I called a certain credit card company to discuss a discrepancy in a bill this morning. After listening to a seemingly endless series of ‘press 4 for this thing’ or ‘press 5 for that thing’ I finally got to the fourth level down, I got to the ‘press 6 to talk to a customer service representative’ which I did. That was the very last option in the menu tree.
Then I waited. And waited. Etcetera. I began to need to go to the bathroom. Pressure was building up. And I waited. And - finally - after about half an hour - a real live human got on the phone!
I discussed my business with her, and she was very helpful. Thank you, Ma’am.
This is “Customer Service” in the United States, today.
Their phone system is specifically designed to discourage you from actually talking to a human. Their goal is for you (the customer) to get frustrated and give up. That’s because they have to pay someone to provide ‘customer service’, and they don’t want to pay any more ‘customer service representatives’ than they have to. They don’t actually care if they have happy customers. I have never called customer service (since the advent of telephone answering computer systems) and had the option of talking to a real live human on the first level of menus.
This says something about our society. I’m not sure just exactly what, but I am sure it isn’t good.
This is right up there with the check-out lanes at Walmart and other similar retailers. When they put in a new Walmart in our town, I looked at the seemingly endless row of check-out stands and thought happily that we would never have to wait in line again!
To my disappointment (but not surprise), Walmart is careful to schedule just enough check-out personnel so that your average wait is 20 minutes. I would lay odds that they have done time studies and found that to be the optimum cost / benefit ratio to maximize profit vs number of cashiers they have to pay vs the level of aggravation customers will withstand and still keep coming back.
I’d rather go somewhere else, and pay more, to avoid the lines. Except - Walmart is the only place you can go and buy groceries, toilet paper, a chain saw, and DVD’s with only one stop. So what do you do? Practically speaking, I have to put up with it, but I don’t have to like it - and I don’t.
-Pop, curmudgeon in training...
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thursday, March 6, 2008
When Good Men do Nothing
Evil flourishes when good men stand by and do nothing.
I’m seeing it happen at my church. What a tragedy.
-Pop
I’m seeing it happen at my church. What a tragedy.
-Pop
Saturday, February 16, 2008
And Yet Another Gun-Free Zone Rampage...
Howdy, everybody.
Gun free zones DON’T WORK. If ONE person in the auditorium in Illinois had been armed, it is very likely the death toll would have been much less. The Munchkin Wrangler says it very well.
How many more people will die because of this plain-stupid idea that a law declaring an area to be a gun-free zone will actually make it so?
God protect us from our law-makers! They disarm us, but they don’t protect us.
-Pop
Gun free zones DON’T WORK. If ONE person in the auditorium in Illinois had been armed, it is very likely the death toll would have been much less. The Munchkin Wrangler says it very well.
How many more people will die because of this plain-stupid idea that a law declaring an area to be a gun-free zone will actually make it so?
God protect us from our law-makers! They disarm us, but they don’t protect us.
-Pop
Monday, February 4, 2008
Hillary...
Apparently, Hillary has taught herself to cry at will...
How transparent!! And, come on - wimpy! Do you Democrats really want the President of the United States to be someone that either A) so transparently and obviously tries to manipulate you, or B) is so weak as to be reduced to tears on national TV? Twice??
I don’t believe for a moment that ANY foreign government would take Hillary seriously after this. Nor should they! What a joke!
If Hillary really is allowing the campaign pressure to get to her, than she most certainly is not presidential material. The pressure of being president has got to be among the most high-pressure jobs in the world!
Unbelievable!!
-Pop
How transparent!! And, come on - wimpy! Do you Democrats really want the President of the United States to be someone that either A) so transparently and obviously tries to manipulate you, or B) is so weak as to be reduced to tears on national TV? Twice??
I don’t believe for a moment that ANY foreign government would take Hillary seriously after this. Nor should they! What a joke!
If Hillary really is allowing the campaign pressure to get to her, than she most certainly is not presidential material. The pressure of being president has got to be among the most high-pressure jobs in the world!
Unbelievable!!
-Pop
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Alcoholism
Howdy;
This morning, I heard alcoholism referred to as a ‘disease’ on the radio. So I looked up the definition of ‘disease’, and I found, to my surprise, that alcoholism could possibly fall within the definition.
