Dear Prudence, 3 June 2010, One-by-one

Does a lawyer need Prudie to know what a memo is? Is a Facebook message by definition stalking? Is it a Bobbit when you're divorced? Is it graverobbing when you're reclaiming a book you lent to the deceased? Why is Richard Blumenthal writing to Prudie? These questions answered, with pictures!

The stuff is from HERE.

Letter 1 is from a young lady lawyer who came to work early and found a senior partner with his briefs down and his badgering his witness. Should was grossed out, but doesn't know if she should tattle. Prudie says that partner was gross, but was as embarrassed as her, and she would not win a he-said/she-said. But she should write a "memo" to put this on record in case he tries to get her recused so as to eliminate a hostile witness.
My take: Letter Writer is smart enough to get through law school, but can't figure this out herseslf? As for the "memo" (I don't know why that word irked me here... maybe it was because of Prudie's link to a step-by-step guide on using Word to write a memo... presumably even the dumbest lawyer knows how to record pertinent information in writing.)

The Video Letter is from a young guy who has the hots for his Starbucks caffein dispenser (hate the word "barista"). He avoids mixing his milk with his coffee and his dates with his servers, so how to make a move? Which is less creepy: a Facebook message or a face-to-face askout? Prudie says (duh) to aks her to her face. And if either is uncomfortable about the askout, he can (duh) find another Starbucks around the corner.
My take: It's not at all creepy to get an askout message from someone who is a Facebook friend of a Facebook friend. No, not at all. Doofus.

Letter 2 is from a divorced mother whose ex has told their 15-year-old son that his mother is a tramp and a whore (what does that say about his taste in women?). Mom found out by snooping on son's PC after he returned from a visitation with dad even more sulky than usual (I'm going out on a limb and assuming a 15-year-old boy is sulky). How can she defend herself without revealing her snooping? Prudie says to admit to the snooping, and explain the truth.
My take: Cop to the snooping, tell the truth, AND ask your son why he thinks his father would believe that telling him this shit would be right, even if it were true? Then go to your ex's place and cut off his balls and let him bleed to death.

Letter 3 is from a girl in her 20s who was in a car accident with her BFF. LW survived, but BFF died. Now LW would like to get back from BFF's parents a book she lent to BFF, as well as a few trinkets. Prudie says that LW doesn not have the right to rummage through the girl's things or assault her parents with her inane request to get back that book she lent.
My take: Wrong girl died.

Letter 4 is from a woman whose hubbie is a veteran who has lost a leg due to reasons unrelated to his military service. People ask him if he's a vet, and he says yes. People therefore jump to the conclusion that he lost his leg in combat, and become all thankful and weepy. Prudie says all this is none of anybody's business in the first place, so thank the folks for their appreciation and move on.
My take: Yeah. Or you could print up business cards with the whole story in very fine print, and pass them out whenever anyone asks these personal questions.