Danielle, the over-botoxed could-be-former-prostitute, raises haaaiiill about the infamous book. In the middle of a nice dinner. With children in the room.
Basically Danielle went up against the family, accused little sister Dina of what she claimed were grievous perpetrations, and grandstanded at the wrong place at the wrong time. P.S., we didn't need to hear about your diarrhea.
The family shot her down, big sister Caroline point blank told her that she was the one who told people about the book (hell yeah, HBIC!), and the responsible adults ushered the children out of the room (why the hell did this woman allow her children to stay in the room?!).
Lemme tell you a'somethin about my family. We're thick as thieves.
The thing is, the book was public information. It's available to anyone with a library card and it contains some pretty suspect behavior on Danielle's part. If it's all really lies, why not sue for defamation---I certainly would take issue with someone who, out of nowhere, called me a drug trafficking prostitute. Given the logic that the information in the book is in all probability partially true, I think that it's perfectly logical to show people who I know that they are dealing with bad, bad people. I don't care if it happened 25 years ago.
But if you really have an issue with the behavior, there is a time and a place for that kind of confrontation. That time and place was not a nice ass dinner party with children at it. I mean, there were fresh oysters there for shit's sake.
Please refer to the gif below.
Seriously, what's the point in dating a 26-year-old if he looks 40?
No comments:
Post a Comment