I put a note on someone's car today

[Junkie Brewster]

I passed a car in the parking lot with a bumper sticker that read, "WHO IS JOHN GALT?" So, I pulled out a piece of paper and a pen, and I wrote:

"Who is John Galt? He is a fictional character in an over-wrought, second rate novel,"

[boobooday]

1. LOL

:thumbsup:

[Sanity Claws]

2. He is also a rapist

[Dr Morbius]

27. Um,not so.

I read several of Ms. Rand's books, and I think you are confused. The lead character in The Fountainhead, Howard Roark, rapes the leading female character in the book, Dagny Taggart (and guess what? In the twisted mind of Ayn Rand, she loves it!). John Galt is a mystery character until nearly the end of Atlas Shrugged, and there's no rape scene in the whole book.

So, John Galt isn't a rapist. Ayn Rand was a bizarre woman who apparently admired rape. Howard Roark, architect extraordinaire, was a rapist.

Just sayin'. :)

[Sanity Claws]

29. You're right

I was thinking of The Fountainhead.
I never got through Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was more than enough for me.

[ClassWarrior]

53. Ironic...

I never made it through "Atlas Shrugged" myself. I kind of enjoyed "The Fountainhead" as a novel (in large part because I was very much into Frank Lloyd Wright at the time). But I totally disagree with its worldview.

NGU.

[DailyGrind51]

89. Rand was an admirer of serial killer William Hickman!

"Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer. Her works are treated as gospel by right-wing powerhouses like Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas, but Ayn Rand found early inspiration in 1920's murderer William Hickman..."

http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand,_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders,_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killers

[Liberal_in_LA]

98. rape followed by long stupid monologue about how the rape was right

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Well done!

:thumbsup:

[Kerrytravelers]

4. Funny! (Just be careful, these people are crazy!)

:rofl:

[safeinOhio]

5. Don't forget

also a flaming Atheist. They love that one.

[Junkie Brewster]

6. I doubt s/he had read the novel

It seems these days Ayn Rand has more fans than readers.

[blondeatlast]

9. It's a good thing for her legacy that that seems to be the case. If half of her "fans"

would actually read the book, libertarianism would be a non-issue and the gawddamned aPaulogists wouldn't be all over DU, either. They'd not be able to present an argument since they can't stick to her phiilosophy for more than a minute..

[Travis Coates]

11. I couldn't make it through half of the book myself

The woman (IMO) couldn't write

[hobbit709]

25. You got that far?

Rand is the only author that put me to sleep. And I've ready plenty of political theory.

[Travis Coates]

30. I would have waaaay rather read Tolkien

But I was trying to figure out the attraction the book holds for the Freepers

[lapfog_1]

13. Most Ayn Rand fans can't read. - n/t

[MindPilot]

10. Flaming?

Since when are Atheists "flaming"? I know many believe we will spend eternity being uncomfortably warm, but do we ever actually ignite?

[ejpoeta]

7. i don't know who john galt is. so i don't understand. but lol

[Junkie Brewster]

17. He is a character in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand

Wikipedia on John Galt

[blondeatlast]

8. Thank you, from one who had to read that gawdawful tripe. nt

[MindPilot]

12. Who is John Galt? John Galt is the CEO of Greenhouse Builders.

Seriously. I'm not making this up. His company just finished painting my house with a heat-reflecting product called "Cool-Wall" that is supposed to prevent moisture damage to the stucco and reduce A/C costs. In fact a couple of his guys are here right now finishing up some final touches.

Really:
http://builders.greenhouseintl.com/profile/john-galt

[rurallib]

14. should have signed Rand Paul's name to the note.

[blondeatlast]

15. LOL! nt

[begin_within]

16. He's a gay porn star

Oh wait, that's Jon Galt.

[Junkie Brewster]

18. That would have been good! N/T

[TexasObserver]

19. I disapprove of anyone putting a note regarding politics on another's car.

They have their right to free speech, and their vehicle is their canvas. Your vehicle is your canvas. The answer to speech we don't like is to retort with our speech, either verbally or on our canvas. We don't grab the other guy's sign; we hoist our own.

