Kent Hovind

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2601

Post by RLBaty » Wed Jun 01, 2016 3:23 pm

Image

User avatar
Plutodog
Posts: 11952
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 10:11 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2602

Post by Plutodog » Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:28 pm

You did lay on the innuendo a little thick there although, if read carefully, you did not say they were doing any sexual abuse directly.

What's up with FB suspension. I think that was unrelated, right? :confused:
The only good Bundy is an Al Bundy.

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2603

Post by RLBaty » Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:56 pm

Plutodog wrote:
What's up with FB suspension.
I think that was unrelated, right? :confused:
I "shared" on my dedicated Hovind FaceBook page two photos which two of Kent's lady friends that he mentions constantly on his broadcasts as working for him and as part of his performance and which they, on their own FaceBook pages have posted as "shareable". They were not memes; just the raw photographs. I guess that makes a difference.

Go figure!

It seems someone complained about those two pictures and FaceBook removed them in conjunction with my being blocked.

You are right, my current FaceBook jail sentence is quite unrelated to the current flap over Kent's problems with local authorities being legitimately concerned about child welfare and child labor laws and who knows what else on that 150 acre, secluded, commerical, corporate sandpit and construction site.

Also, it might be worth noting that after a long silence, it was Kent through his surrogates that posted that libelous article about me on the Free Kent Hovind website:

Hovind anti-Baty May 19, 2016 libelous article

If you consider my coverage of the Hovind case since that time, you just might get the impression that I upped the ante a bit and returned fire with truth instead of error and that Kent, via his surrogates, then, being unable to deal with the details and Kent's legal problems and related issues, decided to call my hand with that false and misleading May 31, 2016 article:

Hovind goes ballistic against Baty in May 31, 2016 libelous article

Time will tell, I guess, who has the winning hand!
I have my opinion on that!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2604

Post by RLBaty » Wed Jun 01, 2016 6:59 pm

FOR KENT HOVIND:

I am long-suffering and still waiting for you to come out, come clean
and engage me in the appropriate negotiations in order to produce
a one-on-one exchange regarding your legal problems and related
issues.

Outstanding Baty Challenge to Hovind!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2605

Post by RLBaty » Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:35 pm

Kent seems to have succeeded in sending some of his anonymous and like-minded cowardly followers out to try and "get Baty".

Here's one example that I just ran across and responded to (comments section below noted video):

Bertus Den Droef Hovind Video

(1) From: 8ElionAdvanced8

Sir Kent Hovind doesn't owe you any explanation for the way in which he ran his ministry in the past.

He went to jail for 9 years over that and he paid his debt to society.

Now he has a new ministry and he is doing things differently.
He learned from his past mistakes.
Whether he thinks the law is unjust is none of your business.
That's his OPINION AND NOTHING MORE.

He doesn't have to debate you in regard to his private opinions.

Kent is out of jail and he is moving on.

I know you want to continue to shame his family about the past structuring charges and withholding
but you need to stop.

It's over and done with.

Kent has a right to live his life in pace without you cyber-stalking, doxing and harassing him and all
of his friends and family.

What you are doing is a crime.

It doesn't matter if the information that you are posting is obtained via public records or via the internet.
If you publish that information and carry out constant surveillance on the Hovind family with the express
purpose to harass , intimidate, shame, embarrass and keep them in a state of constant fear for their
safety then you are committing a crime.

You have harassed the whole family, and their friends and now you are even harassing the children of
their friends.

I hope Kent files charges on you because this is ridiculous.

You are causing that family to live in fear and its sick.

Either you have a massive screw loose or someone is paying you to harass this family.
I pray the latter is the case.

I'm sure that will come out when he has you charged with cyber-stalking, doxing, harassment etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) From: Robert Baty

And you, oh anonymous, whiny sniper are lying.

It's typical of Kent's surrogate apologists; lying that is.

I don't think I have challenged Kent on his opinions about the "justness" of the law.

Kent has pledged the rest of his life to promoting his false legal narrative and that would seem
to give my own ministry certain job security.

Kent doesn't have to come out to me and discuss his false legal narrative and how he sent his
wife to prison as assuredly as King David sent Uriah to his death.

Maybe he will, or send his Champion.

Maybe he won't.

My challenge remains outstanding at such time as he may take me up on the offer.
He's certainly been willing recently to publicly promote the recent spate of lies about me.

Stop running, Kent.
We have things to talk about.

Outstanding Challenge to Kent Hovind

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2606

Post by RLBaty » Wed Jun 01, 2016 9:55 pm

Well, I can't continue to do this; Kent clearly has a lot more "man"power than I do.

