (escort) when she first came on. Sad statement for twenty-first century. Then again, maybe I am the only poster who made really embarrassing decisions when I was young, but now embrace them for helping define who I presently am.

[Chalby]

On 2/13/2019 at 3:47 PM, Juliegirlj said:

. However, her lack of sympathy towards Eileen when her sibling died makes me think LVP is an elitist that thinks everything SHE goes through is more important. 

Was it lack of sympathy or lack of experience on LVP's part? When did Eileen share the death of her sibling? Eileen is so good at explaining her feelings and concerns and she didn't leave things unsaid. I loved her on housewives, but not everyone is as gifted as her in communication.  I know that I was guilty of not knowing what to say when I learned of my friends' loved ones dying, and especially ignorant if it involved suicide. I was fearful of saying the wrong thing, or making it worse. Having recently lost a loved to suicide myself, I NOW (FINALLY) know what to say and do. I wish there had been a handbook twenty years ago on how to assist a friend in grief, and I still apologize today for not knowing how my giving her 'space' actually hurt her more. Ah well, we all learn in our own time...