When you place your note on another person's car, you're touching their property, and that's offensive to many. We expect to be able to have whatever we want as our bumper sticker, and others can like it or not like it, but they can't place notes on our car. Technically, it is a trespass, and would give rise to a civil case for trespass (although that's unlikely). More likely is they catch you, raise hell with you, the conflict leads to someone pushing someone, and the issue of the original aggressor becomes important. When you place your note on the other car, you're starting the incident - an incident which could end with you either getting punched or arrested, if not both.

What is the point of taunting someone you don't know? Everyone knows some geek who is an Ayn Rand fan. Most are harmless. Some are tea baggers. They're not the problem, in any event. The problem is the scoundrels in the GOP (and certain DINOs) who are owned by big business and do their bidding, from the war party to Wall Street.

[miscsoc]

22. is sticking a flyer under someone's windscreen wiper trespassing?

I wouldn't object if I found some right wing riposte to a sticker onmy car, as long as it was civil and unthreatening.

[TexasObserver]

23. Yes.

Suppose you lift a person's windshield wiper to place the flyer. That's a trespass. If damages accompany that action, you can be sued for those damages.

Suppose you lift the windshield wiper, place the flyer under it, and the wiper doesn't quite reseat properly. The driver comes out, gets in their car. It's raining, so they turn on the windshield wipers. Your flyer flops across their windshield, and the wiper flips up and stops doing its job. Now the driver has to get out of their car. They do, and while correcting the wiper blade, catch the edge in their eye. Guess who is liable? YOU. Same scenario, but they hit someone after turning on their wipers and your flyer is suddenly stuck in the middle of the windshield. They hit someone. Guess who is liable? YOU.

By what right do you approach and place anything on the car of another (other than a note that you or someone else hit their car)?

[GoneOffShore]

28. You read a lot of Robert Ludlum don't you?

I've never seen that much worst case scenario in one place in my life.

And I'm a pessimist.

[TexasObserver]

32. No. I don't read any Ludlum.

I'm a realist, and if you knew anything about civil liability cases, you'd be a realist too.

What I described is exactly how people find themselves liable all the time. They do dumb things that they think can't possibly result in their being held liable.

[hlthe2b]

79. Hon... how do you manage to leave the house ....

with that level of intense fear of legal consequences? Whew, boy. That would be a tough way to live life...:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

99. It's called having knowledge.

I've tried tort cases for decades. Sometimes it matters if one knows what they're talking about. Not every opinion here is informed. In fact, when it comes to legal matters, most opinions here are utterly ridiculous.

[hlthe2b]

103. You seem to have no filter...

like a 4th year med student who perceives himself to have every disease that he/she studies. I'm not saying that with the intention of insulting you. I just think it surely must be hard to live that way.

[TexasObserver]

104. I certainly don't suffer fools well.

[JNelson6563]

39. Yeah, no shit!

Geez, I thought I was pessimistic! I'm nothing but sunshine and flowers compared to some here.

Julie

[hlthe2b]

78. LOL

[soupkitchen]

41. Over Kill

Are you a lawyer, or just winging it?

First of all, I doubt that putting a note under somebody's wiper, especially on a public street, constitutes legal trespass. Secondly, while the notion that a flyer stuck under a windsheild wiper might be grounds for a legal case, there is the concept of contributory negligence to consider. Namely, the driver is supposed to inspect his vehicle before driving.

I mean it's a pretty standard practice for meter maids and policemen to put tickets under wipers. If case law consistently held them liable for accidents, I don't think that would be the practice.

Not to say that I disagree with your fundamentally decent prespective that we should respect each other's property, but, on the other hand, if a person's car alarm was interfering with my sleep by going off all night, or if I saw the car had a flat tire, or for any of numerous other practical reasons, I wouldn't hesitate to put a note under somebody's wiper without worrying about the legal consequences.

[TexasObserver]

44. Believe what you wish.

If you want to reject knowledge for your hunch, knock yourself out. I'm never surprised at the number of people who choose ignorance over knowledge, having practiced law for over 30 years. If so many of you didn't insist on following your own bad hunches, what would lawyers do? Fixing messes created by people who don't have sense enough to listen to a lawyer is much of what lawyers do.

