I would think that given your condition and required sporadic use a Doctor would happily prescribe you a card which you could use at your discretion when you saw the need.
If my system was implemented in Draconian fashion you might be required to renew it with your doctor annually.
Alice:
You are very wrong. Exposing me and mine to danger and inconvenience is my business.
I do not have to wait until somebody gets killed or hurt to object to unsafe behavior.
please Scylla present evidence (not your observations) re: cart usage, increase etc. Repeating “what I’ve observed” does not answer the request for evidence.
Other potential reasons for an increase in carts:
RE: number you’ll allow - you have zero evidence that the magic number you want to allow was not what was there that day, and the number there that day bothered you. the ‘evidence’ you presented was your personal observations (if there was anything other than that, please repeat it cause I sure as hell haven’t seen it) and as I’ve pointed out your ‘observations’ are insufficient to prove the lack of medical necessity. Again, most of the people I know personally who have a medically provable condition **did not look like ** they needed one.
Irresponsible cart usage can happen w/persons who have disabilities and those without.
What my beef is:
the attitude - the ‘look’ - the ‘you don’t really need that, you’re just a bum’ thought balloon that hangs over the judgemental heads of folks.
Because I know that it’s exactly that sort of shit that prevented my friends from partaking of outings even though they had a medical need for accomodations.
Because I know folks w/disabilities who tire most of having to prove over and over again that they ‘deserve’ what they need.
Because having a disability is all by it’s fucking self enough of a burden to bear w/o having to ‘prove’ it over and over again to satisfy the smug jackasses of the world who feel that they can ‘tell’ if some one needs accomodations because of observations.**
** if that description of ‘some one who can tell if some one needs accomodations because of observations’ doesn’t fit you, than assume that the ‘smug jackass’ reference does not refer to you either.
Me as well. People are often quite inconsiderate with strollers.
The situation differs in two key respects.
Obvious abuse tends to be visible. If you saw a 30 year old man in a baby stroller you could be pretty sure he shouldn’t be in there.
Strollers tend to be light and are propelled by walking human beings. They are not heavy machinery moving under their own power, and they do not posess the same potential danger.
This is stupid. Your simile is invalid because of the relative hazard represented by a stroller versus a motorized cart.
QUOTE]*Originally posted by wring *
**please Scylla present evidence (not your observations) re: cart usage, increase etc. Repeating “what I’ve observed” does not answer the request for evidence.
[/quote]
**
If I observe a bee on a flower I consider this as evidence that there is a bee hive within a mile or so. We get our evidence through observation of events. There is nothing invalid about observation, and it most emphatically does qualify as evidence.
This is besides the point, though. The reasonable burden of proof should not rest on my shoulders. Their can be little doubt that the usage of these carts on pedestrian walkways represents both a hazard and an inconvenience to pedestrians.
If they are going to be offered and available, it is reasonable to expect that steps will be taken to ensure that pedestrians are not inconvenienced and endangered unnecessarily.
The fact that there are no controls whatsoever in place is really all the evidence I need that something is wrong.
I think I mentioned the latter possibility in an earlier post.
Partially correct. I thought the presence was burdensome and dangerous in the numbers I saw, and I was bothereed by that.
Had reasonable controls been in place to ensure that I was not being hazarded and inconvenienced without need, than I could accept it with a smile as being necessary in a civil and considerate world and I would have had no problem.
Seeing as there were no controls in place and no steps at all had been taken to make such an assurance, I think my gripe is legitimate. Again, I think the park has a responsibility to not endanger or inconvenience its guests unnecessarily. They have failed to exercise reasonable controls, and in the face of that I saw no reason to doubt what strong circumstantial evidence presented, which was that the carts were being abused.
Because it affects the safety and convenience of myself and my family there need to be controls in place to prevent abuse. Without controls of any kind my assumption based on compelling circumstantial evidence that abuse was taking place is compelling.
The park has a positive responsibility to ensure that this does not happen.
Yes. But there are no controls on who gets these things an no standards of competance necessary. This constitutes an unnecessary risk. It is irresponsible and negligent to allow this unnecessary risk.
I agree that that’s bad.
I’m sorry about that, but it is a two way street. I think a disabled person has the right to expect to consideration, but that means they have to give it as well.
I don’t like the hazards and inconvenience of these carts but I realize understand and accept wholeheartedly that they are necessary in a fair and considerate society, and because of that I have no problem at all with their legitimate use.
