S09.E08: Showdown at Villa Rosa

[eleanorofaquitaine]

4 minutes ago, ChitChat said:

At least it's a step in the right direction!  It speaks highly of someone who would take the time to either start or get involved with this kind of initiative.  I was curious though when they said it passed by 2/3's vote (correct me if I'm wrong.)  Who were in the 1/3 that voted no and why?  I need to look this up. 

Animal rights issues aren't my issues, but for those who care deeply about these issues, it is a step in the right direction.  In terms of the vote, it appeared to me it was done by voice vote - with voice vote, the presiding officer basically makes his or her best guess as to whether or not the majority supported it. We don't actually know if 1/3 voted against it, I think what he was saying is that it was clear that the resolution had 2/3 majority support (which may be the minimum to pass a non-binding resolution, I am not sure) and therefore, it passed. 

1 minute ago, Higgins said:

It also got the Congressman on TV. 

To be fair to Alcee Hastings, he seems to genuinely care about these issues and it's not like he hasn't been on tv before. Probably not on Bravo, though. 

[Higgins]

1 minute ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

Animal rights issues aren't my issues, but for those who care deeply about these issues, it is a step in the right direction.  In terms of the vote, it appeared to me it was done by voice vote - with voice vote, the presiding officer basically makes his or her best guess as to whether or not the majority supported it. We don't actually know if 1/3 voted against it, I think what he was saying is that it was clear that the resolution had 2/3 majority support (which may be the minimum to pass a non-binding resolution, I am not sure) and therefore, it passed. 

To be fair to Alcee Hastings, he seems to genuinely care about these issues and it's not like he hasn't been on tv before. Probably not on Bravo, though. 

I'm cynical. I grew up in  the DC metro area. 

[SweetieDarling]

8 hours ago, I8A 4RE said:

Let's see... Kyle told us that you have to look at who would benefit from the story, so imo the ones who would "benefit" are

1.Dorit--money and what she thought would be sympathy from the whole world but is really just misplaced sympathy from a bunch of Hi, I'm Teddi bitches. 

2. Effing Rinner. She would so totally sell that story just to try and take LVP down. Also money. 

How she thought VDPD would benefit, I have NO idea. If anything, the story getting out would make them look bad, as if they are inept at screening would-be pet owners, and don't enforce their own rules as far as penalties for improperly changing ownership of the dog (dumping the dog at another shelter, or even "giving the dog to a friend")

[Dutchgirl]

9 minutes ago, Castina said:

Just watched the episode and a few things stood out to me: 

1.  They never expected Lisa to show up at the spin class, that table was set for 6 people.  The restaurant and the ladies knew in advance they would be eating/filming there and Teddi arranged it.  The whole "she didn't even show up" was for the cameras and the tabloid storyline.  

2. Harry's explanation fits other cast members much more than Lisa V ie.. Rinna, Erika and/or Dorit.  In his scenario the plot is to dethrone the queen and take her place.  If Lisa V is the queen the others think she is and gets away with things with production then it makes no sense she desires to dethrone herself.  

3.  I don't see what Lisa gains by leaking the story.  They were already filming and the whole dog thing was a story on film so it was going public already.  At Denise's wedding it's the other ladies who seemed more bothered Lisa V is moving past this and not addressing it.  So it's seems convenient timing that post wedding this story is leaked to stir it all up again.  I just don't see the benefit of Lisa V making that move and think it only hurts a longtime friendship with PK. 

4.  Lisa's reaction to Kyle.  They have had a fun friendship to watch but there has always been underlying trust issues as we have seen throughout the seasons.  But despite those I think there was still love and friendship there which is why I think Lisa V reacts so strongly to Kyle.  This was not discussed pre-filming (as I think most of the scenes on this show are done) , Lisa V was blindsided by Kyle.  She had no warning Kyle was coming there with this topic of conversation and then despite swearing on her children etc.. Kyle stood there and said she didn't believe her.  For Lisa V I think that is the lightbulb moment where feels Kyle just wasn't the friend she thought she was.   

I think it's similar to the moment Luanne had with Dorinda on RHNYC.  That feeling that despite disagreements and nonsense over the years there is a genuine love and friendship there but in each case one says something to the other that makes them reveal their true feelings and the friendship dies.  I think in both shows, these two moments are some of the most real and honest moments we see.  I know that feeling, it happens in life, and I think there we saw real, unscripted pain and realization.  It's also why these two rifts have lasted as long as they have, the pain is real.  I have more hope for Luann and Dorinda though.

5.  Finally, it could be editing of course, but the face on Teddi when Dorit did her crying scene made me wonder if Teddi thought  she was milking it.  Kyle as well.   But they are so deeply into this storyline that they aren't seeing other options.  Not with cheerleaders Rinna and Erika on the sidelines encouraging them.  

It's cute how the women, particularly Rinna, exhaust themselves explaining how unethical LVP is...but the target on LVP's back is really just for her paycheque. 

Sure, LVP likely coordinated with the Johns to shame Dorit (I might do the same, Dorit was an irresponsible shit), but I also think Ken and Pandora have much more to do with planting stories than Lisa wants to know about. She needs deniability, and I'm sure she has it.

Whatever they're doing as a family, it's working. She's the most popular housewife, she's successful, she's beautiful and without her, I'm afraid it isn't much of a show. There's only so many minutes you can fill with Teddi's self-esteem guru bullshit and her over-eager husband (that stupid hat tho), Rinna and Harry are so sweaty-desperate, scrambling to stay relevant ("I KNOW CINDY CRAWFORD, I'M A HUSTLER. HERE'S A BLUEBERRY PIE!!!!"), Erika Jayne showing up to every event in drag, or Kyle pretending to be the quivering little sister in every. single. scenario.

