Monday, November 9, 2009

Dear Diary …


previous post: Motherload



  1. first

  2. woohoo!

  3. good lord. wtf is wong with people

  4. What. The. Fuck. That’s it. I’ll finish my drink and leave this planet.

  5. Oh wow – Play-by-play on the meltdown.

  6. I bet she took this screenshot and sent it in herself. I mean, she must not have any friends. But who needs friends when you can keep a conversation going with yourself?

  7. why did she feel the need to update every few minutes?

  8. uh yeah deb, we get it.

  9. @ 7 Jonas:

    Cause she’s a sick puppy is why.

  10. so… what?
    I’m so confused.

  11. errrr….huh?

  12. Shame he didn’t knock some sense into her…

  13. I have never seen somone change such a seious view on a messed up situation so quickly that being said -
    she should get her head out of her ass – take the help thats seems to have been offered and get out of the abusive situation and post this shit in a blog instead of status – Fail

  14. it loooks like someone deleted parts of the conversation. it’s got gaps where it looks like she’s answering questions.

    but anyway…

  15. Well I think I’ve found “the one.”

  16. It looks like there are comments missing. It seems like she’s conversing with someone else. So either the comments were deleted or the other party in the conversation has blocked the person who took a screen cap of this. When someone blocks you, or vice-versa, you can’t see their comments.

    This is such a stupid submission.

  17. Clearly, Deb here hasn’t grasped the concept of Facebook.

    Hint: It’s not a blog.

  18. Dear Deborah,
    QQ, wait for people to respond then justify yourself, people may think you’re crazy.

  19. Agreeing with U (poster #16), there’s obviously comments missing from someone who’s been blocked or who deleted their account or something so this submission isn’t as silly as it looks.

  20. #16 and #19
    If that was the case, the comments would still be there, but the person’s name would be greyed out. So no… definitely a conversation with herself

  21. @flips. get off your high horse.
    If the comments were deleted, they would not be there any longer. So your logic is really flawed.

  22. I lol’d at the title :D

  23. #20 No, that’s not how blocking someone works for personal walls. On a personal wall, the comments cannot be seen.

  24. Seems like she’s having a schitzo meltdown and answering the voices through facebook. I agree, nice title haha.

  25. I don’t understand why this is on here…yeah, being in an abusive relationship isn’t exactly smart, but not really the kind of thing that should be on lamebook. This seems to be some kind of cry for help. I feel bad for her, I’m going to hope she gets herself out of it, and not resort to making fun of someone who’s in a bad situation.

  26. it looks like the other person just deleted their comments.

  27. I doubt there was ever someone else involved in this conversation. I’m positive that if someone had chimed in with sympathy she would have made a point to thank him or her in a post.

  28. #27 Why would she make a point to thank them? Based on her end of the conversation, it seems like a debate, rather than someone chiming in with sympathy.

  29. they’d have had to have been debating pretty damn quickly! there wasn’t much time between those posts. i still vote for personal dialogue.

    i agree with stealthbanana – it’s sad, and it really sounds like a cry for help.

  30. Good job belittling domestic violence victims. Real good.

  31. @20

    No, sometimes the Lamebook editors delete things (like the comments that are clearly missing) to which they feel will make a better submission. They did it to one of the entries I submitted.

  32. @flips, actually, no…
    i have a dood blocked and mutual friends that we have seem to be talking by themselves and then i realize it’s him but i can’t see him

  33. This was definitely a two-sided conversation. People delete comments all the time, and this is what happens when they do.

  34. Actually it’s a two sided convo…either the other party’s comments were deleted afterwards (which I am also guilty of doing) or the person viewing it is being blocked due to the other poster’s privacy settings.

  35. Im sure the people at lamebook should have known about this kind of situation by now -_-

  36. Grizzles about over protection and no protection. Why can’t they get it right? I suspect all her friends are fed up with her.

  37. I think Deborah is a weirdo!

  38. Yeah! I mean, who comments to themselves?

  39. Only crazy women, that’s who!

  40. Wow….

    Can someone de-idiot and Cliff Notes this for me? It’s like staring at a magic eye poster, I know there’s *something* in that mess, I just can’t see what it is.

  41. But enough about me. What do you think of me?


    For example, I am ‘private’ on FB. If I comment on A’s status, and A responds, B (who is not my friend) will think A is responding to his own status.

    Jesus, Lamebook is like a Ouija board sometimes. “Let’s ignore common sense so this entry is funny!”

  43. Sorry 42 – I have those non-searchable settings and if I comment on other people’s statuses my comments definitely show up but my name appears in black and is not clickable.