Similaryl a person with a legitimate need may not like having to present a card or otherwise prove that need, but I think he needs to accept that that is also necessary in a fair and considerate society to protect everyone from the abusive users.
I don’t doubt it sucks. Perhaps if everybody knew those carts were only issued for legitimate medical needs the “smug bastards” might behave a little differently.
I think so. Nobody gives dirty looks to people in wheelchairs. At least that I know of.
I disagree w/your burden of proof. Your observation of a bee may be evidence of a hive nearby, but it’s not evidence of a ‘trend’ or an ‘increase’ or an ‘overall’ assessment, as you are claiming here. Your observations of individual places on certain days may be some evidence of some patterns around where you are (depending on the frequency, timing etc of the visits) but it’s certainly not evidence of an ‘overall trend’.
Again, I disagree that some one should have to prove that they deserve/need an accomodation that they’re entitled to and need.
and I’m quite surprised that you claim that once such a system is in place, that the nasty stares and condemning looks will abate. As you demonstrated yourself so well, even when some one had a placard/handicapper plate, there will still be the ‘you don’t really deserve that’ looks and judgemental air from people who still believe that they can tell by looking.
even in this thread, you admit that you don’t believe that some one who is ‘merely’ obese really ‘needs/deserves’ accomodations (But you’ll not question it if there was a system in place??? really? and the judgemental tone that you used in your OP wouldn’t still come through? read through the Pit thread about obesity lately? ) still believe that if some one had a little placard they wouldn’t still get the looks of “well, if you merely exercised more and ate less”??
There’s evidence right here that even when some one has proved their need, folks still question it.
So, I’ll continue to allow the parks/stores to administer their policies as they see fit, and when I see some one w/o an ‘apparent need’ using a scooter, I’ll once again thank my lucky stars that I don’t both need one and not look like I do.
**
On what basis? It seems pretty damn clear to me that if someone is going to engage in an action that is going to effect me by both inconvenience and hazard that the burden of proof is on them to prove it is necessary.
How is this wrong?
I do not know if it is a nationwide trend. I have not conducted a study. It is an obvious trend in and around me, which is what I’ve been claiming. Do you believe cart usage is down or up?
Again, on what basis? We are required to do so all the time for all kinds of things. You need to prove you have insurance to drive your car. You need to prove you are capable by taking a test. You have to prove you have a ticket to get into a show or an amusement park. You need to prove you are 65 to get a senior citizen’s benefit. You need to prove that an accident occured before you collect insurance. You need to prove your eligibility for all kinds of things in the course of day to day to life.
In what way is this different? We make people prove things that are much less hazardous and inconvenient to others than cart usage. On what basis do you propose that this particular case be exempt from the way everything else is done?
Stick it in your ear, and right back at you. You know what the piece was about and to throw it back in my face in this manner is shitty of you. That’s twice in this thread your taking nasty shots at me that are uncalled for. I think better of you than that.
No I didn’t make an admission. What I did was stated my belief when you asked. There is nothing to “admit.” That is my personal belief and I beleive it is correct, and I make no bones about it.
I have no problem seperating my personal general beleif from a Doctor’s qualified specific opinion concerning a patient under his care. That’s not such a difficult concept.
Yes. My OP tone is judgemental. I am judging a general trend that affects my time as a paying customer and the safety of my family, against what appears to be widespread abuse and observing that the responsible institution is utilizing no controls whatsoever, and I am judging this to be quite bad.
It’s not going to fix everything for everybody and make the world a happier place to all who inhabit it. I never said that it was. I suggested that it could improve the situation.
Even you seem to grant that there is some level of abuse. Removing that reduces the number of carts out there, and hence the level of general frustration among the inconsiderate.
And I’ll wonder how you can sit so high on a horse and yet have your head in the sand.
yes, we have to prove we have insurance in order to drive. But not every time we get into the car. etc.