LVP's been gone for half an episode and already I'm bored.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

8 minutes ago, Jel said:

What kind of thing exactly? That's a vague and general criticism, but what specifically, that would count as evidence in our mock trial? 😉  

I'm really trying to see this as you have laid it out here, but I just can't because all I really have to go on is Kyle's paranoia about Lisa and her "chess playing".  I hope someone will take the time to write out all Lisa's offenses, so I can see them in black and white. 

In the actual evidence column, we have Radar Online telling us that Lisa was not the source of the story. That's actual evidence, but somehow, that is dismissed because "Lisa had a minion do it! DUH!" or "Lisa has a relationship with Radar Online -- of course they are going to lie for her -- DUH!"  Kyle and co. will not let the truth deter them from their theory! 

In the actual evidence column (character division 😉 ) we also have Lisa's accomplishments including the things she's done for animals, things she's done for others, and friends she has defended (sometimes to her detriment) over the years.  (Her jabby sense of humor and her ability to say things in "not so many words" are actually enjoyed by some people.)

From my pov, the other HWs are pissed that Lisa just keeps winning. I see them as petty and competitive, and their sudden championing of Dorit (over this, off all things) seems disingenuous at best (that's me being very generous).  It's all very sketchy.

And even if Lisa did plant the story, which I don't think she did, I sincerely do not care anyway. It's all a giant nothingburger to me. 

I just don't think that EVERY single person throughout the years who has claimed that Lisa has asked them to advance some argument that she didn't want to be seeing as advancing herself is lying. Yes, Brandi Glanville is a narcissist, but I think Lisa probably did want her to stir the pot on Kyle's marriage. No, I don't think Rinna is lying when she says that Lisa told her how to plant stories, etc. I do think that Lisa probably thought that Teddi would do her dirty work re Dorit. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire, and it stretches credibility to think that EVERYONE is making up stories about LVP's shady ways because they are just so jealous.

Lisa's accomplishments aren't evidence, to me, that she can't be manipulative. I can see with my own eyes she is manipulative, even while acknowledging she is a good marketer.  (Her support for animal rights isn't evidence of anything to me because I don't have that strong a reaction to animals and pets. It's an issue she cares about and good for her. But there are plenty of people who care deeply about animals while treating other human beings badly).

[Chit Chat]

2 minutes ago, Higgins said:

It also got the Congressman on TV "fighting" against what almost all Americans would disapprove of. Not that impressive.

Didn't it involve the U.S. collectively taking a stand against countries who take part in this practice?  I agree that most Americans would be against this abuse to animals, but for a country to step up to the plate and condemn another country for those actions is actually a big deal, IMO.  Politics is a tricky business, and there are those who don't want to appear to ruffle another countries feathers!  

[Jel]

4 minutes ago, Dutchgirl said:

It's cute how the women, particularly Rinna, exhaust themselves explaining how unethical LVP is...but the target on LVP's back is really just for her paycheque. 

Sure, LVP likely coordinated with the Johns to shame Dorit (I might do the same, Dorit was an irresponsible shit), but I also think Ken and Pandora have much more to do with planting stories than Lisa wants to know about. She needs deniability, and I'm sure she has it.

Whatever they're doing as a family, it's working. She's the most popular housewife, she's successful, she's beautiful and without her, I'm afraid it isn't much of a show. There's only so many minutes you can fill with Teddi's self-esteem guru bullshit and her over-eager husband (that stupid hat tho), Rinna and Harry are so sweaty-desperate, scrambling to stay relevant ("I KNOW CINDY CRAWFORD, I'M A HUSTLER. HERE'S A BLUEBERRY PIE!!!!"), Erika Jayne showing up to every event in drag, or Kyle pretending to be the quivering little sister in every. single. scenario.

LVP's been gone for half an episode and already I'm bored.

So much awesomeness in one post! "Sweaty desperate" is my new favorite.

[Booger666]

I don’t think the ROL article benefits LVP at all.  It shows that Vanderpump Dogs adopts out puppies to families that aren’t ready to have puppies, adopts out animals with behaviorial problems (if the biting is true), and doesn’t adhere to their adoption policies.  I think all of this makes Dorit and Vanderpump Dogs look bad.

I don’t believe Erika’s “only 11 people know” statement.  How on earth would she know who knows what?  I’m sure this was discussed at Vanderpump Dogs while customers were around.  By everyone involved while at bars or out shopping.  I think it is likely that a Vanderpump Dogs employee/volunteer or their friend did this in anger about a dog being dumped or a hanger-on to any of the ladies or production did it for money.

[Higgins]

10 minutes ago, ChitChat said:

Didn't it involve the U.S. collectively taking a stand against countries who take part in this practice?  I agree that most Americans would be against this abuse to animals, but for a country to step up to the plate and condemn another country for those actions is actually a big deal, IMO.  Politics is a tricky business, and there are those who don't want to appear to ruffle another countries feathers!  

Not in my opinion.  There is no risk involved here only the opportunity for reward.

[Jel]

6 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I just don't think that EVERY single person throughout the years who has claimed that Lisa has asked them to advance some argument that she didn't want to be seeing as advancing herself is lying. Yes, Brandi Glanville is a narcissist, but I think Lisa probably did want her to stir the pot on Kyle's marriage. No, I don't think Rinna is lying when she says that Lisa told her how to plant stories, etc. I do think that Lisa probably thought that Teddi would do her dirty work re Dorit. At some point, where there is smoke, there is fire, and it stretches credibility to think that EVERYONE is making up stories about LVP's shady ways because they are just so jealous.

