discretion with scandalous situation

[Anonymous]

aprilmayjune wrote:Seriously? Why does who or what the crime was determine your response?? She's not talking about the actual criminal was, just a family member who was just dealt a bad family hand, and probably had absolutely nothing to do with the crime(s) committed..

Shut it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

aprilmayjune wrote:Seriously? Why does who or what the crime was determine your response?? She's not talking about the actual criminal was, just a family member who was just dealt a bad family hand, and probably had absolutely nothing to do with the crime(s) committed..

Shut it.

What's with the "Shut it" response? Were I in the OP's shooes, the nature of the crime might matter. For me it would be one thing if my name-dropping coworker's infamous relative were guilty of theft or fraud...quite another if co-worker keeps telling me stories about a rapist or murderer.

[Anonymous]

George Hugeley? Who has been in the news, prosecuted and have had relatives on the news as well. I'm stumped.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

aprilmayjune wrote:Seriously? Why does who or what the crime was determine your response?? She's not talking about the actual criminal was, just a family member who was just dealt a bad family hand, and probably had absolutely nothing to do with the crime(s) committed..

Shut it.

What's with the "Shut it" response? Were I in the OP's shooes, the nature of the crime might matter. For me it would be one thing if my name-dropping coworker's infamous relative were guilty of theft or fraud...quite another if co-worker keeps telling me stories about a rapist or murderer.

I'm calling troll. Is this the same troll who witnesses nannies doing terrible thing to her charge and then comes on DCUM but never describes act. TROLL

[Anonymous]

Um, you are just saying troll b/c you want me to break and tell the story, which I won't do. I don't even care if it's not google-able (is that a word?) because for all I know this woman could be on DCUM and I don't want her to read this and know it's her and that people are talking about her. Her life is bad enough as it is.

[Anonymous]

I still think it's OJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The lobbyist guy- Jack Abramoff?

Great guess--that's who my money is on.

OP, I would just ignore it. Really, what else is there to do, say something??

[Anonymous]

OJ is so been there done that. It's probably Madoff, even if OP denies it, Hughely (don't know if that's spelled right and don't care), Abramoff or the serial stabber from Israel. No matter who it is, OP-play dumb. Real, real dumb. Why do you think dumb people always look real happy? Because they don't know anything. So if you are not actually a truly dumb person, this is the time to fake it big time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OJ is so been there done that. It's probably Madoff, even if OP denies it, Hughely (don't know if that's spelled right and don't care), Abramoff or the serial stabber from Israel. No matter who it is, OP-play dumb. Real, real dumb. Why do you think dumb people always look real happy? Because they don't know anything. So if you are not actually a truly dumb person, this is the time to fake it big time.

Right, but which of the criminals mentioned have a relative that is also shown on the news?

[Anonymous]

WIKILEAKS!!!

[Anonymous]

just don't visit them at home...

[Anonymous]

Blagovich!!!!

[Anonymous]

JESSIE JAMES!!!!

[Anonymous]

The DC Snipers.

[Anonymous]

Lindsay Lohan?