I always thought that a disease was a sickness you get from an infectious agent of some kind.
I want to be perfectly clear here: Alcoholism is something you do to yourself, voluntarily; and as such, it does NOT deserve the sympathy that should be reserved for the sick. I reserve my sympathy for the families and coworkers of the alcoholic; but I spare none for the alcoholic himself.
I’ve seen up close and personal the things that go on in the families of an alcoholic - and I have no sympathy at all for the alcoholic.
If you feel that you need to drink, for whatever reason, be aware that you are making a choice that can and will affect everyone around you, most especially those who love you. If you become an alcoholic as a result of your behavior, you WILL put all those you love through hell. So don’t.
This exact same sentiment applies to doing recreational drugs of any sort, as well.
Don’t go there!
-Pop
This morning, I heard alcoholism referred to as a ‘disease’ on the radio. So I looked up the definition of ‘disease’, and I found, to my surprise, that alcoholism could possibly fall within the definition.
I always thought that a disease was a sickness you get from an infectious agent of some kind.
I want to be perfectly clear here: Alcoholism is something you do to yourself, voluntarily; and as such, it does NOT deserve the sympathy that should be reserved for the sick. I reserve my sympathy for the families and coworkers of the alcoholic; but I spare none for the alcoholic himself.
I’ve seen up close and personal the things that go on in the families of an alcoholic - and I have no sympathy at all for the alcoholic.
If you feel that you need to drink, for whatever reason, be aware that you are making a choice that can and will affect everyone around you, most especially those who love you. If you become an alcoholic as a result of your behavior, you WILL put all those you love through hell. So don’t.
This exact same sentiment applies to doing recreational drugs of any sort, as well.
Don’t go there!
-Pop
Friday, February 1, 2008
Democrats vs Republicans
Frankly, I’m getting tired of thinking about it. But I do have some opinions, and I’m entitled to mine just as you are yours. Here’s what I think:
Democrats and the far left are anti-second amendment. It bothers me that they apparently do not believe that I can be trusted not to go on a shooting spree. At root, the Democrats do not believe that the common, law abiding person has the self discipline to handle owning and carrying guns. Well, frankly, I do have that self discipline, and I resent the implication that I can’t be trusted. Or maybe they’re afraid of us.
Republicans, on the other hand, are pro second amendment. Republicans trust me with a gun. They encourage me to defend my family, myself, and those needing protection around me. I like that.
I hear that the Democrats want ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I know that our medical system is broken. Part of this is that it just isn’t as simple as it needs to be. A hundred years ago, you go to your doctor; you get treated; you pay the doc; minimum money spent. Today, though - you, or somebody, pays insurance premiums continuously. You get sick, you go to your doctor; you get treated; someone gets paid to fill out forms and insurance gets filed; you still pay the doctor a copay, usually; the insurance company pays some or most of your bill. But think about this - the insurance company is making money doing this. All the employees required to do all that paperwork, and all those lawyers, and lawsuits, and all those insurance executives, are living off of your insurance premiums, ultimately. In the end, the cost of medical care is inflated by the cost of the entire insurance industry. What the heck are we paying all those people for?
Back to HillaryCare and it’s variations from the Democrats. They want to require everyone to have insurance. A lot of people find that attractive, Shucks, I find it attractive, too. But, who is going to pay for it? If we pay for it in taxes or any scheme that evenly distributes the costs of the insurance, isn’t that unfairly penalizing healthy people? I guess maybe the justification is that we all benefit from a healthy society. Pretty hard to quantify the benefit of a healthy society to me, though. And, do you spend a million dollars to keep somebody alive another month? Who decides? Pretty soon these people will begin thinking that benefits should only be applied to the non-hopeless cases, to cut costs. Shortly after that, somebody will introduce the idea of euthanasia of old people. And so on. I think socialized medicine may be a very slippery slope, and the individual will no longer have any control over it. Mother Hillary will take care of You!
From the debates a couple of nights ago, most of the current plans involve requiring mandatory insurance. There seem to be different ways of paying for it, but no matter how you slice it, in the long run we the people will foot the bill. If we’re going to foot the bill anyway, why don’t we just axe the entire insurance industry and save all that overhead cost? But I can’t see this happening - the insurance industry spends a LOT of money in Washington. YOUR money. And both the leading Democratic candidates have already said they will raise taxes. Bend over, here it comes!