The meter maid is authorized by law to place the ticket on your car. No liability there. The witness who sees your car hit or the person who hits your car has legal authority to leave a note. By what legal authority does one place a personal note castigating the car owner's bumper sticker opinions? There is none.

[soupkitchen]

52. Well, as long as you aren't charging people

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.aspx?id=2267

Understanding that every case raises it own set of particulars it took me two minutes on the internet to establish that putting a note under somebody's windshield on a public street does not constitute trespass under Federal Law.

And it should be noted that at no time did the State of Wisconsin claim that putting leaflets under wipers constituted a threat to public safety.

However, refer me to some case law. I can listen and I can learn.


By the way, if I'm reading the article correctly the answer to your question of what legal authority entitles a person to put a note under a wiper to castigate a person's bumper sticker is The First Amendment.

Again, it might not be cool but it's not illegal; it does not constitute trespass (in a public area)

[TexasObserver]

70. That case has nothing to do with the situation in the OP.

That case was decided based upon the discriminatory aspect of the law - whereby government allowed some flyers for some political purposes, but not others.

You're talking about criminal actions for trespass by government, and I'm talking about civil actions by individuals for trespass (the tort) - two entirely different concepts - which I've already discussed.

[Junkie Brewster]

54. If you have a flier, or in this case, a note on your car, and you don't remove it

and you have an accident, then I think you would have a hard slog to charge the person who put the flier under your wiper in the first place. After all, you neglected to remove it, and you were driving too fast for conditions (rain) to stop when something obscured your view.

[donco6]

57. Is it illegal to place fliers on cars:

Depends. Generally, if the property in which the vehicles are located are privately owned, then the distribution of advertisement material may be in violation of trespassing, which is often grounds for a civil cause of action (unless signs are blatantly posted on the land, then it might fulfill the elements of a criminal trespass). On public property, the law varies from city to city depending on local ordinances that outline laws for trespassing, soliciting, and littering. If the advertisement material is discarded onto the property or cause injury to land, property, or patrons, then the party who initially ditributed the material will often be sought for liabilty.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_it_illegal_to_place_flyers_on_cars

[femrap]

71. You sound like the type

of person that John Galt wouldn't like.

Nor Ayn Rand for that matter.

I still do not understand this hatred of Rand by the younger generations. Go read Marx and Engels then. Or that boring German dude blab about Superman.

Most of the boyz dislike her because her female character in 'Atlas Shrugged' makes them feel ineffective and lazy. And that probably goes for the girls as well.

[TexasObserver]

72. You sound like the type of person who likes Ayn Rand's drivel.

I read it when I was an adolescent, too. But then, I grew up.

Atlas Shrugged is the biggest pile of crap ever written, so I suppose she can be proud of that.

Ayn Rand was a psycho and a fraud. As a writer, she's a joke.

[femrap]

90. My aren't you

the fancy little writer.

'the biggest pile of crap?' That's stretching it, I believe.

I don't believe you ever read any of her books.

And I don't have to read any more of your drivel.

[TexasObserver]

91. Yes, Ayn Rand was a terrible writer and a sorry human being.

Her writings tend to appeal to minds which never developed beyond adolescence.

Of course I've read her books. I've read many books that are best suited for kindling or toilet paper, and hers qualify for both.

[arbusto_baboso]

112. Law or not, you hijacked the O/P.

Way to go.

[mitchum]

81. You forgot the sarcasm icon

[treestar]

83. There's some contributory negligence

Anyone who can't remove a flyer without catching their eye in the wiper blade is likely to be found to be negligent.

One is only liable for things proximately caused by the trespass, not everything that flows from it regardless of other acts.

Same with the accident, there could be comparative liability there.

You ought to be a torts professor - those scenarios are like law school torts exam questions.

[TexasObserver]

94. You're free to assert that defense.

If you try civil tort cases, you'll find that putting contrib on an otherwise innocent plaintiff isn't as easy as you may think it is. A jury tends to side with either the plaintiff or the defendant in a torts case up and down the line. If they like the plaintiff's side of the case, they don't buy into contrib. If they do go with some contrib, it's lower level and only diminishes the award marginally.

