In this context, you're almost right in that she's saying they don't care for them anymore. But it seems to me that what she's getting at is, they aren't even pretending to care, hence sending someone who is so obviously unqualified to do a job.
Brace yourself now, because things are about to get literal:
"You see, they're just pissing on us without even giving us the courtesy of calling it rain."
Imagine that you're walking down the street, minding your own business, when all of the sudden you find yourself sprinkled upon by some wet substance that smells like pee. After hustling out of the way (how gross!), you look up and see an old man peeing off of a balcony. He's totally oblivious to the fact that he just peed on you and finishes up, and then after a few moments looks down at you and realizes what he'd just done. He quickly looks around to see if there's something else that he could place the blame on, and eventually settles on blaming the weather. "Well now, it looks like we've got a bit of rain today..." he calls down, and then hurriedly rushes out of sight, realizing that he'd just done something totally wrong.
Although lying about it wasn't courteous at all (calling it so would be a grand example of sarcasm), let us contrast it with the following situation:
The next day, everything above happens again down a different street and with a different old man. But this time, after he finishes up, he looks down at you. You glare at him, expecting maybe an explanation or an apology. Instead, he locks eyes with you, grunts, and shakes a little bit more out before sitting down and reading his newspaper. You see, he's just pissing on you without even giving you the courtesy of calling it rain. In this context, hopefully the meaning is more clear.
A more common use of "give/show sb. the courtesy" would be:
You could have shown us the courtesy of letting us try to fix it before giving us a bad review on Yelp.
This could be a business's reply to a customer's negative review on yelp, if the business owner felt that it was an unfair review. A more graphic (and somewhat common usage) is as follows (apologies for vulgarity if it offends):
If you're going to fuck me, you could at least show me the courtesy of buying me dinner first.
(This is a play on words -- "to fuck" can mean both "to have sex with" and "to wrong someone/to mistreat someone.") This is something that a person who feels betrayed might say to their betrayer. E.G. disgruntled employee to boss, spouse A to spouse B upon being served with divorce papers without warning, etc... Again, that last one is pretty vulgar so I wouldn't use it in day-to-day speech, but it serves the purpose of showing how this phrase is used.
"At the moment" implies a short time, as, he was bust at that moment. There is an expectation of change relatively soon after.
moment n.
1. A brief, indefinite interval of time.
If the time in the past lasted longer, you can use other prepositions regarding time:
during, at the same time, at the time, in the meanwhile, for the time being, while, etc.
Since your study of English was not momentary, I would use a phrase that connoted a longer time interval.
In 2001 I watched a great documentary about Shakespeare. I was learning English at the time, and this was the reason that novel books attracted my attention...
I'm not exactly sure how you are trying to link novel books with Shakespeare. Shakespeare mostly wrote plays and sonnets. If you are saying you were attracted to
his work, you could say exactly that:
In 2001 I watched a great documentary about Shakespeare. I was learning English at the time, and for this reason I was attracted to his work/for this reason his work attracted my attention...
Best Answer
Of course dawned on me has a tense - it's just that in practice it's usually past, for the same reason we tend to speak of realising things in the past (you can't know something until you know it). But it can be...
It seems to me OP's confusion stems from the fact that s/he expects some grammatical connection between when you realise something and the timeframe(s) of the thing(s) involved in the realisation. There is no such connection, obviously. It might dawn on you tomorrow that the universe began 15B years ago, or it might have dawned on you yesterday that it will end 15B years from now.
In the case of OP's final example...
...there's some semantic justification for saying dawned and didn't would normally be the same tense, simply because the realisation and the lack of concern would often be concurrent. But it might be what's dawned on you is you will not be bothered at some time in the future (even though you might have been bothered when you realised this, and you might still be bothered when making the observation later).
Other possible temporal relationships between the three highlighted verbs are also perfectly credible. What dawns on you may be that you are not bothered now (or will not be bothered in the future, or would not be bothered in a hypothetical scenario) about the fact that he will/might live there.