What do the Republicans say? Well, I don’t think anything much will change on that score. Listening to the debate, I think they want to improve the system, but they say that it won’t be mandatory; so at least we’ll have some choice, something the Democrats won’t give us. I think Republicans probably make better neighbors than Democrats; they don’t seem to get in your business quite as much.
I kind of like Robert A. Heinlein’s idea, mentioned in his novel “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, that if you need insurance, you find a bookie and place a bet - on the progression of your health, for instance. It’d be a heck of a lot simpler than what we do now.
in general, Democrats want more government control of individuals and individual rights. This is the same thing any dictator wants, and that comparison makes me nervous. Once you give them that control, it will take revolution to get it back.
In general, the Republicans want to promote capitalism, a system that has it’s good side and it’s dark side, but it does seem to work pretty well. People that are willing to get out and work, and think about what they’re doing, will do well with the Republicans, People who want the government to spoon-feed them will lean towards the Democrats.
Personally, I don’t want or need the government in my business any more than necessary for the defense of the country as a whole. This causes me to lean towards the Republicans.
-Pop
Democrats and the far left are anti-second amendment. It bothers me that they apparently do not believe that I can be trusted not to go on a shooting spree. At root, the Democrats do not believe that the common, law abiding person has the self discipline to handle owning and carrying guns. Well, frankly, I do have that self discipline, and I resent the implication that I can’t be trusted. Or maybe they’re afraid of us.
Republicans, on the other hand, are pro second amendment. Republicans trust me with a gun. They encourage me to defend my family, myself, and those needing protection around me. I like that.
I hear that the Democrats want ‘socialized medicine’.
Now, I know that our medical system is broken. Part of this is that it just isn’t as simple as it needs to be. A hundred years ago, you go to your doctor; you get treated; you pay the doc; minimum money spent. Today, though - you, or somebody, pays insurance premiums continuously. You get sick, you go to your doctor; you get treated; someone gets paid to fill out forms and insurance gets filed; you still pay the doctor a copay, usually; the insurance company pays some or most of your bill. But think about this - the insurance company is making money doing this. All the employees required to do all that paperwork, and all those lawyers, and lawsuits, and all those insurance executives, are living off of your insurance premiums, ultimately. In the end, the cost of medical care is inflated by the cost of the entire insurance industry. What the heck are we paying all those people for?
Back to HillaryCare and it’s variations from the Democrats. They want to require everyone to have insurance. A lot of people find that attractive, Shucks, I find it attractive, too. But, who is going to pay for it? If we pay for it in taxes or any scheme that evenly distributes the costs of the insurance, isn’t that unfairly penalizing healthy people? I guess maybe the justification is that we all benefit from a healthy society. Pretty hard to quantify the benefit of a healthy society to me, though. And, do you spend a million dollars to keep somebody alive another month? Who decides? Pretty soon these people will begin thinking that benefits should only be applied to the non-hopeless cases, to cut costs. Shortly after that, somebody will introduce the idea of euthanasia of old people. And so on. I think socialized medicine may be a very slippery slope, and the individual will no longer have any control over it. Mother Hillary will take care of You!
From the debates a couple of nights ago, most of the current plans involve requiring mandatory insurance. There seem to be different ways of paying for it, but no matter how you slice it, in the long run we the people will foot the bill. If we’re going to foot the bill anyway, why don’t we just axe the entire insurance industry and save all that overhead cost? But I can’t see this happening - the insurance industry spends a LOT of money in Washington. YOUR money. And both the leading Democratic candidates have already said they will raise taxes. Bend over, here it comes!
What do the Republicans say? Well, I don’t think anything much will change on that score. Listening to the debate, I think they want to improve the system, but they say that it won’t be mandatory; so at least we’ll have some choice, something the Democrats won’t give us. I think Republicans probably make better neighbors than Democrats; they don’t seem to get in your business quite as much.
I kind of like Robert A. Heinlein’s idea, mentioned in his novel “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”, that if you need insurance, you find a bookie and place a bet - on the progression of your health, for instance. It’d be a heck of a lot simpler than what we do now.
in general, Democrats want more government control of individuals and individual rights. This is the same thing any dictator wants, and that comparison makes me nervous. Once you give them that control, it will take revolution to get it back.