Re Burden of proof - from your OP my belief is that you were claiming a trend. Not just for that day in that park or in your iimmediate vicinity, but ‘general’, as in the title of this thread - “growing use of mobility devices” not “growing use of mobility devices in this one theme park”. That’s why I still maintain that you have the burden of proof. Now, if you’re instead claiming that only in your immediate vicinity, and only on the days you’re there, fine. but that shouldn’t cause a rethinking of policy on a generalized basis, (which still seems to be what you’re doing)
You still need to prove that you, your family etc are in danger from those people who use carts w/o medical necessity - since you admit that some people will need them no matter what else, and some documentation of injuries from them would go quite a ways to support your contention that there’s any realistic danger - come on, I know you know how to do research and you think folks need to prove all sorts of things, prove what level of danger there is from those carts, that it’s significant, and significant enough to require people who are already burdened by disability and the pain etc from that, to continue to have to prove day in and day out to all the cart dweebs across the US that, yes, Virginia, they do have a disability and they need one of those carts.
Another problem w/your ‘system’ is that observable (but perhaps temporary) conditions would not qualify, so if you fell in the parking lot, causing a bowling ball sized bruise on your ankle, you would not be allowed to use a cart to get way back to the back of the store to select the cane you wanted to buy to help you walk.
nor would the person who’s purse had just been stolen, nor would the person who lost their card, etc etc etc. they’d just be shit out of luck. sucks to be you. life’s not fair and all that.
re: your other examples -
the senior discount isn’t something the person needs, but is something they’re entitled to. Ditto student discount. (they may ‘need’ it in order to afford it, but that’s not the same thing)
the ticket - all people have to prove they’ve paid. Now, if you decided that only people who ‘looked like that couldn’t afford the ticket’ would have to prove that they paid, you’d come closer to what you’re proposing.
RE: what you are claiming as ‘cheap shots’. I have sensed from you (especially in this thread) a judgemental tone, you admit there is one. The people you selected to describe in your OP for example. You claim that you can seperate your personal disdain for out of shape folks from those who’ve been doctor certified as having a disability, but you see, that’s where I’m having the problem with your stance.
for the only way for you to know that they’ve been certified as having a disability is for them to demonstrate the proof to you in some fashion (either directly or through a card shown to the cart geek).
and some one else’s medical records/ conditions aren’t remotely your business at all.
Now, I may believe that you have a rationale for requiring that if you could demonstrate to me that there’s any real documented danger from people using handicapper scooters in the real world. Not, ‘I saw this guy careening around one day’, but real world data. We can discuss the relative safety and reasons for licensing for driving on public roads 'cause we have data to demonstrate that, for example, drunks are involved in significantly higher proportion of accidents causing injuries.
But, from a preliminary search for ‘scooter related injuries’, the closest I got was a number (something like 300,000 nationwide over the course of a couple of years), but those were not from handicapper scooters, but those ‘razor’ scooters that were popular a few years back. which leads me to believe that injuries from these things are so rare they don’t even collect the data.
which would mean your ‘risk’ approaches nil. which would mean that even dramatically increasing your risk (which I don’t believe that you’ve demonstrated is happening), 40 times nil, is still pretty insignificant (I will of course, grant you, that if the person injured is your child, you won’t care what the relative risk is. HOwever, when you’re demanding concessions and actions from thousands of other people, you better be able to demonstrate a significant risk).
Wring:
I’m not wasting my time proving the obvious to you. I don’t expect you to prove that people give handicapped people dirty looks. I accept that it happens.
If you don’t beleive that scooter use and abuse is increasing than go debate that somewhere else.
Similarly I am not going to waste my time debating with you whether they cause a danger or whether they cause an inconvenience. Those things are self-evident, or they should be to you. It’s a motorized piece of equiptment operated at speed that carries significant inertia and momentum. You are seriously going to ask me to prove this represents a hazard? Gimme a break.
[/quote]
You have this both wrong and ass-backwards. Because you did not find a cite doesn’t mean the risk is nil. It means you didn’t find a cite.
People riding carts on pedestrian paths are recieving a concession from everybody else, not the other way around.
If you want the concession, you need to prove the need.
I’m not the one asking for a concession, nor is any other pedestrian. We are granting one.
Compared to the safety of children and pedestrians, I really couldn’t give two shits whether it hurts somebody’s feeling to show a pass in order to operate mechanized machinery on pedestrian paths. It’s a reasonable solution. Consideration works both ways. If it can potentially save one life or reduce or eliminate one injury, anybody needing one should show the pass to the cart dweep with a song in their head and a melody in their heart.
You don’t complain about handicapped placards on cards do you? Why is this different?
Wow. That’s a biggee. Gee do you think they might perhaps make an exception in such a case?