Lisa's accomplishments aren't evidence, to me, that she can't be manipulative. I can see with my own eyes she is manipulative, even while acknowledging she is a good marketer.  (Her support for animal rights isn't evidence of anything to me because I don't have that strong a reaction to animals and pets. It's an issue she cares about and good for her. But there are plenty of people who care deeply about animals while treating other human beings badly).

I don't think she treats other humans badly though. On the contrary, I think she sometimes is too kind to people and gives them the benefit of the doubt when they really don't deserve it (Brandi, Cedric, Kyle, etc.) Her charity extends to the underdog. 

I think we need a PTV forum definition of what it is to be "manipulative". Is it like when Rinna keeps bringing up the dog story out of the blue? Or when someone says at a nice dinner, Let's all air out our grievances (when she knows there are current grievances against Lisa?") Or when Erika tells Teddi, "You've got to bring the proof".  Is it anything like these other HWs who seemingly have axes to grind with Lisa, but try to get others (like Teddi) to grind those axes?

[Castina]

Just for fun let's accept that every cast member is right, that Lisa V "manipulates" them into creating story lines or spreading gossip.  

So what?  Don't do it?  What the hell happened to free will? 

I mean seriously, if she is a sniper from the side and you are all aware of it then why do what she (allegedly) wants you to do?  

It's because they want to do what they are doing and when it all goes sideways they start crying that the devil made them do it.  Well if someone whispers "bring that magazine on vacation so we can get Maurizio cheating gossip on the show" don't do it.  Tell them to do their own dirty work.  If someone whispers "bring the dog on tv and we can talk about it" don't do it.  Tell them to do their own dirty work.  

It just seems like a simple solution. Follow your conscience. I'm a pretty average person and if I don't want to do something, if I think it's cruel, or gossipy and not worth the air it takes to give it breath, I find it really easy to just not do it.  

These ladies do what they want to do. End of. 

btw....just read this article Camille shared on her twitter account:

https://people.com/pets/rhobh-puppygate-scandal-where-is-lucy-lucy-apple-juice-dog/

I am not a dog person, have no pets so I'm not into this story because of any love for animals.  But reading the article it does make me wonder if there is more behind the story of the dog then we are hearing.  Teddi alludes to being told a far worse story which is why she got involved.  It seems the behavior of the dog on return is curious. 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

Just now, Jel said:

I don't think she treats other humans badly though. On the contrary, I think she sometimes is too kind to people and gives them the benefit of the doubt when they really don't deserve it (Brandi, Cedric, Kyle, etc.) Her charity extends to the underdog. 

I think we need a PTV forum definition of what it is to be "manipulative". Is it like when Rinna keeps bringing up the dog story out of the blue? Or when someone says at a nice dinner, Let's all air out our grievances (when she knows there are current grievances against Lisa?") Or when Erika tells Teddi, "You've got to bring the proof".  Is it anything like these other HWs who seemingly have axes to grind with Lisa, but try to get others (like Teddi) to grind those axes?

I think that LVP can treat people well. I wasn't saying that all she does is treat people badly. I was saying that her love if animals is not an inoculation against treating people badly. It's not, to me, evidence that she can't be manipulative at times.

I understand the desire to deflect those claims and engage in whataboutism. But again, Rinna's propensity to try to manipulate a situation is not evidence exonerating LVP. Truly, it's possible that they are all pretty manipulative people. It's just LVP who has an army of defenders who insist that all of her actions are right and just.

[SweetieDarling]

1 hour ago, howiveaddict said:

Except tag lines are made after the season is recorded.  And production driven. 

Well, that picture proves the story was leaked by PK or Dorit... "Blonde Beauty"?

(typed in sarcastifont)

[Otherkate]

6 minutes ago, Castina said:

Just for fun let's accept that every cast member is right, that Lisa V "manipulates" them into creating story lines or spreading gossip.  

So what?  Don't do it?  What the hell happened to free will? 

I mean seriously, if she is a sniper from the side and you are all aware of it then why do what she (allegedly) wants you to do?  

Seriously. These women are thirsty idiots and that isn't Lisa's fault. Does she sometimes steer them in a direction she wants them to go in? Maybe. 

Be less dumb.

I loved that Kyle's "evidence" was "everyone is saying it." Ah yes, a very solid argument!

The idea that Lisa had to learn how to plant stories from LVP is absolutely hilarious. Lisa has probably been desperately trying to plant stories for her own PR and trying to convince the paps to show up to photograph her since the 80s. Please.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

9 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

I don’t think the ROL article benefits LVP at all.  It shows that Vanderpump Dogs adopts out puppies to families that aren’t ready to have puppies, adopts out animals with behaviorial problems (if the biting is true), and doesn’t adhere to their adoption policies.  I think all of this makes Dorit and Vanderpump Dogs look bad.

I don’t believe Erika’s “only 11 people know” statement.  How on earth would she know who knows what?  I’m sure this was discussed at Vanderpump Dogs while customers were around.  By everyone involved while at bars or out shopping.  I think it is likely that a Vanderpump Dogs employee/volunteer or their friend did this in anger about a dog being dumped or a hanger-on to any of the ladies or production did it for money.

I mean, just for me, I think it's unrealistic to expect that every time a dog is adopted out, the situation is going to work out. I think we're in a weird situation where a lot of people are claiming this reflects so badly on Vanderpump Dogs in order to exonerate Lisa, which actually lets Dorit off the hook.

