First off, I saw Judge Judy today. If you watch it, you know what it's about - a procession of losers for us to laugh at. And laugh I did. I like Judge Judy, except when she pauses and looks at the audience after she's said something she thinks is clever, waiting for them to laugh. I would have said she was being mean, but frankly the people in front of her deserve it. One case, in which a neighbors dachshund may, or may not have, been killing pet chickens, she dismissed after it was revealed that the dog owner did everything possible to keep the dog in the yard, and eventually gave the dog to the pound after threats from the neighbor, despite the fact that there was no evidence the chickens had been killed, let alone killed by her dog. Her quote: "not everything requires a lawsuit, sir. This is one of those things." Note that the suit was filed after the dog had already been gone.
The best part though was the ad for next episode: Apparently some guy broke up with his girlfriend, who then proceeded to say bad things about him in her blog, including detailed description of his peculiar sexual perversions. He's suing for defamation. (The ad didn't mention her blog's URL)
And tonight on a radio show "secret" was listening to, a man was defending his decision to sue his wife. You see, she had Mexican food, then, a few hours later, breast-fed their baby. The man took the infant to the bank with him the next day, where he (the infant, not the man) had an attack of diarrhea. The man did not notice for a long time, and believes the other patrons at the bank now think less of him for holding a stinky crying baby with him the whole time he was in line.
But, you may ask, why a lawsuit? His wife, the man alleges, did this knowingly, intentionally giving the baby diarrhea because she is a Democrat, and he is a Republicans. The Democrats, as we all know, will stop at nothing to get Kerry elected, and making him hold the baby without noticing the condition of the diaper makes him, and therefore Republicans, look bad, and thus more people will vote against the Republicans in November. I never heard exactly how much he was suing for (or whether the money would come out of a joint account since they're currently married (though I expect that condition could change soon)). He also never said how, in addition to arranging to time the child's attack at just the right moment, she also arranged for him not to notice it for an hour.
The best part though was the ad for next episode: Apparently some guy broke up with his girlfriend, who then proceeded to say bad things about him in her blog, including detailed description of his peculiar sexual perversions. He's suing for defamation. (The ad didn't mention her blog's URL)
And tonight on a radio show "secret" was listening to, a man was defending his decision to sue his wife. You see, she had Mexican food, then, a few hours later, breast-fed their baby. The man took the infant to the bank with him the next day, where he (the infant, not the man) had an attack of diarrhea. The man did not notice for a long time, and believes the other patrons at the bank now think less of him for holding a stinky crying baby with him the whole time he was in line.
But, you may ask, why a lawsuit? His wife, the man alleges, did this knowingly, intentionally giving the baby diarrhea because she is a Democrat, and he is a Republicans. The Democrats, as we all know, will stop at nothing to get Kerry elected, and making him hold the baby without noticing the condition of the diaper makes him, and therefore Republicans, look bad, and thus more people will vote against the Republicans in November. I never heard exactly how much he was suing for (or whether the money would come out of a joint account since they're currently married (though I expect that condition could change soon)). He also never said how, in addition to arranging to time the child's attack at just the right moment, she also arranged for him not to notice it for an hour.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 07:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 08:56 pm (UTC)