However, here's another one that just transpired:

Kent's dog tries to take a bite out of Baty

From: Robert Baty
In response to: "Free Kent Hovind"
Date: June 1, 2016
Time: About 7:45 PM MT

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Hovind's cowardly and anonymous stalker returns and writes:

- "Robert, we have the incriminating comments you wrote
- about his family.
-
- Keep digging yourself a deeper hole.
-
- The authorities are aware of you,
- the US marshall,
- the AL child protective services
- all know about your remarks and false claims....
-
- I would give you another shovel,
- but only if you promise to use it."
-
-- "Free Kent Hovind"

How many times have I heard that kind of ipse dixit?

If Kent or his Champion want to come out and deal with it openly and honestly,
I am sure open to that discussion.

Mr. Teague made a similarly claim recently and appears to have cut and run!

Now Kent's "Free Kent Hovind" cowardly surrogate makes similar claims and
enjoys being able to hide out behind the anonymity common to those who
don't want to publicly identify their personal antics with Kent Hovind.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28339
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Kent Hovind

#2607

Post by Foggy » Thu Jun 02, 2016 9:13 am

Robert, are you developing a kind of monomania about Hovind? I mean, we're all aware that he's a fraud and an ex-con whose wife is divorcing him, but I'm getting a lot of warnings from people who read this thread that you have gone way overboard. People are worried about you and they're worried that you might expose the forum to liability.

Maybe you should just keep us informed about what Hovind is actually doing that can be publicly documented, and leave us out of your personal crusade against him. ;)
Every locked door has a key. - Emika Chen

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16653
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Kent Hovind

#2608

Post by Suranis » Thu Jun 02, 2016 10:53 am

And, you know, 4 para rule? :mrgreen:
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2609

Post by RLBaty » Fri Jun 03, 2016 11:53 am

OK, let's try this.

I happen to think this is an important interview that was just broadcast today, though it was recorded a few months ago. Kent starts in with his false legal narrative about the 6:00 minute mark.

Library of Lives Hovind Interview

Image

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2610

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:19 pm

Image

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Kent Hovind

#2611

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:40 pm

Why don't we just rename the thread "RLBaty"?

User avatar
Michael J
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:40 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2612

Post by Michael J » Tue Jun 07, 2016 1:53 pm

RLBaty wrote:Image
Kent Hovind is clearly a fraud, but Is there any verifiable documentation that Ross Hovind actually said this about Kent Hovind? I entered the URL shown on the picture, and it just shows a picture of Ross Hovind on his Facebook page. Also no results from a basic Google search.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." - Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16653
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Kent Hovind

#2613

Post by Suranis » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:08 pm

Even if that is Ross's opinion I doubt he would blab it. Blood is thicker than water and all that. Plus I cant find that quote anywhere either.
Learn to Swear in Latin. Profanity with class!
https://blogs.transparent.com/latin/lat ... -in-latin/

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2614

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:58 pm

Michael J wrote:
Kent Hovind is clearly a fraud,
but Is there any verifiable documentation that Ross Hovind actually said this about Kent Hovind?

I entered the URL shown on the picture, and it just shows a picture of Ross Hovind on his Facebook page.
Also no results from a basic Google search.
Surely the folks realize how memes work, but in this case I would encourage any one with any serious interest in the question raised to contact Ross and find out whether or not he wants to enter the public square and discuss his famous brother Kent.

Otherwise, Randy Dunn has just published the following account of the latest on-going battle between the Kent and the Hovindicators and Kent's "worst nightmare".

Randy Dunn on the Hovind v. Baty Battles

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2615

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:02 pm

Mark E. Hovind, Kent's other brother, is dead, but he may yet speak regarding important public issues related to the developing Hovind story!

We will see.

Mark E. Hovind Obituary

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Kent Hovind

#2616

Post by vic » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:11 pm

That doesn't actually qualify as an internet meme or an image macro.

Rather, its structure implies that Hovind's brother actually said this. Image macros typically juxtapose the meme with either an anonymous image or one of someone who is sufficiently well known that there is no implication that the person in the image actually stated what is shown, or necessarily holds the belief. Using an essentially private individual instead implies that the person said what is shown.

Your suggestion to ask the brother if he agrees indicates that you either have no proof that he said what is shown, or are not authorized to quote him.

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2617

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:33 pm

vic wrote:
That doesn't actually qualify as an internet meme or an image macro.

Rather, its structure implies that Hovind's brother actually said this. Image macros typically juxtapose the meme with either an anonymous image or one of someone who is sufficiently well known that there is no implication that the person in the image actually stated what is shown, or necessarily holds the belief. Using an essentially private individual instead implies that the person said what is shown.