Yeah. That’s the way life works. If you lose your wallet how are you going to rent a cart anyway? You need an ID at most places to get one, so how does this change anything?
**Who the fucking hell do you think you are to preach to me about about how dare I judge what people do and don’t need and the stupidity to assert that a senior discount isn’t something the person needs?
[/quote]
Do you live on Social security? I personally know a lady who waits saves pennies so that she can get the Wendy’s seniors discount at the Superbar every Wednesday. That’s her meal for the day. Don’t you dare lecture at me and have the nerve to turn around and say senior’s don’t need a discount. You don’t know, and you’re not qualified to judge as you’ve so aptly told me.
Un fucking beleivable! Yeah you’re right, the only people with legitimate needs are people riding scooters. Nobody else counts. Needing in order to afford is the same thing when that thing is food or books or other necessities.
You’re making stuff up now.
I didn’t say I had personal disdain for out of shape folks. What you think about my tone is not the issue. Personally I think your accusatory tone, that of mockingbird, and thatddperson are the real issue here.
Yes. And if that hurts their feelings and they don’t want to do it, tough shit. Safety comes first and consideration is a two way street
[/quote]
and some one else’s medical records/ conditions aren’t remotely your business at all.
[/quote]
Are you just making this up to be difficult? Seriously. If you want a handicapped space you have to display a placard. If that’s too much of an invasion of privacy and you don’t want to do it, than you can’t have the space.
[quote]
But, from a preliminary search for ‘scooter related injuries’, the closest I got was a number (something like 300,000 nationwide over the course of a couple of years), but those were not from handicapper scooters, but those ‘razor’ scooters that were popular a few years back. which leads me to believe that injuries from these things are so rare they don’t even collect the data.
which would mean your ‘risk’ approaches nil. which would mean that even dramatically increasing your risk (which I don’t believe that you’ve demonstrated is happening), 40 times nil, is still pretty insignificant (I will of course, grant you, that if the person injured is your child, you won’t care what the relative risk is. HOwever, when you’re demanding concessions and actions from thousands of other people, you better be able to demonstrate a significant risk).
Scylla you asserted that your family is at risk of injury.
I"ve asked you to prove it. simply stating over and over that it’s obvious doesn’t cut it and you know it. If there is a risk, there should be data demonstrating it. Can a cart knock over a person? sure. But what level of risk is attached to that? how often does it happen? Come on, you know the drill - you can also get hurt in a car accident, but you gauge the relative risk vs. the benefit of driving and act accordingly. if there’s one accident between a cart and a person per year all around the country, then your risk is insignificant. If there’s 20 per year per park, then your risk on any given day is still pretty fucking low (given say 200 days of operation, 70 carts used per park etc, say 1000 other people at the park), but at least some idea of the realtive frequency. Simply asserting that it could happen and probably does some times doesn’t give us any idea of how real your risk is. There’s also a risk that some one physically near you has tuberculosis, but you don’t let that fact rule your life, nor do you demand that all people going to the park prove they don’t have TB.
The placard in the car is proved once. handing over a card to cart dweeb every time some one needs a cart isn’t.
re: the seniors needing the discount etc. I suggest that it’s you who is cramming words in mouths now.
You’re the one with it ass backwards - you started this thread telling one and all that you and your family are at risk from people on scooters, and that some significant proportion of those on them don’t ‘need’ them, then went on describing physical attributes of some that you decided probably didn’t.
You’ve admitted that you cannot tell by looking, so you cannot prove your assertion that abuses are rampant, a problem, any significant proportion of those using the carts.
You’ve also failed to give any evidence at all that there’s significant injuries happening to people because of those carts. I tried to do your research for you and found only one article that even addressed the issue (for your info it’s in a product evaluation re the carts) and it includes data like:
There’s more accidents in nursing homes than before. (inside a home, not in a theme park) (and given the relative numbers of cart users vs. other persons, not surprising there).
the person injured in many of those accidents is the rider from the thing tipping over (IOW, the rider was more likely to be injured than passers by).
that two factors significantly reduced the liklihood of accident:
a. specific types were safer all round (which is a way for the park to reduce any of the minor risk that there is)
and
b. experience on that particular model reduced the risk (which I also suggested)
In any event, you are here complaining about my attitude towards you, when I’ve attempted to get you to prop up your OP’s assertions and demands for action with any actual data at all other than your admittedly not completely reliable observations.