In our scenario, remember that it is raining when the driver realizes the windshield wiper is dislodged. The driver gets out, in the rain, and hurriedly attempts to fix it. If the wiper flips outward, catching the eye is a real possibility. You're putting too much burden on the plaintiff, who is responding to an unforeseen circumstance. I don't think your contrib point will fly, and furthermore, you will likely piss off the jury when you make it.

Juries hate it when defendants try to escape clear liability by suggesting the plaintiff should have reacted more quickly or better to a circumstance the defendant created. It's reasonably foreseeable if the wiper becomes dislodged and is needed in the rain, the driver will get out and try to fix it. Also reasonably foreseeable that the wiper could flip out toward the driver as that is done. The tortfeasor does not get a break on damages simply because the plaintiff might not handle the wiper as a mechanic would.

Typically, one pleads several causes of action in the alternative, submits such issues to the jury via special issues, and upon getting a favorable jury verdict, one decides which theory of the case is best supported by the evidence, most likely to produce the most money now, and most likely to stand up on appeal. Then one crafts the judgment consistent with such conclusions.

[petronius]

101. Your hypothetical is so ludicrous that I'll probably laugh about it every time

I remember it for the next several days. One of those time I may be laughing in the car, and in my distraction I may swerve in my lane. Although no accident will occur, my movement might frighten a nearby driver. In his agitation, it's possible that he might go home and forget to feed his elderly dog, perhaps resulting in gastro-intestinal distress to the canine. It's not inconceivable that this person will be a nervous pet owner who will go quickly to the vet. Hungry old dogs can be snappy, and it's not impossible that the vet will be bitten. If the disinfectant in the vet's office is understrength, due to some mistake at the pharmaceutical plant, the vet's wound may become infected. This will obviously be entirely your fault - why do you hate vets, and where should the vet's attorney contact you for damages?

[blueamy66]

111. +1

nt

[laurel46]

102. get a grip tex.

[Quantess]

24. I agree with you.

[Travis Coates]

31. I believe in Karma

I don't want people to mess W/ my car so I don't mess W/ their car

[TexasObserver]

33. While I believe in karma, I also believe it's simply best to respect others' rights.

No good can come from leaving a hostile note regarding bumper stickers on the car of another.

[Travis Coates]

34. Respecting the rights of others also has karmaic implications NT

[GoneOffShore]

68. Ah, the "karma" card. Well played grasshopper.

Though I've never seen it actually come to pass.

If it really happened, apart from coincidentally, the wicked rich would get poorer, the good would get richer, the torturer would be caught and punished and the League of Defenders of Imaginary Friends would all be undergoing psychiatric treatment.


There are no "Karmic Implications" just cosmic accidents.

[Junkie Brewster]

55. Actually, I was acting on behalf karma today

When you put a stupid bumper sticker on your car, your karmic debt is to get a smart ass reply. So I helped him out.

:evilgrin:

[Travis Coates]

63. And when you mess W/ someone else's car (and head)

Your Karmaic debt is to get it returned. Remember Karma can also be called the law of sowing and reaping and you always reap more than you sow

[Junkie Brewster]

64. I have had plenty of notes left on my car

So now the cycle is complete. Yay karma!

[Travis Coates]

67. If the cycle were complete you would have achieved Nirvana NT

[treestar]

86. When we were kids we had fake tickets

Bought them at the store. They said absurd things on them, and you could put them on a car and there were just a joke. But I guess we were trespassing.

[GoneOffShore]

69. Indeed you did.

And well done with it.

Too many people here pissing in other folks corn flakes (and I'm not talking about you).

[Junkie Brewster]

87. Thank you

:-)

[baldguy]

36. The right to free speech includes the right to have your speech challanged.

[TexasObserver]

37. That doesn't include your right to trespass on the property of others.

You can freely speak all you want. When you lift someone's windshield wiper and put a note on their property, you're not exercising your right to free speech, as you have no free speech right on their property.

[baldguy]

38. Leaving a note on a car's windshield isn't trespassing.

Any more than walking up to a house & ringing the doorbell is.

[TexasObserver]

40. Yes, it is. You're misinformed.

You may legally leave a note on a car to provide information about hitting the car, or seeing the car hit. You may not legally lift the windshield wiper and place a note under it. That's a trespass.

