DebbieW

I'm a single mother

My husband just informed me that this is his Big Block of Cheese Day - getting done things he's been too busy to do all week.

They are all still part of basic education. Please remember that the individuals we're seeing on these shows do not represent the finest students that our educational system has ever seen.

Judge Tanya is beginning to annoy me. She keeps giving litigants repeated warnings and "one last chance" to behave properly. She needs to take a lesson from Judge Judy and bounce their asses out.

On or about (insert date of incident here)

Dropping the t's pisses me off to no end! I teach elementary school and all of the kids do this because it's what they grow up hearing. They get papers off of the prin-er, I had a student named Hunter who mother always said it as Hun-er. I go out of my way to enunciate the t because that's just how I roll and because the kids need to hear the sounds so they can speak properly. Drives me freaking insane.

Tick Tock Lady definitely seemed a little...off. And I get why JJ said she should be suing UPS. But I didn't get JJ's early assertion that the guy wasn't responsible for any damage to the clock because the clock looked fine externally.

I have a question about Season 7, Episode 1 (the one with the flash forward to the dedication of the Bartlet Library). I didn't see it in real time, but I read that Leo had been in that foreshadowing episode because John Spencer (RIP) was still alive. I read that Leo was edited out after the original airing because he had passed away and, therefore, couldn't have been there a few years in the future. I've watched on Netflix and on the DVD, and I can't place where he would have been. They freeze framed a leg (presumably the President's since Josh had said the President had arrived). I assumed that the President was Santos since Josh was there, but I wondered if it was Leo because they stopped it there. Does anyone remember seeing it originally?

Like a few previous posters, I'm not thrilled with the 3 judge format. The only thing I like about it is hearing them talk about it before ruling. I find being in on the thought process to be very interesting. I wish we could Judge Judy to do a "think aloud" before ruling.

I haven't really loved Legends, but I watch for Sean Bean. I will watch this, no matter what, for David Tennant. *shallow*

I use the Santos quote "You can hang by your thumbs for five days" all the time (insert whatever the appropriate amount of time is). Also, whenever I see my teenaged son unexpectedly (he gets up early or band practice is canceled) I say "Hey, Dalai Lama." - Leo's way of setting up an accidental meeting with the drunken Russian ambassador.

This was my first thought, but then I feared for the poor patient having a hammer taken to his/her head.

Several degrees and teaching certificates (for which I had to pass some pretty grueling tests). Plus, I'm observed and evaluated three times a year by a variety of administrators. Tenure doesn't mean that incompetent teachers can't get fired. If there are teachers on staff that are incompetent, it means that administrators are not doing their jobs and are too lazy to go through the steps in the established process. Tenure simply means that I can't be fired without due process. For example, I can't be fired because I gave a student a detention or because he/she earned a poor grade because his/her parent bitches to the superintendent and/or school board about it. I have been a member of NJEA for 26 years and I have never picketed. I have, however, seen NJEA protect teachers who were being railroaded because a parent complained that a teacher wasn't being fair to her little sweetie-pie and even complained to the county on the basis of racial discrimination. It was NJEA who found out that this parent moved in and out of districts one step ahead of eviction and often made these claims in an attempt to initiate lawsuits and excuse her son's aggressive and disrespectful behavior towards his teachers. The school board and administration didn't lift a finger to defend or protect their employee. ETA: I am currently in an email battle with an incompetent administrator who screwed something up and expects me to correct it. That's not happening. They can't fire me for that, either.

Just saw the rerun of the mother who was suing her son (who had had a kidney transplant) for rent and a portion of his living expenses. JJ grilled the mother on her sources of income, and automatically got her back up when she found out that her husband was collecting disability and a pension at 52. He had had 3 back surgeries, so probably wasn't a scammer, but as soon as JJ heard that she clearly became hostile toward the mother. I agreed with her that there wasn't a contract, just a loose agreement that he would start helping out with some money, but that woman had a target on her from the get go.

Yes. Especially when the feelings conversations occurred right when they should have been paying the most attention to what was going on around them (you know, guns, bombs, abductions). I actually yelled at the TV (several times), "Pay attention, dumbass!"

Haven't caught up on my DVR'ed episodes yet, but did shiftless BF explain how he got the text if she had his phone?

One of our Saturday reruns was a girl suing her former live in boyfriend. Sorry, I know that doesn't really narrow it down. She was suing him for rent and money she had loaned him to buy a car. JJ gave her the speech about "living like a married couple," yada, yada. The girl stated that for most of the life of the lease they had been broken up and living like "roommates". JJ yelled at her about that not making sense and not being true. She never asked the BF about it. In the hallterview, the BF said that they had found out they worked together much better as roommates than as a couple. The girl got nothing in rent because JJ thought she was lying. Another instance of someone getting screwed because what they said didn't make sense in JJ's world.

Absolutely - I'm not saying that the plaintiff isn't responsible for her own actions and that people don't need to be smart, but it just seems to open a Pandora's Box where it's ok to lie about a source of money coming in so that someone will loan you money that you have no intention of paying back. Let's face it, not all scammers are as obvious and not all people are as willing to part with money as the litigants on JJ or TPC, but scams happen to good, honest people and this just seems to grant the scammers license to carry on.

One of our Saturday morning reruns featured the woman who kept loaning her girlfriend gobs of money after being together for a month (huge down payment for a car, furniture, etc). The defendant kept asserting that the plaintiff's spending tons of money was her "patteren" of behavior. Plaintiff said that defendant was supposed to pay her back when she received a $5,000 check from her mother, which, of course, never came. JJ said that the plaintiff wasn't entitled to be paid back because their contract was based on payment coming from that check and since it never came the defendant wasn't obliged to pay her back. JJ says that's contract law and I would never think to argue with her about it (or drink any water), but that means that people legally get away with promising payment from their tax return, money from mom, etc, that they know is never coming and there's nothing that can be done about it. So much of the law seems to be designed to protect the scammers.

The case with the rats intrigued me. I kept imagining JJ yelling "You ate the steak, you have to pay for it!" at the daughter for not paying her rent. I know picking up an moving is not easy, but I can't imagine keeping my kids in a place with rats the size of dogs running around. Then again, the open trash bag hanging from a door knob might have been part of the problem.

I grind my teeth every time someone says "textes" as in "I have the textes that she sent me saying she owes me the money."