In general, the Republicans want to promote capitalism, a system that has it’s good side and it’s dark side, but it does seem to work pretty well. People that are willing to get out and work, and think about what they’re doing, will do well with the Republicans, People who want the government to spoon-feed them will lean towards the Democrats.
Personally, I don’t want or need the government in my business any more than necessary for the defense of the country as a whole. This causes me to lean towards the Republicans.
-Pop
Friday, January 25, 2008
To My Church
You can fool all of the people some of the time;
and you can fool some of the people all the time;
But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
We know what you’re up to.
-Pop
and you can fool some of the people all the time;
But you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.
We know what you’re up to.
-Pop
Monday, December 31, 2007
Happy New Year - most of you...
Howdy;
Some sorry 24 year old utterly contemptible subhuman decided to drive on the wrong side of the road in Ohio, last night. He had three times the legal level of alcohol in his blood.
This person took the lives of a mother and four children, and severely injured several others. Such monumental irresponsibility is almost unbelievable, but it will undoubtedly be repeated a few times tonight, across the nation.
The english language does not have the words to describe the utter, total, contempt I hold for this little s__t. There simply is not any excuse for this. To end the lives of so many, and to so totally screw up the lives of all the survivors.
Maybe some of you will read this and not over-do the booze, tonight. I hope so. Please.
Happy New Year! to those of you who survive the night....
-Pop
Some sorry 24 year old utterly contemptible subhuman decided to drive on the wrong side of the road in Ohio, last night. He had three times the legal level of alcohol in his blood.
This person took the lives of a mother and four children, and severely injured several others. Such monumental irresponsibility is almost unbelievable, but it will undoubtedly be repeated a few times tonight, across the nation.
The english language does not have the words to describe the utter, total, contempt I hold for this little s__t. There simply is not any excuse for this. To end the lives of so many, and to so totally screw up the lives of all the survivors.
Maybe some of you will read this and not over-do the booze, tonight. I hope so. Please.
Happy New Year! to those of you who survive the night....
-Pop
Friday, December 14, 2007
Why I Will Never Buy Another Microsoft Product
unless I just have to have it for my business.
I have a fun computer rig. I have a Macbook Pro - enough said. I'm running Parallels Desktop on it with Windows Vista Business installed in a virtual machine, for when I just have to do those Windows things.
I upgrade Parallels Desktop whenever an update becomes available. I did this about a month ago, and again last night. Apparently it changed the virtual machine enough that it activated Vista's copy protection, and I got a little warning window that showed up for about three seconds that said if I didn't activate my copy of Vista it would quit working in three days.
So after I finished what I was doing, I cranked up the Windows Validation tool. Of course, it refused to validate automatically, because I had already validated it when I installed it originally. So I had to call the 1-800 number for validation, where I got to read (to a computer over the phone) nine sets of numbers. Of course, this also failed, so it then kicked me over to a Real Live Person. From the accent, probably somewhere in India or China.
This person then had me read several of the same number groups to her over the phone; then she asked me some questions, such as had I activated it before? And, how many computers am I running this copy of Vista on? The answer, by the way, is ONE - I bought this copy of Vista for the purpose of running it in this virtual machine. Whereupon, the lady gave me nine number sequences that I had to enter into the Vista dialog box. And I was activated - again.
It pisses me off that I have to go through all that just to run an OS that I paid $300 for the privilege of using. It is a major freaking hassle to have to go through to reassure Microsoft that no, I am NOT a thief. Blast you, Microsoft!!! I resent the implication. I've paid for every bit of software on any of my computers.
And what if my system updates again, and your validation crap is not available for whatever reason? I get shut down, even though I am totally legal and paid for the product.
I'll probably have to do this again, the next time Parallels Desktop gets updated. It's not their fault - It's Microsoft that doesn't trust their customers, and builds bear traps into their software.
I will NEVER buy another Microsoft product, unless I simply have no other choice.
Macintosh, on the other hand, has OS X - $129 - no hassle, works on the first try, works really well, and they don't threaten to cut me off if, in their opinion, my computer gets changed too much. And you can get spreadsheet and word processing software that is just fine - for $79, not the $400 or so that Microsoft charges.