In any event - I’m out of this one.
I consider you generally to be a reasonable guy, a pal. We disagree on many issues, but have always in the past at least done so w/o rancor. For my part I regret the feeling that you’ve had that I’m attacking you personally. But I believe that you are wrong on this issue.
Wring:
You haven’t proved that motorized scooters are safe.
It is a motorized vehicle on a pedestrian path. A collision with a pedestrian is going to hurt the pedestrian. It may kill a kid.
I don’t need a cite to tell you that falling bricks from skyscrapers are dangerous. It’s physics. Take the mass of the scooter and the occupants and multiply by velocity. Hit a little kid with that mass at that velocity in the form of abs plastic and metal.
Who loses, the kid or the scooter?
are yo seriously maintaining there’s no significant risk?
and pieces of the shuttle falling from orbit, had they fallen on a person would have really fucked up their day as well.
relative frequency, please. LIke I’d mentioned. you cannot asses risk w/o some idea of how frequently the bad event happens.
Although bricks falling from buildings would harm your child, I"m willing to bet you still walk w/her on the sidewalks.
your cite doesn’t provide data re: relative frequency of accidents either. It did note one person got hurt.
again - you’d be at risk from contracting TB, too, should people infected w/the disease come to the park. But you’re not advocating for demonstration of TB tests prior to park admission, nor refraining from going to the park 'cause of it, either. It definately could happen. But you dismiss the risk ‘cause you dont’ percieve it to be sufficiently high to warrent concern. The relative visibility of the cart usuage, however, is in your eyes raising your awareness of the possability, but that doesn’t mean that your actual risk is any more than your risk of TB.
(main difference btw, between parking pass and scooter use is the relative distances. It’s relatively rare for some one’s mobility issues to preclude them from walking 40 feet. There’s a small and finite number of spaces alloted for handicap usage, and the distance involved is roughly the 40 feet type of thing, so it makes sense given that there’s a finite number of spaces that close that will be alloted, to insure that only the people who cannot walk the 40 feet get to use those spaces. For the parks, and stores etc, the distances traveled can be upwards of several miles. There’s significantly more people who would have difficulty w/distances between 40 feet and several miles. The finite amount of accomodations is different as well, and can be modified should the need arise).
Scylla,
Since you chose to brintg my name back in, let us consider the motorized cart as an entity. Specifically, ones that are not personally owned, as in grogery stores.
They have regulators that can be set to limit speeds. Evidently, from your description, they do not limit speed on them in your area of the country. In the areas where I have used carts, the ones available to the general public are speed regulated to a moderate walking pace. Furthermore, the more stuff you put into the basket in the front, the slower they run.
Now, about your problem with my running over people. IF I am proceeding at a safe speed and you step out in front of me as if I were not there, I will probably have trouble stopping, whether I am in a motorized cart or pushing a shopping cart.
It happens to be a common human reaction to ‘not notice’ those in wheelchairs and other personal handicap conveyences, as the handicapped are often treated as lesser beings. An attorney friend who is multiple handicapped is often treated as if he is retarded because he is of small stature, in a wheelchair and mildly deformed. The man is brilliant, yet waiters will ask “What does HE want?” of someone else at the table. 20 years ago, he had his lunch delivered to his office rather than go out to eat with a group. Now he goes out, and he acts like a “normal person”. he’s still not treated like one, but it’s getting better. Two weeks ago, we lunched together. I had my cane (short distances) and he was in his electric chair. AS we entered the restaurant, a young man in his late twenties walked BACKWARD out the door, as he was talking to a girl behind him. The young man stepped backward into the front wheels of the wheelchair, turned and did a neat sidestep into my cane and knocked it out of my hand, then make a snotty remark about keeping the gimps out of sight.
Let’s look at that situation. HE was walking bacwards. HE walked into a wheelchair, and HE tripped over my cane. Was it my responsibility to dodge him? Was it my friend’s? NO, he should have been watching where the hell he was going. (And he shoulda kept his fucking mouth shut. Cute girl called him a lose-oid freak not fit to be among humans, and took back her phone number.)
SAME THING IN PUBLIC ANYWHERE. You watch where you’re going and what you’re doing. Don’t wander around like a clueless goober, and you won’t get knocked down or run over. (And don’t smack the shit outta some little kid and knock her into someone’s immediate path, either. If it’s not me, the person may not be willing to sacrifice an ankle.)