The very fact that Vanderpump Dogs has a return policy shows that they recognize reality - not all adoptions are going to work. I don't fault them for that or for having a policy that addresses that. Dorit's failures are Dorit's failures. I truly have zero issue with LVP wanting to defend the business- in fact, I would find it odd and bad management if she didn't. What I don't understand is why she isn't upfront about it.

[Otherkate]

That People article made me really angry, but also didn't surprise me at all. 

[KungFuBunny]

11 hours ago, bosawks said:

Chicken paillard on the well done side!?!?

WTF Dorit?

I’m fairly sure even a Vanderpump restaurant doesn’t serve their chicken on the rare side...

When Dorit spoke - I heard Chicken Pie

[eleanorofaquitaine]

One last thing about whether or not LVP benefited from having the story out. I could understand the argument if they weren't filming the show. But by the time the Radar story came out, everyone including LVP was aware that this was going to be a story line for the season. So LVP was aware that there was the possibility this could hurt the business and was doing her best to control the narrative. 

Personally, I don't think it does reflect that badly but I could see why she would think it might. But mostly, I think she was angry at Dorit and that was her primary reason for wanting it out there.

[Jel]

1 minute ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I think that LVP can treat people well. I wasn't saying that all she does is treat people badly. I was saying that her love if animals is not an inoculation against treating people badly. It's not, to me, evidence that she can't be manipulative at times.

I understand the desire to deflect those claims and engage in whataboutism. But again, Rinna's propensity to try to manipulate a situation is not evidence exonerating LVP. Truly, it's possible that they are all pretty manipulative people. It's just LVP who has an army of defenders who insist that all of her actions are right and just.

I would love it if we could have a working definition of what it is to be manipulative. My point was that it gets tossed out about Lisa a lot, like it's just a fact that's she's manipulative. And I'd like to know what exactly that means. What specifically (besides other HWs declarations) makes her manipulative? That wasn't meant to be me engaging in "whataboutism" , but rather a genuine question -- how are we defining manipulation and why are some people faulted for it when others are not?  If it's bad, it's bad across the board, no? If everyone's guilty of it then it doesn't seem fair to single out only one person out for it, but that does seem to happen.

(PS I'm not a part of any army, and I don't think all of Lisa's actions are right or just. I think she's a flawed human like the rest of us.)

[TattleTeeny]

I didn't read the ROL article but is there even anything in it (verifiable quotes, etc.) that indicates, much less proves, that it had to be "put out" by someone in the midst of it? Why couldn't the ROL staff stalk some social media and make a couple of calls and just vaguely fill in the blanks? 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

Just now, Jel said:

I would love it if we could have a working definition of what it is to be manipulative. My point was that it gets tossed out about Lisa a lot, like it's just a fact that's she's manipulative. And I'd like to know what exactly that means. What specifically (besides other HWs declarations) makes her manipulative? That wasn't meant to be me engaging in "whataboutism" , but rather a genuine question -- how are we defining manipulation and why are some people faulted for it when others are not?  If it's bad, it's bad across the board, no? If everyone's guilty of it then it doesn't seem fair to single out only one person out for it, but that does seem to happen.

(PS I'm not a part of any army, and I don't think all of Lisa's actions are right or just. I think she's a flawed human like the rest of us.)

I mean, you were by mentioning Rinna. Personally, I think Rinna is too upfront to be truly manipulative. There are other reasons to dislike her but I feel like people know where they stand with her.

To me, manipulative means someone who uses others, someone who tells one person one set of facts and another person a different set of facts to pit people against each other, and/or outright lies to people to get their way. Unlike Brandi or, say, Kim, Lisa isn't a narcissist, I don't think. But she does withhold or use selective information to maintain control of a situation and that IMO makes her manipulative. 

[Jel]

23 minutes ago, SweetieDarling said:

Well, that picture proves the story was leaked by PK or Dorit... "Blonde Beauty"?

(typed in sarcastifont)

My burning question: How much did Rinna get paid for selling the story to Radar Online? She's a hustler you know! 😉

[Booger666]

14 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I mean, just for me, I think it's unrealistic to expect that every time a dog is adopted out, the situation is going to work out.

Absolutely.  That’s why dogs from rescues, breeders and friends dogs wind up on shelters all the time.  Vanderpump Dogs (and Dorit) didn’t follow its policies for a dog needing to be rehomed.  The ROL article can  be construed as Vanderpump Dogs adopting out “bad” dogs to just anyone and then not caring what happens afterwards.  This would negatively impact donations and adoptions.  I think LVP was mad at Dorit, but not to the level of risking the Vanderpump Dogs reputation and brand with a ROL article.

[bosawks]

I mean the very point of the HoWives arguing that one of them is manipulative is ridiculous.

Of course they are, they are on this show!

[SweetieDarling]

I am still confused as to the purpose of Kyle's visit to the Villa Rosa. She said she didn't go there to call LVP a liar...but from what I could gather, she claims her purpose was to let LVP know that the consensus was that LVP leaked the ROL story, and regardless of what LVP says and whose lives she swears on, and the complete lack of any proof, Kyle believes them...so, isn't that the same as calling LVP a liar?

How did she think the conversation was going to go? Did she think LVP would say she did it? She had to know LVP would not admit to anything (even if she did it), and would not be happy with Kyle not believing her.

Did Rinna manipulate her into going tell her to go? Was this a planned taping time? LPV seemed to be expecting it to be a lovely visit.

[Jel]

2 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I mean, you were by mentioning Rinna. Personally, I think Rinna is too upfront to be truly manipulative. There are other reasons to dislike her but I feel like people know where they stand with her.