Your suggestion to ask the brother if he agrees indicates that you either have no proof that he said what is shown, or are not authorized to quote him.
If you are suggesting some kind of legal argument regarding the propriety of my representation and you disapprove of it, I will disagree.

As to your "suggestion", what appears to be a false dichotomy, I would admit that I have no "proof" that he said what is shown and that I have no authorization to quote him as saying such.

If Ross believes I have misrepresented his position, or what was his position, he is more than welcome to challenge my representation of his position.

Otherwise, as always, I leave it to FogBow management to determine the extent to which they might patronize my efforts regarding the ongoing development of the Hovind story.

I can live without FaceBook.
I can live without FogBow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2618

Post by bob » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:36 pm

RLBaty wrote:I would admit that I have no "proof" that he said what is shown and that I have no authorization to quote him as saying such.
Then you can't prove that it is true (it is false, to be more blunt). So please don't post it here.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Kent Hovind

#2619

Post by vic » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:40 pm

RLBaty wrote:
vic wrote:
That doesn't actually qualify as an internet meme or an image macro.

Rather, its structure implies that Hovind's brother actually said this. Image macros typically juxtapose the meme with either an anonymous image or one of someone who is sufficiently well known that there is no implication that the person in the image actually stated what is shown, or necessarily holds the belief. Using an essentially private individual instead implies that the person said what is shown.

Your suggestion to ask the brother if he agrees indicates that you either have no proof that he said what is shown, or are not authorized to quote him.
If you are suggesting some kind of legal argument regarding the propriety of my representation and you disapprove of it, I will disagree.

As to your "suggestion", what appears to be a false dichotomy, I would admit that I have no "proof" that he said what is shown and that I have no authorization to quote him as saying such.

If Ross believes I have misrepresented his position, or what was his position, he is more than welcome to challenge my representation of his position.

Otherwise, as always, I leave it to FogBow management to determine the extent to which they might patronize my efforts regarding the ongoing development of the Hovind story.

I can live without FaceBook.
I can live without FogBow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not suggesting a legal argument. I am stating that it is you who do not understand how memes work.

A meme is not a mechanism for falsely indicating that someone agrees with you.

User avatar
Michael J
Posts: 260
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 4:40 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2620

Post by Michael J » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:41 pm

RLBaty: :liar:

My suspicion is confirmed.
"The genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs." - Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2621

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:45 pm

bob wrote:
RLBaty wrote:I would admit that I have no "proof" that he said what is shown and that I have no authorization to quote him as saying such.
Then you can't prove that it is true (it is false, to be more blunt).
So please don't post it here.
That's not what I said nor is it what I meant to imply.

I am satisfied that that is his position, or was his position though he is more than welcome to step up and engage the popular public debate regarding his famous brother and important parts of Kent's history of which he might have special knowledge.

I think someone recently posted a comment about doing an Internet search regarding Ross and found nothing relevant.

Some might consider that circumstantial evidence supporting my representation.

To each his own.

For those who doubt, check it out.

I have no doubts, and I am not inclined to waste my time quibbling over the legal standard that might apply to my representation or the fuller details as to how I reached my conclusion, when, and why I chose now to present it to this august venue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2622

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:46 pm

vic wrote:
A meme is not a mechanism for falsely indicating that someone agrees with you.
That is not what I did!

Get over yourself!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
bob
Posts: 26821
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2623

Post by bob » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:48 pm

RLBaty wrote: I am satisfied that that is his position
Glad you're "satisfied," but if he didn't say the words between the quotation marks:
then he didn't say the words between the quotation marks.*
And I flagged your post as defamatory. Have a nice day.


* Yes, I went full Berg, and then some.
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

RLBaty
Posts: 299
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:27 pm

Re: Kent Hovind

#2624

Post by RLBaty » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:03 pm

bob wrote:
RLBaty wrote:
Glad you're "satisfied," but if he didn't say the words between the quotation marks:
then he didn't say the words between the quotation marks.*
And I flagged your post as defamatory.
Have a nice day.
What quotation marks!

Bwahahahahahaha!

You and management here are more than welcome to consider the post "defamatory".
It's not!

Knock yourself out over that!

Like I have said, this is not my playground.
Management can make their own decisions and act accordingly.

User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 44478
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Over the drawbridge

Re: Kent Hovind

#2625

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jun 07, 2016 4:05 pm

Wow. The monomania continues.

WE. DON'T. CARE.

Post Reply

Return to “Other Fringe Groups & Individuals”