There are compromises that come with age and illness. Fleetness of foot is one. Accomodations for that loss are becoming more available. Sorry if that tweaks you out, but the day that there’s an international system set up that will catch ALL cheaters of ALL kinds, all miscreants…then maybe the handicapped parking/cart appropriating evildoers will be stopped in their tracks. Probably a couple days after monkeys produce a film of rabbits dancing Swan Lake…
The risk increases at least directly with the number of carts.
I’ve been looking at some of these carts on line. They range from 60 (for a very light duty,) to in excess of 300 pounds for heavy duty carts (like at Hershey and Walmart.) Some can go up to ten miles an hour.
from my cite:
Do you dispute this fact?
Do you dispute this fact?
Do you dispute this?
Do you dispute this?
This?
or these?
All of these apply to Scooters.
You may take them one at a time if you wish.
My stance is very simple:
The risk increases at least directly with the number of carts. There are lots of them where before there were few. The risk is increasing.
Again, this is stupid. My three year old is on a path being passed by these things every couple of minutes. They outmass her by at least ten to one and they are made of hard materials and they are travelling silently, coming from behind at several times her velocity, and you are asking me to prove that they are dangerous?
Are you on crack?
I’ve been looking at some of these carts on line. They range from 60 (for a very light duty,) to in excess of 300 pounds for heavy duty carts (like at Hershey and Walmart.) Some can go up to ten miles an hour.
from my cite:
Do you dispute this fact?
Do you dispute this fact?
Do you dispute this?
Do you dispute this?
This?
or these?
All of these apply to Scooters.
You may take them one at a time if you wish.
My stance is very simple:
Thatddperson:
This is really starting to piss me off. Your increased mobility does not tweak me out. I have no problem whatsoever with the legitimate use of mobility devices for those for whom they are medically necessary.
I have repeated this several times, and I have taken pains to make it clear in just about every single post. Everything I’ve said has been consistent with that statement.
So kindly stop making the accusation. Do you think you can extend to me that courtesy, or is your handicap actually mental?
Second point. Why do you object to limiting rentals to those with legitimate medical needs?
and do you claim that any of that applies to the situation that you described? (SPeed, type of vehicle, size of vehicle - hint, the answer is no)
YOu won’t directly answer any questions about relative risks, ‘increases as number of carts increase’ ? christ - have you lost all ability to argue your point?
If you’re talking 43 carts in use in the lobby of a hotel, I’ll grant you, that’s a significant number. But 70 for an entire theme park? with how many thousand other people in attendance?
do you advocate for the screening of park attendees for commuinicable diseases? vaccinations? criminal record? mental illness? Your daughter could be at risk for thousands of horrible fates. None of which is checked in the least, neither are you arguing that they should be. There’s hundreds of strollers there, too, people bump other folks w/those as well.
Do you have any documentation of accidents to park patrons from drive by cartings? Hmm?
no?
then you’re still in the land of “well, it could happen and if you double the number of carts, you’ll double the (negligable) risk”
fuck it.
I am unwilling to potentially loose a friendship over this. asking if I’m on crack- bah. I really made an attempt to tone it down you know. you have not. I sincerely hope that your daughter is not harmed by a scooter or a errant smoker, and that you never need any adaptive device.
Scylla your comments in this thread are making me weary.
You continue to rant with superior moral outrage at those folks that may potentially be using a cart without a completely debilitating disease to justify it.
You keep spouting off about your inconvenience and the chance that your child may be injured by a cart, ignoring that your child may be injured by a falling toilet. Shit – you’re at a theme park – she could get injured if Goofy inadvertently stepped backward onto her foot.
You demand that poor folks that aren’t as able-bodied as you go to extreme measures to get licensed in order to share the park with you. How dare they have a subtle disability that’s not totally and completely obvious to you? How dare they choose to use a resource that may slightly inconvenience you?
Good lord - your pomposity makes my head ache. You rant like my father - who, BTW is a 65 year old retired army colonel who sits on the porch with a gun carrying on about “rotten kids” - he at least has 40 years of military service and a myriad of health problems to justify his crotchyness - what’s your excuse?
<groan> I’m going to take an aspirin and hope that my head stops aching soon.
Fuck you too.