Very Interesting
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Oh My Really

Arnold, MO

#1 Sep 9, 2013
I found this statement made by ArnoldCC to be very interesting.
ArnoldCC said,"And you can go tell the gf that there was more to the hospice nurse than she thought. Tell her I said so."
What gf? What hospice nurse? This is a very strange statement to make at this time. Just what situation and whom are you referring to?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#2 Sep 9, 2013
I found that interesting, too. I thought she knew something about you and it was a direct hit on you or someone you knew.

Since: Dec 07

Location hidden

#3 Sep 9, 2013
It has nothing to do with what you are thinking.

You have an "information source" that we both know. Tell your "source" that information.
Oh My Really

Arnold, MO

#4 Sep 9, 2013
You are really out there, how can anyone know what you are talking about if you don't know what you are talking about? Too obscure for me.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#5 Sep 10, 2013
Seems she knows exactly what she is talking about.
drops of jupiter

United States

#6 Sep 10, 2013
Ca ca ca crazy!

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#7 Sep 10, 2013
Yes you are.
Helloooo

Arnold, MO

#8 Sep 10, 2013
ArnoldCC wrote:
It has nothing to do with what you are thinking.
You have an "information source" that we both know. Tell your "source" that information.
Does anybody have a clue as to what this lunatic is talking about?
drops of jupiter

United States

#9 Sep 10, 2013
Voices in her head...must be painful with a brain the size of a pea.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#10 Sep 10, 2013
You all are pitiful. I guess you have to demean someone and since you can't demean the Chief anymore ArnoldCC is your new target.
Helloooo

Arnold, MO

#11 Sep 10, 2013
Who demeaned the chief? Facts are facts, can't change those.
Yes, guess you're right about those voices bouncing around in a pea brain, probably a whole bunch of bumps appearing on the outside of the skull. Conversations should be quite entertaining in there :)

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#12 Sep 10, 2013
Only you seem to be familiar with voices in the head as you keep talking about them. Must be hard for you to listen in on them arguing with everyone around you talking.
drops of jupiter

United States

#13 Sep 10, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
You all are pitiful. I guess you have to demean someone and since you can't demean the Chief anymore ArnoldCC is your new target.
I pretty much think the chief demeaned himself when he went public in the newpaper claiming he's nuts.
People are going to council meetings asking why he is stiil running the police station aren't they?
How goofy can it be "my job has caused me mental problems...but I'm ok to do my job". Can you spell SCAM?

Hey, that's like lunn's swirl and twirl jibberish !!!!

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#14 Sep 11, 2013
drops of jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>I pretty much think the chief demeaned himself when he went public in the newpaper claiming he's nuts.
People are going to council meetings asking why he is stiil running the police station aren't they?
How goofy can it be "my job has caused me mental problems...but I'm ok to do my job". Can you spell SCAM?

Hey, that's like lunn's swirl and twirl jibberish !!!!
It's not mental problems. You're such an idiot. It is slight depression and anxiety. He can be okay to do his job but claim the harassment (like you are doing now) is causing him emotional distress.

And it wasn't the Chief that took this spin to the papers. Hmmmmm..... I wonder who it was. Maybe someone that wants to further harass?

Didn't Ott claim in her lawsuit that the harassment caused her emotional distress? Yet she kept performing her job despite the harassment and you didn't raise a stink over that. Can we say double standard?

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#15 Sep 11, 2013
And he obviously isn't looking for a payout. That is proven because one of the people he is suing doesn't have hardly anything in their name. I think the lawsuit is based more on principle.
Get a Grip

Arnold, MO

#16 Sep 11, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
And he obviously isn't looking for a payout. That is proven because one of the people he is suing doesn't have hardly anything in their name. I think the lawsuit is based more on principle.
No one sues unless they expect to recover. MIRMA is on the hook for this.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#17 Sep 11, 2013
Too bad MIRMA didn't exclude this one for Doris and Ken. Maybe they would have been more careful. Is that why you feel it is okay to continue to demean the man and purposefully cause him more grief because you all aren't on the hook if there is a ruling against you? How sad that you feel that way about taxpayer money.
Get a Grip

Arnold, MO

#18 Sep 11, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
Too bad MIRMA didn't exclude this one for Doris and Ken. Maybe they would have been more careful. Is that why you feel it is okay to continue to demean the man and purposefully cause him more grief because you all aren't on the hook if there is a ruling against you? How sad that you feel that way about taxpayer money.
No one demeaned the man, he is the one who stated he was suffering from depression, no one else put that label on him, he did it himself. It is stated in his lawsuit and was thusly reported in the paper. No complaints from you when Ott received a settlement of $450,000 due to her sexual harassment case against he, one of his officers and the city. No outrage from you when she had to produce evidence of being fit for duty. Double edged swords cut both ways.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#19 Sep 11, 2013
Get a Grip wrote:
<quoted text>No one demeaned the man, he is the one who stated he was suffering from depression, no one else put that label on him, he did it himself. It is stated in his lawsuit and was thusly reported in the paper. No complaints from you when Ott received a settlement of $450,000 due to her sexual harassment case against he, one of his officers and the city. No outrage from you when she had to produce evidence of being fit for duty. Double edged swords cut both ways.
And he has provided evidence of being fit for duty, just like Ott was required to do.

And he stated depression and anxiety. You morph that into calling him mentally unstable so you are demeaning him and purposefully making his condition appear dangerous when it is not. You are putting a false label on him, so you are at fault. And you are doing it to be malicious.
Names Named

Czech Republic

#21 Sep 11, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
And he has provided evidence of being fit for duty, just like Ott was required to do.
And this proof is where? Show me! Provide the link! He put it in writing that he's emotionally distressed and depressed and has loss of peace of mind and it will continue. Sounds like proof positive you're wrong!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Eureka Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Know Missouri Law Regarding Cameras Before You ... (Sep '14) 1 min StirringUpCrap 78
crazy Stephanie Barron 10 hr Eddie 3
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion (Jun '14) 17 hr Eileen 1,274
Illegal Digging in Missouri (Sep '12) Aug 1 Elephant Gossip 60
Military plane with something hanging off wings... (Jun '11) Aug 1 Roberta Thompson 15
High Ridge Family Restaurant (Feb '15) Jul 30 Free Advertising 5
What happened to Kimmswick? (Jan '06) Jul 29 poppy 778
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Eureka Mortgages