Full Credits

Stats & Data

May 17, 2010


Why is it that the skankier and more loathsome people always ALWAYS seem to be the most indignant and self righteous??  Seriously.  There's a sense of entitlement there that I can't even fathom....it's beyond me.  I confess.
On a side note, I feel compelled to comment on sleazy Russel from Survivor who still can't believe that he lost, to a woman, AGAIN!!!  LOL  He is a clueless, chest thumping, presumptuous, childish, abusive and pathetic splat of a man who just DOESN'T GET IT.  And he'll NEVER WIN because he's a douche and his arrogance pretty much guarantees that nobody is going to write his name down as it would validate his assertion that being a shit makes you a better player.
Anyway, that is really neither here nor there for this blog, just thought of Russel when I typed the word "loathsome".  I'm GLAD Sandra burned his stupid hat.
What inspired me to blog this morning was an article I read earlier about  woman who is suing Rogers Wireless Inc, for $600,000, because her itemized phone bill led to her husband discovering her extra-marital affair and divorcing her.  She says her life has been "ruined", and it's Rogers fault.  LOL  It has nothing to do with her being a lying skank who got caught cheating on her husband, AT ALL.  There's no responsibility on her part to honor her marriage vows or to not be a blazing ho bag, it is up to the phone company to keep her dirty secrets for her.  LOL
What happened was, she had a cell phone under her maiden name (red flag number one clueless  hubby), and the address for that bill was to the family home.  The "family" also used Roger's service for internet, hubby's phone, etc, and Rogers decided to save a tree and sent a "global" invoice wth all the household bills on the same statement.  So, hubby read the statement, and put 2 + 2 together and dumped the skank.
Now, it's not much of a case because there's no intent.  She's have to prove that Roger's KNEW that they would quote "ruin" her life in order to win damages to that excess.
However, depending on the privacy clause in her contract, she might have a bit of a case, just not to the tune of hundreds of thousands. 
I think they should pay her $5. 
That's fair.  And I hear it'sher going rate.