Thursday, May 24, 2012

5/24 - 25 Minutes or Less

With no time to spare:

L1: LW1 ought to be thanking her lucky stars that she has been handed this positional advantage. How often can someone commit an offense, be it either minor or firing-worthy on the system in question, and then be vouchsafed such security? She will now get off with less than a reprimand.

The unlucky part of her lot is that the bell can't be unrung, and the co-workers who can't yet or won't mask the knowledge in their looks can't be expected to forget. They can be expected to be professional in their treatment of her, but LW1 might want to be careful not to project too much. It would be easy for her to interpret anything beyond the most bland treatment as stemming directly from the co-worker remembering What She Did.

LW1's situation recalls that of Leslie Ferrier in Hallowe'en Party. He was a minor forger of modest schemes brought into murder - with ill consequences for himself that LW1 can avoid if she uses her head and does not try to overplay her hand.

The most useful thing we learn from this is that the Prudecutor endorses ill-written novels that posit that Every Woman Deserves A (Charming and Studly) Millionaire.

L2: How could the Prudecutor or anyone flub this one? But I'll improve the suggestion - give T2 his inheritance now and let him do with it what he will. He might follow a particular Biblical precedent, but then, once he repents, Ps2 will be in an unassailable position - and it appears there isn't even an elder brother to resent his future repentance and restoration.

L3: Both the Prudecutor and LW3 are wrong, wrong, wrong. What is it with this insistence on EVERY child having to be included in EVERY outing? Although I personally do not feel any particular extra attachment to a blood relation, it does not seem crushing to allow that some people can be very loving and accepting and still have a little extra bond with one half-sibling (or, in this case, adoptive sibling) because of a particular connection, be it blood or something else. One recalls Ms Libby, who has claimed in the past to love all 70 people dearly in attendance at her family reunions, as an example of someone for whom a blood attachment is something. On the other hand, I give the Prudecutor a higher mark than usual for including "step-" in her response, which she does not always do. If LW3 and H3 are on good terms with SGD3, as appears to be the case, there seems no harm in their devoting a different time to her and herself alone, without her adoptive brother.

LW3 is more wrong, though. Blaming it on $300 - no, no, no. And trying to use the extra set of grandparents as mitigation? Way too cheesy.

L4: Thanks for the update, but the Prudecutor is both cheating and being self-serving. In other words, just a typical outing.

Moral: "Are you familiar with the phrase, Violation of Civil Liberties? And the phrase, Big Fat Lawsuit?"


No comments:

Post a Comment