To me, manipulative means someone who uses others, someone who tells one person one set of facts and another person a different set of facts to pit people against each other, and/or outright lies to people to get their way. Unlike Brandi or, say, Kim, Lisa isn't a narcissist, I don't think. But she does withhold or use selective information to maintain control of a situation and that IMO makes her manipulative. 

Thank you for that definition -- I feel like we are getting somewhere, EleanorFaquitaine! 🙂

Assuming this is true about Lisa, how do we distinguish her brand of manipulation (from that of others) so to place her in a unique category that earns her the title of "manipulator" over and above the usual type of manipulative behavior (going by this definition) that the other women on the show also engage in? What things specifically has she done that puts her on a different level? 

[Carolina Girl]

30 minutes ago, Otherkate said:

I loved that Kyle's "evidence" was "everyone is saying it." Ah yes, a very solid argument!

Wow.  The legal profession sure suffered a major loss when Kyle opted not to go to law school.

[Rosiejuliemom]

16 hours ago, janiema said:

One is never quite sure of the timeline for these shows but it seems that while the others were riding bikes (albeit for charity) and whining about her absence, Lisa was involved with a Congressman passing a bill relating to animal cruelty. 

We actually do have specific dates and a pretty good timeline for this episode. The Radar story broke 9/11. HR 401 passed 9/12 (same day as spin class). Kyle and Lisa's fight was sometime between 9/12 and 9/15 as Lisa mentioned in her blog that it happened before her birthday. **EDIT** Lisa clarified on Twitter that the fight was the day before her birthday, so 9/14. Rinna's cupcake tweet was 9/16 and the group photo shoot where Lisa refused to be around the others was 9/17.  Busy week.

16 hours ago, nexxie said:

From Rinna’s blog - “A picture is worth a thousand words.”

So, Rinna's trying to add "stab in the back" to the list of words/phrases nobody uses except Lisa? Hope she didn't dislocate something with that reach.

This all just needs to be nipped in the bud. Now.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Rosiejuliemom
Exact dates are my jam.

[nexxie]

1 hour ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

(Her support for animal rights isn't evidence of anything to me because I don't have that strong a reaction to animals and pets. It's an issue she cares about and good for her. But there are plenty of people who care deeply about animals while treating other human beings badly).

Lisa’s carefully created animal rights image doesn’t even apply to her own dogs, who are anthropomorphized accessories. And how convenient to protest practices in other countries, but not work to change how veal and other meats are produced in her own country. I guess none of these products are served in her restaurants. Bullshit artist.

[JillThePill]

12 hours ago, JD5166 said:

Doritos indignation! Un-truthity-truths!!!! She so planted that story, or maybe her money grubbing husband did. 

I could believe this because Dorit still does not seem to really believe she did anything wrong... So I could see her selling the story thinking she was playing her part in the LVP takedown because that's what the biddies keep telling her. Dorit is no mental giant. 

Then again, I can't shake the feeling it was Rinna. 

[Dixie Sugarbaker]

29 minutes ago, Jel said:

I would love it if we could have a working definition of what it is to be manipulative. My point was that it gets tossed out about Lisa a lot, like it's just a fact that's she's manipulative. And I'd like to know what exactly that means. What specifically (besides other HWs declarations) makes her manipulative? That wasn't meant to be me engaging in "whataboutism" , but rather a genuine question -- how are we defining manipulation and why are some people faulted for it when others are not?  If it's bad, it's bad across the board, no? If everyone's guilty of it then it doesn't seem fair to single out only one person out for it, but that does seem to happen.

(PS I'm not a part of any army, and I don't think all of Lisa's actions are right or just. I think she's a flawed human like the rest of us.)

30 minutes ago, Jel said:

I would love it if we could have a working definition of what it is to be manipulative. My point was that it gets tossed out about Lisa a lot, like it's just a fact that's she's manipulative. And I'd like to know what exactly that means. What specifically (besides other HWs declarations) makes her manipulative? That wasn't meant to be me engaging in "whataboutism" , but rather a genuine question -- how are we defining manipulation and why are some people faulted for it when others are not?  If it's bad, it's bad across the board, no? If everyone's guilty of it then it doesn't seem fair to single out only one person out for it, but that does seem to happen.

(PS I'm not a part of any army, and I don't think all of Lisa's actions are right or just. I think she's a flawed human like the rest of us.)

This! I don’t think suggestions to advance a storyline is manipulative when you are on a reality show. All this proves is that LVP is probably a better producer than actress.

PS. Sorry for the double quote - first time to try quotes and FAIL!

[eleanorofaquitaine]

20 minutes ago, Jel said:

Thank you for that definition -- I feel like we are getting somewhere, EleanorFaquitaine! 🙂

Assuming this is true about Lisa, how do we distinguish her brand of manipulation (from that of others) so to place her in a unique category that earns her the title of "manipulator" over and above the usual type of manipulative behavior (going by this definition) that the other women on the show also engage in? What things specifically has she done that puts her on a different level? 

Again, this feels a bit like shifting the goalposts. I certainly have never made the claim that she is the only manipulative one on this show. Brandi, Kim, and Yolanda also had pretty manipulative personalities. Of the current cast, she does strike me as being the most consciously manipulative, though I do think that Dorit is, as well.

The rest of the cast has other negative traits but for instance, I think people know where they stand with Rinna, Erika, and Teddi. Rinna is a loud-mouth people pleaser and Erika is cold but I don't think that they pretend to be okay with people when they aren't.

Edited April 3, 2019 by eleanorofaquitaine

[Booger666]

26 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

I mean, you were by mentioning Rinna. Personally, I think Rinna is too upfront to be truly manipulative. There are other reasons to dislike her but I feel like people know where they stand with her.