I have Delphi as a programming environment installed in Vista in a virtual machine on my Mac. The two most expensive programs on my computer - Vista $300 and Delphi (upgrade) $400. Over on the Mac side, X-code for programming on the Mac is (wait for it...) IN THE BOX with OS X. How cool is that?
NEVER, Microsoft, NEVER - it's too late for you - you've already burned your bridges with me. Get the picture???
-Pop
I have a fun computer rig. I have a Macbook Pro - enough said. I'm running Parallels Desktop on it with Windows Vista Business installed in a virtual machine, for when I just have to do those Windows things.
I upgrade Parallels Desktop whenever an update becomes available. I did this about a month ago, and again last night. Apparently it changed the virtual machine enough that it activated Vista's copy protection, and I got a little warning window that showed up for about three seconds that said if I didn't activate my copy of Vista it would quit working in three days.
So after I finished what I was doing, I cranked up the Windows Validation tool. Of course, it refused to validate automatically, because I had already validated it when I installed it originally. So I had to call the 1-800 number for validation, where I got to read (to a computer over the phone) nine sets of numbers. Of course, this also failed, so it then kicked me over to a Real Live Person. From the accent, probably somewhere in India or China.
This person then had me read several of the same number groups to her over the phone; then she asked me some questions, such as had I activated it before? And, how many computers am I running this copy of Vista on? The answer, by the way, is ONE - I bought this copy of Vista for the purpose of running it in this virtual machine. Whereupon, the lady gave me nine number sequences that I had to enter into the Vista dialog box. And I was activated - again.
It pisses me off that I have to go through all that just to run an OS that I paid $300 for the privilege of using. It is a major freaking hassle to have to go through to reassure Microsoft that no, I am NOT a thief. Blast you, Microsoft!!! I resent the implication. I've paid for every bit of software on any of my computers.
And what if my system updates again, and your validation crap is not available for whatever reason? I get shut down, even though I am totally legal and paid for the product.
I'll probably have to do this again, the next time Parallels Desktop gets updated. It's not their fault - It's Microsoft that doesn't trust their customers, and builds bear traps into their software.
I will NEVER buy another Microsoft product, unless I simply have no other choice.
Macintosh, on the other hand, has OS X - $129 - no hassle, works on the first try, works really well, and they don't threaten to cut me off if, in their opinion, my computer gets changed too much. And you can get spreadsheet and word processing software that is just fine - for $79, not the $400 or so that Microsoft charges.
I have Delphi as a programming environment installed in Vista in a virtual machine on my Mac. The two most expensive programs on my computer - Vista $300 and Delphi (upgrade) $400. Over on the Mac side, X-code for programming on the Mac is (wait for it...) IN THE BOX with OS X. How cool is that?
NEVER, Microsoft, NEVER - it's too late for you - you've already burned your bridges with me. Get the picture???
-Pop
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Truth in the News
I just read an article on the CBS news website in which they RADICALLY distorted facts, presented outright lies, and showed misleading video. The subject was semi-automatic weapons, and the article represents a severe abuse of the trust one should have of news media, in order to promote a political agenda - in this case, anti-gun. It is here. If you watch this, be aware it is just plain bogus. Read the comments.
Many years ago, in the coverage of the Three Mile Island nuclear incident, I remember the news anchor using the expression "hydrogen explosion" several times. They were talking about a hydrogen GAS explosion, but the commentator was so happy to make it sound like a hydrogen BOMB explosion (thermonuclear) that the deception of the play on words disgusted me. The commentator was almost gleeful as he could just about see his ratings going up. Probably scared a lot of people that didn't really need to be scared.
Almost everywhere you look, deception and lies, usually slanted far left. The far left loses my vote right there, just because they use such techniques to spread their crap.
I am really, really tired of being lied to by news media that we should be able to trust.
The only news media I regularly watch any more is Fox News, and even with them I pay attention to make sure they don't start drifting off course. So far, they're still good. When they are talking opinion, it is clear that is what is going on. And facts are facts. This is no longer true of any other major news organization.
I wonder if it is legal to sue a news organization for intentionally publishing falsehood and lies? Why should they be immune from prosecution for this? I mean, after all, if you purchase a product that has been misrepresented, you can sue; so why not for the news? It should be illegal to publish a lie without labeling it 'fiction' or 'opinion'.
