Carrying over from Monday, one cannot completely prevent oneself from wondering what the Prudecutor herself might have been up to some years ago, about which she is now so eager to declare the statute of limitations long expired. While the victim is clearly in the wrong if she is actively attempting to carry on retribution to the next generation, the Prudecutor clearly shows that her sympathies lie with the bully. She even ignores clear signs that the LW has not changed all that much - the slip-up in mentioning the victim's unrecognizable attractiveness, the inadequate non-apology, the desire for cover-up in not wanting to tell her husband, the "inability to remember the details" of her bullying.
And the Prudecutor's proposed solution is a strange one, at least from the angle proposed. While being open to admitting her former bad conduct is a good start, suggesting that it be admitted in a brushing-off sort of way may backfire. Being active in school affairs is almost sure to bring some sort of conflict out into the open. And has the Prudecutor never read the Girls' Handbook and Rules for Life? If Mary Lou Hassenpfeffer calls Betsy Ann Pflugendonck fat when they are both in fourth grade, Betsy Ann may never forgive Mary Lou. None of her friends may invite Mary Lou to birthday parties, and they are fated to feud for all eternity. It is in the Girls' Constitution. The only possible solution forn the LW is to remain in hiding in abject terror, deferring to her victim on every possible occasion should their paths ever cross, and hoping that perhaps someone seeing how contrite and penitent she has become, along with how abject and miserable her life is, may convince the glorified victim that no further revenge is necessary.
On to another week of strangely subpar letters. Maybe I am just jaded.
L1: While the Prudecutor does pick up on LW1's attempts to distance himself from his behaviour through the passive voice, why does she not inquire into from whom he has come to understand that some extramarital conduct of some sort is within the realm of permission during a separation such as work travel? While chances are it would be relatively meaningless if LW1 is simply being a parrot and repeating things he's heard from other husbands of shady fidelity, what if part of his understanding happened to come from his wife? Or does the Prudecutor think that couples have no business establishing for themselves what is and what is not acceptable conduct? Does she view a marriage license as a legally-reversible-only lifelong binding agreement that the partners will both behave as if all the sexuality in the entire world resides exclusively and permanently in the other? Would she send caught adulterers to prison even if they had full encouragement to conduct themselves so from their spouses? Is a married couple allowed in the Prudecution's book to have their own agreement on what constitutes fidelity and what cheating? If so, why the blazes did the Prudecution not even so much as suggest a discussion of the topic between husband and wife? Also, is "decapitation" really her idea of an appropriate response to a visit to a strip club? Does she view Mrs Bobbitt as a role model?
L2: Did the Prudecutor mean her remark about women behaving as badly as men to be witty, or is a sign of depression over not being able to stake exclusive female claim to the moral high ground? Has it occurred to her that LW2's concerns can be phrased as a question instead of a statement? Or does she prefer that the conversation have the air of a confrontation? Does the Prudecutor think that the friendship ought to be severed because of the bad conduct of HST2, and is she advising LW2 in such a way as to produce that result? (It seems a bit clever for the Prudecutor, but she may have been having an inspired day.) And why the blazes does she not inquire into why LW2 would have thought holding her tongue acceptable, especially given that the Prudecutor sees exposure and ruin as inevitable if HST2's current course is not reversed?
L3: Does the Prudecutor consider it to be of any importance whatsoever to discover whether the real manipulator in the game is H3 or MIL3? Does she consider itn impossible or undesirable for non-related children by a former wife to have worked their way into the hearts of the family sufficiently to be considered "real" relatives? Why does she assume that LW3 and her child are the only ones excluded in the entire family tree? Why is she uninterested in the possibility of LW3 and her child becoming a true part of the family, given that she pushes saccharine solutions of this sort at people who clearly do not want increased closeness in similar situations? Above all, where on earth does the Prudecutor get the idea that LW3 and H3 both want this to be the last marriage for either? They are both old hands at matrimony, and if anything seem to enjoy the novelty. Why not advocate for having taken a much more firm line with the possibility in view of divorce or at the very least separation some time ago, given H3's poor treatment of C3?
L4: A technical question, but, as in the case of L2, wh did it not occur to the Prudecutor that LW4's statement can be handled as a question? What would be wrong with asking if the bathroom is out of soap (or even removing the soap from the bathroom before the visit of BF4 in order to give the question more of an air of truth)? Why in the Prudecutor's final vision of the great revelation being played out, is she determined for it to be made in such a way as to come across as an attempt at embarrassment or humiliation? Does the Prudecutor secretly want the couple to break up without wanting to admit it openly, and is she therefore advising LW4 to bring this to BF4's attention in such a way as to increase the chance of the relationship imploding?
Moral (in reference to Monday and the Girls' Handbook): "'Rule Forty-Two. All persons more than a mile high to leave the court.'"... "'...that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'" "'It's the oldest rule in the book.'"... "'Then it ought to be Number One.'"