To me, manipulative means someone who uses others, someone who tells one person one set of facts and another person a different set of facts to pit people against each other, and/or outright lies to people to get their way. Unlike Brandi or, say, Kim, Lisa isn't a narcissist, I don't think. But she does withhold or use selective information to maintain control of a situation and that IMO makes her manipulative. 

I have missed some episodes so may have this wrong, but didn’t Rinna tell Eden that Kim’s addiction was so bad she was at death’s door expecting or hoping Eden would take it to Kyle?  I think Kyle asked Rinna point blank if she said that and Rinna lied.  Does anyone remember how this played out?  If like I remember, I would put Rinna in the manipulative category.  But I get what you are saying, she is often more in your face about things than the other ladies.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

26 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

Absolutely.  That’s why dogs from rescues, breeders and friends dogs wind up on shelters all the time.  Vanderpump Dogs (and Dorit) didn’t follow its policies for a dog needing to be rehomed.  The ROL article can  be construed as Vanderpump Dogs adopting out “bad” dogs to just anyone and then not caring what happens afterwards.  This would negatively impact donations and adoptions.  I think LVP was mad at Dorit, but not to the level of risking the Vanderpump Dogs reputation and brand with a ROL article.

Maybe I am missing something (which is entirely possible since I missed a number of episodes) but if Dorit rehome the dog without telling Vanderpump Dogs, how are they responsible for violating their policy? I think that most people understand that it is on the owner to inform the business of a change in status. I can't imagine holding Vanderpump Dogs responsible for something they were unaware of. When they were informed, they rectified the situation and that is all anyone can ask of them.

[Rosiejuliemom]

Just now, Booger666 said:

I have missed some episodes so may have this wrong, but didn’t Rinna tell Eden that Kim’s addiction was so bad she was at death’s door expecting or hoping Eden would take it to Kyle?  I think Kyle asked Rinna point blank if she said that and Rinna lied.  Does anyone remember how this played out?  If like I remember, I would put Rinna in the manipulative category.  But I get what you are saying, she is often more in your face about things than the other ladies.

Rinna came down with a sudden case of pretend amnesia when Kyle asked her about it. 

[Higgins]

2 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

Maybe I am missing something (which is entirely possible since I missed a number of episodes) but if Dorit rehome the dog without telling Vanderpump Dogs, how are they responsible for violating their policy? I think that most people understand that it is on the owner to inform the business of a change in status. I can't imagine holding Vanderpump Dogs responsible for something they were unaware of. When they were informed, they rectified the situation and that is all anyone can ask of them.

VPD could defend their contractual position.

[Dixie Sugarbaker]

5 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

The hardest part of the job is education. Members don't know anything and no one has enough staff to truly understand the weird workings of everything. Trying to educate the members and their staff is a commendable thing.

I do this on a state level and you are correct, education is key.  If people knew how ill-informed our elected officials often are when making their decisions, they would be terrified.

[RHJunkie]

I've always thought LVP looks way better wearing casual clothes than dressed up but seeing her in the blazer and jeans combo, she looked way skinnier to me than past seasons...or maybe I'm just remembering wrong. I don't care enough to go and check for comparison. Kudos to production during the scene where they were looking at the 401 resolution vote...I literally laughed out loud seeing the adorable but 'I don't know what the fuck is going on' looks on the dogs faces only for the cameras to go back to all the humans in the room who also had the exact same 'I don't know what the fuck is going on' look on their faces as well, haha.

I've always said that the truth about these 'manipulations' likely lie somewhere in the middle of what both sides are saying. There's smoke there because LVP likely does whisper in people's ears and encourage other people's conversations be brought on camera BUT on the flip side, the constant is that the person that saying shit on camera always has a motive that's outside of LVP. And that is where these accusations of grand manipulation lose me. I think LVP lies about having no role in encouraging shit behind the scenes and as a result, those who get caught with their hand in the cookie jar exaggerate the extent of LVP's role in in their own behaviour in a way to distract the full impact of their actions. It makes NEITHER side right, but if you're going to be on the side that is making accusations and pointing the finger and saying that it's basically someone else's fault that you said or did something stupid, then you better come correct with your evidence, otherwise, you say how you feel and then take your lumps for the shit that YOU actually did. When the evidence of your involvement comes out of your own mouth, there is no talking around that. And that is where these women constantly lose me. What you believe (especially without evidence) does not make it truth. Taking a hard line and portraying your desire for something to be true as the actual truth is not how shit works. You can't obsessively put someone's name in your mouth and automatically think everyone's going to buy your attempt to deflect your indisputable role in a situation by shifting the attention elsewhere.

Erika and Rinna were eating it up. Erika is just as much a sniper from the side as she accused LVP of. She came onto the show and right away made that comment without knowing any of the dynamics outside of what she almost assuredly heard from Yolanda at the time. She bided her time, kissed cheeks and exchanged pleasantries and unlike Rinna who likes to just talk because she likes the sound of her own voice, Erika waited for her chance to pounce. The work Erika and Rinna did to convince Teddi she was set up and the talk about planting stories...that is just as manipulative as what they accuse LVP of doing behind the scenes and neither side would admit to being manipulative, I'm sure. Now, Erika and Rinna's behaviour doesn't diminish LVP's role (to whatever extent) that she refuses to own up to, but I'm watching grown ass women complain about one woman's behaviour while they exhibit the same behaviour in an effort to prove that they're right. I mean, wasn't it Rinna that put it in Kyle's head that she would be able to get through to LVP and she should address it? Isn't that exactly what she said LVP did to her about the Yolanda situation - address the Yolanda situation up front? And by the end of the conversation, Kyle went from 'I can't say that she did it' to 'it's hard when your friend does something like this and you ask yourself why do you have to do that?'. All of these bitches are playing the same game.

