The Offensive Olympiads

Readers: I decided to delete this one, because there’s potential for some people I love to get v-e-r-y offended, and it’s not worth it. My bad, and my apologies.

And thanks for the feedback.

17 thoughts on “The Offensive Olympiads”

  1. Its gotta be the sweet 16 reception. To tell all those people to go home, straight up is way ruder than #2. (#2 is still incredibly rude)

  2. No. 1…if only because it offends (directly) more people than scenario #2 does. What kind of an asshole wouldn’t invite 15% more to the main party btw?

  3. That is a tough one. Did you notice a common thread with the people who were left out?

    My husband and I agree that is more offensive to assume you’re welcome with your dog somewhere than it is to exclude people. Even though that was rude, there must her been a reason- but there’s no reason to ever, EVER show up with a dog anywhere, I’m a little offended the hostess didn’t just tell her to leave her mutt with her driver.

  4. I remember that second story from when you posted it here prior to thinking better of it and deleting it… It’s a tough call but I think the first one is slightly more offensive.

  5. Dave from Staten Island

    Dude, Both are unbelievable…they really did happen? I vote for #1. What kind of person would be so inconsiderate to so many people. Both are both bad though..

  6. Number 2. I’m continually amazed at how clueless some dog owners are. Bringing them into stores, restaurants, etc. Calling in the driver adds insult to injury.

  7. Who was the Sweet 16 party really for if it was a bunch of grownups and cocktails? I think that’s rudest.

    The dog doesn’t upset me that much. Presumably everyone knows crazy Auntie shows up with that damn dog everywhere. The vomit did get cleaned up.

  8. Both are offensive, but the sweet 16 party is in a league by itself, if only because the a- hole parents are most likely passing their awful characteristics to their kid.

  9. I vote for #1 being worse. Both were bad, but the first one insulted a large number of people where were ostensibly “friends”, while the second example had one person being an imbecilic child.

  10. #1 is worse. My rationale is basically the same as Clint’s.

    I’m also amused by the thought of a 16-year-old (and presumably a bunch of her teenage friends) partying at a hotel bar.

  11. #1. By a lot, actually. Because #2 is unthinking and oblivious but #1 is deliberate and premeditated.

    Also, if any of the excluded 15% were of the same general age as the birthday girl, that would make #1 especially heinous and the parents should be taken out and beaten. However, even if it were only adults who were “shown the door”, that’s still bad enough.

Leave a Reply