Rules for Posting

Click here for iwhyawli's tongue-in-check version of GWOP's 954,012 posting rules. If you're wondering why GWOP has so many posting rules, you're not alone.

Free Tutorial


Open Discussion: 8/1 to 8/7

Please use this post for discussion about GWOP that doesn't have a better spot elsewhere. This is where all those I don't know where to post it comments go also. Thank you.

"Damage Has Already Been Done"

You may recognize today's thread title as a direct quote from Aunt Jodi's and Uncle Kevin's recent interview on the Early Show. The assertion comes comes toward the end of the interview in response to this question from Harry Smith:

Harry Smith: When you see all this play out now ... these are people you love, people you care about ... what does it make you think, what does it make you feel?

Aunt Jodi: It's tragic. And that is why we are continuing to speak out for the children. They need to be looked at as the first priority. Damage has already been done and we want to see that ...

Harry Smith: How do you mean? What do you think?

[Jodi promptly changes topic to recount her "demands" ]


Let me just say that Jon and Kate are far more patient and generous than the iwhyawlis because upon hearing such a public assertion that our children are damaged and we knowingly and deliberately caused or allowed it, it would have taken me less than a nanosecond before calling my attorney to discuss defamation.

Don't tell me that Harry didn't hear it too. He immediately interrupted Jodi to ask for specifics, which Jodi did not provide. Instead, you see a moment of panic before she changes back to her demands. Not that Jodi needed to elaborate further about the asserted (vs. alleged) damages. If I'm on the jury, the statement "Damage Has Already Been Done" alone is defamatory enough. I also happen to know that Jodi's too dumb to know when she's being led off a cliff. The only reason she stopped, changed courses, and didn't describe the damage "already been done" is because there ain't no damage.

So I'm asking a serious question here. Crap like this is allowed? I can just go on national TV and state unequivocally that someone else's kid is damaged and their parents caused it? Better yet, a network will pay me to say something like that? There are no consequences? Really?

If only I were sleazy like the Kreiders, I could be really rich.

It's outrageous enough that Jodi's on TV worrying that Jon & Kate's parenting might be harmful to the children, but now Jody's saying the "damage has already been done" and inflicted by Jon & Kate.

You all heard it too. Twice! .

First Jodi give us the whole "Kate is a cheater" video and now she tells us that the Gosselin kids are damaged.

Wow just Wow.

I can't help but think some of the Kreider's mortgage money from radaronline should have been spent on legal counsel and\or possibly some class. If Jon and\or Kate don't sue on their own behalf, I would hope they would at least sue on behalf of their children.

Julie Returns!

Gwopwop hopes you've enjoyed a very restful, peaceful "blogging vacation", Julie. We were hopeful ... er, I mean worried that the truth may have set you free permanently.

Thanks also for returning in the nick of time to let us all know that Jodi will return to the airwaves today for another appearance on The Early Show.

Of course, I don't have to point out that the first post-hiatus show hasn't even aired yet but here's Jodi to offer commentary and fire up the GWOPPERS. It's a preemptive strike on judging what we'll surely see during that episode. A "pre-recrap", if you will. A new low in GWOPPER-ness.

What will Jodi possibly tell us this time, Julie? How's she's coping without having had any contact whatsoever with Jon, Kate or the kids for over a year? Perhaps Preesi has given Jodi all the inside scoop so that she'll have something to say.

Let's see. Jodi will start out with the usual assurance that she and Kevin love, love, love Jon & Kate. ::eyeroll:: And shortly later, she'll insert the knife. But on what topic? We can hardly wait.

Will hard-hitting Julie Chen ask about your recent lump sum mortgage payments? No.

Will Julie Chen ask Aunt Jodi when she was last anywhere near the Gosselins? No.

Will Aunt Jodi comment about the kids' reaction to the divorce anyway? But of course.

Jodi. Jodi. Jodi.

: shakes head disapprovingly :

I'm no psychic but I see another batch of gwopwop movies in the horizon.

Forever Hopeful

Ha Ha Ha ... iwhyawli messed up again. I accidentally posted an unfinished thread as a real post. This is something stupid that "Forever Hopeful" said that I wanted to comment on at some point:

Forever Hopeful said...
I wonder how long it will take these two to remember that they have EIGHT KIDS who need more than tents and trips and concerts to be really happy.

I wonder...Have they EVER known the joy of seeing their parents as LOVING, CARING, WARM individuals who value them as their very own miracles?


Be right back (at some point) with the rest of it. I guess I could have just made it a draft post again or deleted it, but as a blogging purist, I insist that threads, even accidental threads, are never deleted.

:: glares at Sharla and Julie ::

Please don't allow my mess-up to detract from yesterday's excellent news from an excellent person: Sharla is Peri! Proof sits in yesterday's threads.

Thank you and this won't happen again. I hope.



iwhyawli is so exited I couldn't spell my own login name to get into my mailbox, y'all.