    I agree that this conversation was had between Deborah and a user who was blocked/blocking the 3rd party viewer of this conversation, or the comments were deleted.

  44. No, J, if your privacy settings are up I would still be able to see if you commented on my friend’s status, your name would just be solid black and unclickable… She’s definitely talking to herself.

  45. Snap sarah!

  46. I get that it’s possible via privacy settings to not see some people’s comments, or that comments could have been deleted, but to me this looks like she’s just having a stream-of-conciousness chat with facebook, consantly thinking of one more thought to add. I doubt anyone else was involved. One of my facebook friends does that all the time, posting massive essay responses to his own statuses. But then I’m fairly sure he’s schizophrenic (no joke, he thinks Lady Gaga is talking to him through her music. I submitted it to lamebook but sadly it was not put up).

  47. the comments of every lamebook entry always ends up digressing into what the rules of FB are with respect to what can be seen based on settings. A lot of mistrust as to what is legit and fake I guess. We need a better way to authenticate.

  48. Liam, Don: STFU

  49. you untrust worthy people. i hate you all.

  50. Yeah, the person who submitted this definitely deleted another user’s responses. Deborah says, “It might now”. What might now? This makes no sense, but it makes sense if she’s responding to someone. Also, her second-last comment starts with “Yes”. She’s defintely replying to someone.

  51. I disagree, Megs. I think it’s all rhetorical. It still makes sense if you think about it that way. It’s like she’s going over it in her head or talking to herself about it.

  52. split personalities? haha

  53. She had me at cleaver.

  54. Are we supposed to be laughing at an abusive relationship here?

  55. No Wut, we are not. We’re laughing at the fact people now find it ok to publish the details of their most private issues on FACEBOOK. Get off your high horse.

  56. schizo? crazy? She’s in an abusive relationship FFS. She may have been responding to comments we can’t see, or this may have been her cry for help.

    It’s not a case of publishing private details either, seriously. If someone you knew was in an abusive relationship and the only way they could communicate this was through facebook, would you be like “LOL u don’t know how to use fb!”

    This isn’t funny or lame.

  57. Geonardo DiMetrio

    I think a lot of people are missing the funny here. A big part of the humour comes from this girl bitching that her parents are “overprotective,” then casually mentioning that she’d recently moved to a different state to be with a guy who beat her and wouldn’t let her use the phone.

    So presumably her parents rescued her from this abusive relationship and now they’re being really picky about who she goes out with AND SHE CAN’T FIGURE OUT WHY.

    See? Funny. :D

  58. Thesaurapist 13(F)

    Geonardo FTW!

  59. Agreed, Geonardo FTW. I couldn’t improve on what he wrote. Heck I couldn’t even improve on the smiley face.

  60. @Wut @Michlerish

    I think you are on the wrong site…

  61. Man, if only she “Liked” her own status, then this would be golden.

  62. Well, I agree with Michlerish. If I wanted to laugh at domestic abuse victims, for any reason, I’d go to 4chan, not lamebook.

  63. The person who took this screen shot was probably blocked by the person she was actually talking to, so he couldn’t see the replies. ::facepalm::

  64. @63 actually i have a “friend” who does this all the time, he disabled his wall so only he can write on it and he just writes comment after comment, i’ve submitted some of his best work so hopefully you’ll see it sometime

  65. I’ve been blocked by some douchebag, and I see tons of shit like this for the lone purpose that I can’t see who my friend is talking to.

  66. what did you get blocked for? was it bad?!

  67. @nor’n monkey

    KingNeckbeard was blocked for being a douchebag.

  68. This woman is the reason why women are considered the “weaker” sex…

    Hey sweetie, when you wake up from the coma that he put you in, just remember…he loves you.

    Dumb bitch.

  69. i think this chick is a “friend” of my husband’s…he keeps her as a friend just to read her insane ramblings. and NO she isn’t talking to anyone else….ALL of her posts are like this & YES she likes her own status regularly. this one is pretty tame…she is a total nutbag.

  70. Whats her full name i want her as my friend

  71. This is hardly even English. I can’t understand what she’s saying.

    @ Nikki (69): She seems totally unstable and insane.

  72. Mom?

  73. Crazy women. All they are good for is a wild ride in the sack!

  74. somebody stick a cock in her mouth

  75. Technically the cock would have to be in her hands.

  76. OMG that Deborah chick was SOOO high on meth. I know a tweaker when I see its ramblings. ha!

  77. hmm I think you know a bit too much about meth loser

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.