Oh Dorit, the victim. Fuck off.

Oh Kyle, you have never defended LVP no matter what. And that's fine that you shouldn't have to defend behaviour you don't condone, but don't pretend like you've risked your character to defend LVP at any cost. You didn't even do that shit for your own sister. I know that LVP was "exonerated" about the Radar thing with Adrienne and looking back at the clip they showed, it was a little suspect. She clarified selling a story as giving information in exchange for a cheque...my immediate thought was, if you're asking that question, are you basing your denial on the fact that you didn't personally receive money for it...and maybe someone else did with information you gave them? LVP is smart enough to maneauver those things (which is why I always say that these women often lose in the court of public opinion because they accuse LVP of the wrong thing). In this case, the way she phrased her denial of her or anyone else she knows would give the dog story...I may be crazy, but I believed her in this case. But in the end, most of them have redeemable qualities but they're all also in large part catty bitches so I honestly can't feel confident about giving any of these women the benefit of the doubt...except for Denise because she hasn't done anything yet to earn suspicion...and Camille has evolved from her first stint on the show and it seems to be consistent.

Edited April 3, 2019 by RHJunkie

[Booger666]

2 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

Maybe I am missing something (which is entirely possible since I missed a number of episodes) but if Dorit rehome the dog without telling Vanderpump Dogs, how are they responsible for violating their policy? I think that most people understand that it is on the owner to inform the business of a change in status. I can't imagine holding Vanderpump Dogs responsible for something they were unaware of. When they were informed, they rectified the situation and that is all anyone can ask of them.

Good question.  Dorit said that she told LVP the next day that the dog was rehomed and I don’t think LVP has denied it (someone will correct me if I’m wrong).  In that case, per their policies LVP should have gotten the new owner’s contact info and told Dorit that the new owner needed to reach out to Vanderpump Dogs so they could go over the application process and adoption contract.  Hopefully this makes sense, if not I can give more explanation.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

1 minute ago, Booger666 said:

Good question.  Dorit said that she told LVP the next day that the dog was rehomed and I don’t think LVP has denied it (someone will correct me if I’m wrong).  In that case, per their policies LVP should have gotten the new owner’s contact info and told Dorit that the new owner needed to reach out to Vanderpump Dogs so they could go over the application process and adoption contract.  Hopefully this makes sense, if not I can give more explanation.

That does make sense. Dorit's story has changed, so it's not like I trust she's telling the truth, but I could see how that would reflect badly on Lisa. Not necessarily on Vanderpump Dogs, if Lisa did not make the staff there aware of the situation. 

[Dixie Sugarbaker]

I am still confused by Dorit’s action of giving away a VPD dog right before filming. She knew that, due to timing, this would be a story. So what was her play? To intentionally cause LVP to be angry with her? Because giving away a dog would do it. Was it to then demand LVP protect her, thereby causing more friction between LVP and Kyle. The timing and action are suspect, and Dorit definitely had a plan. I just haven’t decided what it was and who all were involved. However, I do think the intended end result was to cause LVP trouble.

[Aunt Kiki]

1 minute ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

That does make sense. Dorit's story has changed, so it's not like I trust she's telling the truth, but I could see how that would reflect badly on Lisa. Not necessarily on Vanderpump Dogs, if Lisa did not make the staff there aware of the situation. 

I thought that Dorit never responded to calls from VDP asking for the new owner information after she and LVP had that discuusion.

[Rosiejuliemom]

7 minutes ago, Booger666 said:

In that case, per their policies LVP should have gotten the new owner’s contact info and told Dorit that the new owner needed to reach out to Vanderpump Dogs so they could go over the application process and adoption contract.  Hopefully this makes sense, if not I can give more explanation.

They tried. Dorit "couldn't remember" the name and then started ducking the calls. They were still trying to get the information from Dorit when the shelter contacted VPD and said they had Lucy.

Edited April 3, 2019 by Rosiejuliemom

[OFDgal]

I was thinking as I watched this episode that I might be done with RHBH.  I really don't care who leaked to ROL. Dorit is the puppy dumper and should be called out for it.  Instead, these awful women rallied around her.  Dorit crying was a joke.  Please bitch, if you hadn't dumped the puppy, this wouldn't be a story.  Her and her sloppy husband disgust me.  Obviously they weren't true friends to LVP and Ken if they could turn on them so quickly for something Dorit started but refuses to take accountability for.  Which brings me to Teddi with her holier-than-thou attitude.  Bitch, you were conspiring to out Dorit and then you got caught.  She is quite the spin master pretending to be accountable for her actions while spinning it that she was forced into taking part in this shit show.  Rinna is so jealous of VDP and she is just a horrible person.  She was like a dog with a bone manipulating Kyle, Teddi and Dorit.  Erika brings nothing to the show but her nasty attitude. Kyle sucks.  Calling Lisa a liar while saying she loved her and is her friend was ridiculous.  I saw Lisa on ET recently and when asked about their friendship, she pretty much said that there is no healing the rift between her and Kyle. They should dump all of these bitches.  I want to be entertained and I am not, listening to these jealous women.  LVP is gone and I don't blame her.  Denise and Camille should come back with a new cast.  I am sad with the direction this show has taken because I just don't enjoy watching it.