Get this. A most excellent person (air kisses, air kisses) has sent iwhyawli a screen shot of Sharla's accidental (and now deleted) thread on the Piggy blog. Am I understanding this right, excellent person? Do I have my facts right? OMG OMG OMG

The thread in question is dated July 25th, 2009. That's last Saturday, y'all. LAST FRIGGING SATURDAY! TWO DAYS AGO! Did iwhyawli not once say that all these multiple blogs and blogging names would cause someone to screw up? Did I not once say that????


Now, of course, the significance of this accidental and now deleted thread is positively HUGE. HUGE! I'm not exactly sure why it's huge , but it's HUGE. I think it's huge because Sharla has always denied affiliation with any other blog, especially one as vile as the Piggy Trough. Right?

And then, of course, a thread start on the Piggy Blog would also mean that Sharla has owner/moderator privileges on said blog. Right?

And so, of course, why would Sharla be a secret administrator of the Piggy Blog all these months and years if she wasn't also PERI, who up until now was the one and only thread starter on that blog? Right? (I'm actually not sure about that so help me.)

And if I'm right. All this very compelling evidence leads us to one and only one logical conclusion, right?

OMG OMG OMG ! While you all correct and\or enhance my facts in the comment section, I am going to surgically remove the screen shot from the coveted e-mail message so that I can paste it here. Stay tuned. The picture is sorta big... I may have to do two threads.

UPDATED: Added picture to new thread, titled Sharla's Smoking Gun.


Sharla's Smoking Gun

I had to split the picture (complements of 'Excellent Person' and Google Reader) in half. They're sorta small to see ... gotta work on that. I also included the properties of the "For Worldsfatestcat" link as further evidence that this thread did exist on the Piggy Blog.

These pics bring back memories, Sharla? What were you gonna do with these pics?

Bottom Half of Thread


FAQ stands for frequently asked questions and I need some of these so that I can have a "FAQ" button like they do at GWOP.

Please ask me something here and I will try best to answer.

Blogger Threats

I'm receiving comments and email messages from several persons who are asking for my help with threats they are receiving from bloggers at other blogs. Is that we're all called? Bloggers? Or is only the blog owner called a 'blogger' and everyone else is called something else? A 'blog follower' perhaps. Otherwise, it's a "troll", I suppose.

Anyhoo, these big meanies have drawn a conclusion that I also post with the name "Baby Mama" and\or "KathyG", and for whatever reason, this upsets them greatly. I'm sure both are lovely, lovely ladies, but I can't say I know a darn thing about them, their posting style or posting history.

For what it's worth, iwhyawli only posts here, iwhyawli only posts as "iwhyawli", and iwhyawli only posts when she is logged in as 'iwhyawli'. I have only posted one time elsewhere and that was when I visited the comments from some magazine article and re-pasted the world's longest GWOP comment (or tried to anyway) as a joke. I even acknowledged this event here in my 'This Woman Should be Shot' thread.

"Girl scout's honor" but something tells me the people who are threatening to call people's employers, school boards and veterinarians aren't girl scouts. Without getting too far off topic, I do wonder how such a phone call goes down.

BoMo: Hello, employer?
Employer: Yes?
BoMo: I'd like to tell you that "so and so" is posting to my blog on company time.
Employer: And you are?
BoMo: Nevermind who I am.
Employer: What's your blog?
BoMo: Nevermind what my blog is.
Employer: And what is it you'd like me to do?
BoMo: Teach them a lesson, of course.
Employer: Okay, sure. Let me get right on that. Thanks for calling.

You all may be shocked by this, but I do happen to know a little something about the workplace. I happen to know that the employer-answering-the-phone is probably not the same person who will examine the Internet Logs, assuming of course an Internet log exists. I also happen to know that the employer-answering-the-phone probably does a little of his/her own inappropriate web usage as does the person who will examine the Internet Logs. Having recently developed all this computer expertise, I also know a little something about Internet Logs. If you're parked all day on the Internet and\or if the sites you're visiting are filled with vulgar language, your name already appear on the Internet Logs and in the Management Reports. It's all automatic. No employer who is concerned about inappropriate Internet usage needs a call from BoMo.

Now of course, I'm no lawyer but if Armeggedon should occur and I found myself representing someone who was financially or professionally injured for visiting BoMo's blog during company hours, the first thing I might ask for is the Internet records of everyone else. The second thing I might ask is "how come none of these other people have been fired for improper internet usage?" and the third thing I might ask is "how much do you want to pay my client for improper termination?" I then might encourage my damaged client to go after BoMo, assuming BoMo has two nickels and a pot to piss in. Last but not least, I'd certainly encourage my client to steer clear of any sites that issue these types of threats to anyone. What of any value is there possibly to read at a place that behaves in such a way? When will they turn on you?

I have no idea what BoMo plans to say to a PTA group that would possibly matter, but whatever.

Am I helping yet to allay any concerns? Probably not so I am also prepared to do the following for you.

Send me the links to whatever threads are impersonating me and I will forward them onto Blogger. You must do this via e-mail and you must also include the actual content of the impersonation post since I will not visit these sites myself.

If you're receiving threats, I suggest you do something similar. I can't really report the threat stuff on your behalf.

Best regards,