[Swamp Rat]

42. What if the note is simply fulfilling the wishes of the of the car owner who wants to know

who is John Galt, thus providing the car owner the answer s/he sought from the public at large? :shrug:

[annabanana]

60. +1. .After all, he asked.. . . n/t

[daleo]

66. Excellent. n/t

[spoony]

74. True, you can't just shout out a question

and be mad when someone answers.

I always stop at those "got milk" signs and say, "No, sorry."

[treestar]

85. LOL

[Dr Morbius]

46. Trespass or not; how many people do you suppose would sue over a note?

Or file charges? Does this happen all the time?

Why do companies place flyers on cars in parking lots if it is illegal? I'm not challenging your legal expertise here; you say you've practiced law for thirty years and I will take you at your word. But please explain why it is fairly commonly done when it is criminal?

[TexasObserver]

47. It's not usually criminal, although it could be.

It is a civil cause of action. Like all civil causes of action, it is not worthy of a lawsuit unless there are damages. Unless something happens that causes injury to follow, there is no real possibility of any lawsuit. That's why I presented two hypotheticals earlier, one of which involved an injury resulting to the car owner while dealing with the errant wiper that was needed to do its job of keeping water off the windshield, and the other of which was preventing the owner from seeing the road and therefore injurying a third party.

The term trespass is typically understood by lay persons as a criminal matter, not a civil matter. The term I have used is a civil cause of action which is designed to protect economic damages resulting from violations of property rights. If someone does not have your permission to touch your vehicle and they touch your windshield wiper to leave a note about your politics, they have committed a tort known as trespass. Whether that results in a case remains to be seen.

When they lift up your wiper blade, they commit a trespass. When they put the note under your wipers, they commit negligence. Why? Because notes aren't always readily visible to the driver. They may not see it at all until they're driving and engage the wipers.

The greater risk is that violence ensues from someone placing a hostile note on a car. What happens if they walk up as you place the note there? Are there words? Is anyone pushed? Who is considered the instigator, if police are called? With no permission to touch the car, and no legitimate reason to do so, the person leaving a pissy personal note about politics will almostly certainly be considered the person who provoked the incident.

[baldguy]

48. RW freaks, that's who.

Those of us who have to live in the real world know that humans don't have impenetrable force fields around themselves & their possessions - and shouldn't expect to.

[Dappleganger]

59. Sue over a note?

That's the least he should be concerned about. If the owner had caught him the OP could have been subjected to a RW ass-kicking.

[treestar]

84. But is it really worth making something of it

In the scheme of things, no.

[snooper2]

108. You are killing me with this

Where in Texas are you and what do you motor around in if I may ask :) (and license plate number, I'll memorize it :P )

I'll keep a printed copy of this thread in my pocket and leave you a present one day :rofl:

[Junkie Brewster]

49. I did retort with my speech

Yes, I put a note on the car, and that might be considered trespassing by the car owner, but I doubt it's considered trespassing under the law, at least, I've yet to see a business prosecuted for trespassing for placing fliers on cars. In any event, I fail to see how placing a note on someone's car constitutes starting the incident and seeking someone out to make a snarky comment isn't starting an incident.

[Dappleganger]

58. What you say may make perfectly good sense to you and the rest of us...

but you did open yourself up to a very potential uncivil situation by crossing the boundary of propriety.

[Junkie Brewster]

61. And if I spoke to him or her, I would have crossed the boundry of propriety

... by soliciting a conversation.

Look, I suspect the kind of person who invokes John Galt on his or her car is probably someone who is disagreeable to any challenge at all, let alone a smart ass, flippant comment. However, I am not going to be cowed into silence by the likelihood of an impolite response. Maybe I've been a liberal in a red state for too long, maybe I'm a fool, but I'm not just not that afraid of invoking someone's displeasure.

[Dappleganger]

62. Well in my state

that would probably not go over well at all. It would more than likely invite an act of violence. If you're not important to anyone, then I guess it doesn't matter. If you are a family person it's not a good idea at all.

[Greyhound]

51. Don't confuse the fact that everybody is entitled to their opinion with the absurdity

that all opinions are equal.