[eleanorofaquitaine]

2 minutes ago, Rosiejuliemom said:

They tried. Dorit "couldn't remember" the name and then started ducking the calls. They were still trying to get the information from Dorit when the shelter contacted VPD and said they had Lucy.

Okay, then, well, I'm back to thinking that it doesn't reflect poorly on VPD if Dorit isn't providing them info. If I'm Lisa, I want the world to know that. So she had every reason to want to get the story out there. From a PR perspective, she should have been very straightforward about what happened and why she is unhappy about it. I don't know why she's going this "no, no, I would never do such a thing! How dare you suggest otherwise!" root instead. 

[Rina99]

18 minutes ago, eleanorofaquitaine said:

Again, this feels a bit like shifting the goalposts. I certainly have never made the claim that she is the only manipulative one on this show. Brandi, Kim, and Yolanda also had pretty manipulative personalities. Of the current cast, she does strike me as being the most consciously manipulative, though I do think that Dorit is, as well.

The rest of the cast has other negative traits but for instance, I think people know where they stand with Rinna, Erika, and Teddi. Rinna is a loud-mouth people pleaser and Erika is cold but I don't think that they pretend to be okay with people when they aren't.

 

That's what came to mind when Camille made that confession that it was Lisa who prodded her to talk about Taylor's abuse issues on camera. Yes, Camille is the one who ultimately decided to do that, as all the other women did who make similar claims about Lisa V. But it was yet another big honking red flag about Lisa's different personas on and off camera. What is curious about this week is that so many seem aghast that anyone could think Lisa would do this, when the defenses after the Camille reveal was essentially "So what? The others should have been smarter like Lisa." Which, true, but I don't see how it's so shocking that the cast believes it and that poor Lisa is a victim who would never consider doing such a thing. And that's why I'm ultimately pretty indifferent. There will never be any proof, just like there was never any proof about Adrienne's accusation, but I think she's fully capable of at least getting someone else to do it for her so she can actually not be lying by saying she herself didn't do it.

[KungFuBunny]

11 hours ago, breezy424 said:

Well, it seemed to me that LVP was very over reacting when Kyle came to her house.  Kyle was trying to have a conversation but Lisa would not let her explain herself.  LVP knows a lot more than she's letting on.  IMO, she and Ken were being very defensive.  And why didn't LVP contact Dorit after the ROL story come out and give her a heads up about the TMZ article?

IIRC, Teddi has done a few of these fundraisers and at least Blizzard was there.  VPD should have been in contact with Teddi in coordination with the event.  Not a last minute phone call.  LVP could have shown up in that it was being filmed for RHBH.

Lunch was interesting.  LVP feeding stories to the press seems like LVP's MO.  No one defended LVP except Kyle and the other women called her out.

VPD is boring.  I can't stand Sessa.  And if Blizzard was the 'one' to set up Teddi  and puppygate, why 'wasn't' he fired?   Hmmm....

I think all of the scenes at VPD with Sessa/Blizzard are of them being/acting "extra" as an audition for VPD the show they are pitching. The show will be just like VPR (a show where there are tons of scenes at SUR great free publicity for the restaurant but the main focus of the show is of the shenanigans of the employees who allegedly work there)

I see VPD as a show that will have plenty of scenes in the store but it will be based on the shenanigans and personal lives of the employees. Who'd want to watch Sessa or Blizzard (PS that's why he wasn't fired - he'll be on VPD)

[TexasGal]

In case anyone is interested, here is the text of the House resolution.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/401/text

It does call out certain countries in the "whereas" statements of facts, but the actual resolution part is:

Quote

(1) calls for an end to the dog and cat meat trade on cruelty and public health grounds;

(2) urges all nations to outlaw the dog and cat meat trade and enforce existing laws against such trade; and

(3) affirms the commitment of the United States to the protection of animals and to advancing the progress of animal protection around the world.

Again, great PR stuff and good on LVP for getting it brought to someone's attention but it's not actually going to do anything. 

[njbchlover]

59 minutes ago, TattleTeeny said:

I didn't read the ROL article but is there even anything in it (verifiable quotes, etc.) that indicates, much less proves, that it had to be "put out" by someone in the midst of it? Why couldn't the ROL staff stalk some social media and make a couple of calls and just vaguely fill in the blanks? 

Exactly!  As I said last night - ROL and other gossip sites' stories are known for having a little bit of truth, a whole lot of truth-stretching and fair amount of innuendo.  

How many other "big" headline stories have been published in ROL over the years about the housewives that have been proven to be mostly false or filled with "facts" from an "insider" or "source close to...."

And, now, because these women are angry with LVP, they are concerned about a story in ROL as if it was sworn testimony in a court hearing.  

[Booger666]

5 minutes ago, Rosiejuliemom said:

They tried. Dorit "couldn't remember" the name and then started ducking the calls.

And this confuses me and is where things get questionable. Is Dorit in the category of people who chain a dog up in their backyard and neglect it to the point that when a stranger says they’ll take the dog they say “what a relief, I’m sick of that dog”?  Or, is LVP someone who doesn’t follow up on a rehomed dog [because if she had Ken ask PK for the name I imagine Dorit would have sudden onset memory recall (the exact opposite of HW sudden onset amnesia)]?   I’m also perplexed that no one has asked Teddi why she didn’t call or text Lisa during the alleged setup.   It’s been mentioned here that Teddi and LVP talked a lot during VR (I don’t watch).   During the weeks of the confusing texts of John and Teddi about who wants what out and when, why wouldn’t Teddi call up LVP and say “What is the deal with Lucy?”.   I think everyone is dirty in this ... it’s just hard for me to know who is a little and who is a lot dirty.