As for rest of that authoritarian fear-fest, sorry that you live in that world.
:shrug:

[Dappleganger]

56. I'm afraid I agree with you.

Although what the OP wrote back was quite witty, when we cross boundaries such as touching other people's property it elevates the level of tension into an area which may not remain civil for very long.

Think of what could have happened if the driver of the car returned to see someone leaving that note.

I'm just sayin'.

[Seneca]

88. I agree

Whether one calls it trespassing or not, I just don't want people touching my car to push their POV (even when I agree with it), their church, their business, or whatever it is they're trying to sell. I never have caught anyone in the act of putting something on my windshield, but if I did, I surely WOULD let them know in no uncertain terms that they are NOT entitled to use my vehicle as their marketing platform. It IS an unwelcome intrusion on my space. Plus, I am sick of the relentless hucksterism in American culture. Go sell crazy somewhere else.

The only people I want touching my car are me, my family, friends, and the mechanics who service it.

My advice for people inclined to "answer" other people's stickers: People have idiotic bumper stickers - deal with it. I am much more concerned about people's crappy driving habits than I am with their printed displays of ignorance. Those two don't always go hand in hand. I have encountered roughly as many good drivers with stickers I despise as I have bad drivers with stickers I like. I prefer the former, actually.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. Please cite law that upholds "leaving note under windshield = trespassing". -nt

[TexasObserver]

96. Read my posts if you want to understand it.

I'm not giving you a special tutorial.

It's a civil cause of action. Go to law school and they'll explain it to you in your first year.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. So you have nothing. OK.

[TexasObserver]

106. So, that's too complicated for you. OK.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

107. I understood everything you say. The question is whether actual law agrees with you.

And of THAT, you haven't provided evidence.

[TexasObserver]

109. Look it up if you want evidence, unless you're too unmotivated.

If you're too unmotivated to check out what I've told you, then you're condemned to remain in a state of ignorance. The law of trespass is well known. Your ignorance of it doesn't change it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

110. You made the allegation. Not going to carry water for you.

[joeybee12]

20. Woo-hoo!

:toast:

[miscsoc]

21. "not you, buddy"

.

[KonaKane]

26. "..written by a bitter, old, dried up misanthrope."

should have included that.

[RainDog]

35. that's funny!!

If I ever run across the same, I'll be tempted to copycat you.

[Junkie Brewster]

50. Feel free! N/T

[WeDidIt]

43. Kung Fu Monkey said it best...

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Overseas]

45. K&R! I agree ! //nt

[daleo]

65. Overwrought? Second rate?

You are too kind.

[RandomThoughts]

73. He is an ideological thought.

spoken of and made real in the minds of many people by a book.

A character in a movie or book is a thought projection of a writer and also actors.

It is as real to the mind as a real person. You can know he never lived a life, but people with his same thoughts have lived lives.


Calling him not real is a misunderstanding of how the brain works. The only difference between fiction and non fiction is if someone thinks it is a story about a person that actually lived, or an idea.

Both history and fiction are stories about ideologies that are in people by their actions.


On a lower level you could say some are real some are not, but what is real is how you think, and a book can change that in the same way history can.


Note the TV show South Park said the same thing, although in a worse way in my view.


So knowing that is a big part of knowing how stories can inspire society, or create worse thoughts.

[spoony]

75. Cool for three reasons

1. I like your username, but that doesn't have anything to do with the story.
2. You have paper and pen on you, which always tells me something (good) about a person.
3. The message. Very nicely done!

[Junkie Brewster]

76. Thank you. N/T

:D

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. 4. Narrating it threw crypto-rightists into a hissy fit. -nt

[WCGreen]

77. Third rate....

[patrice]

80. K! K! K! K! K! & RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR~

This is the kind of behavior that more of us need to adopt.

Proactive! In-offensive but forthright and to the point.

[mitchum]

82. A cardboard mouthpiece for a crazy woman

[cherokeeprogressive]

95. No pat on the back from me...

Consider your post to be your car, and my reply to be the piece of paper you found under the windshield wiper when you returned from whatever errand it was that took you away from it.

[Junkie Brewster]

100. I'll be sure to recycle it at my next destination.

Thanks!

[Liberal_in_LA]

97. lol +2