Yes, I know, free speech and all that. OK, let them publish their lies - just label it as such. They can say anything they want, as long as they let you know whether it is factual or not.
Well, I'm voting with my feet. I'm not watching CNN, or CBS, or any other news media I catch doing this kind of crap. Newspeople, you lie to me, you lose my attention because your credibility is destroyed. And I hope you go out of business. I'll do my part to make it happen.
-Pop
Many years ago, in the coverage of the Three Mile Island nuclear incident, I remember the news anchor using the expression "hydrogen explosion" several times. They were talking about a hydrogen GAS explosion, but the commentator was so happy to make it sound like a hydrogen BOMB explosion (thermonuclear) that the deception of the play on words disgusted me. The commentator was almost gleeful as he could just about see his ratings going up. Probably scared a lot of people that didn't really need to be scared.
Almost everywhere you look, deception and lies, usually slanted far left. The far left loses my vote right there, just because they use such techniques to spread their crap.
I am really, really tired of being lied to by news media that we should be able to trust.
The only news media I regularly watch any more is Fox News, and even with them I pay attention to make sure they don't start drifting off course. So far, they're still good. When they are talking opinion, it is clear that is what is going on. And facts are facts. This is no longer true of any other major news organization.
I wonder if it is legal to sue a news organization for intentionally publishing falsehood and lies? Why should they be immune from prosecution for this? I mean, after all, if you purchase a product that has been misrepresented, you can sue; so why not for the news? It should be illegal to publish a lie without labeling it 'fiction' or 'opinion'.
Yes, I know, free speech and all that. OK, let them publish their lies - just label it as such. They can say anything they want, as long as they let you know whether it is factual or not.
Well, I'm voting with my feet. I'm not watching CNN, or CBS, or any other news media I catch doing this kind of crap. Newspeople, you lie to me, you lose my attention because your credibility is destroyed. And I hope you go out of business. I'll do my part to make it happen.
-Pop
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Pet Peeve - Cell Phones on the Road
Howdy everybody;
Today, I went to the bank at lunch, it being payday and everything. This is normally something that pretty much uses up my lunch break.
In traffic I got behind this person whom I couldn't pass and who was going 20 mph under the limit. Talking on a cell phone. A few minutes later I followed an SUV around a corner, and this wacko split the lanes after he turned, so I couldn't get around him/her. Again, 15 or 20 mph under the limit. When this person finally picked a lane and I could get around them, I saw the driver talking on a cell phone.
Listen, people: slowing down while driving and talking on a cell phone is NOT enough to compensate for your lack of attention to your driving! If you're going to drive, drive; if you're not going to drive, get off the freaking road!
I don't understand how people can be so freaking stupid. First, it's rude. Second, it's annoying to everybody else. And Third, it's dangerous.
If you just MUST talk on the phone, pull over and let the rest of us by! No matter who you are talking to, tell them to hold up while you find a place to park. I know you super-geniuses out there think you can do both, but let me explain it to you - no, you can't. If you are driving a car, and not giving it your full attention, you don't need to be on the road.
If this message has offended you, then you are most likely one of those who would offend me if I encountered you on the road.
-Pop
Today, I went to the bank at lunch, it being payday and everything. This is normally something that pretty much uses up my lunch break.
In traffic I got behind this person whom I couldn't pass and who was going 20 mph under the limit. Talking on a cell phone. A few minutes later I followed an SUV around a corner, and this wacko split the lanes after he turned, so I couldn't get around him/her. Again, 15 or 20 mph under the limit. When this person finally picked a lane and I could get around them, I saw the driver talking on a cell phone.
Listen, people: slowing down while driving and talking on a cell phone is NOT enough to compensate for your lack of attention to your driving! If you're going to drive, drive; if you're not going to drive, get off the freaking road!
I don't understand how people can be so freaking stupid. First, it's rude. Second, it's annoying to everybody else. And Third, it's dangerous.
If you just MUST talk on the phone, pull over and let the rest of us by! No matter who you are talking to, tell them to hold up while you find a place to park. I know you super-geniuses out there think you can do both, but let me explain it to you - no, you can't. If you are driving a car, and not giving it your full attention, you don't need to be on the road.
If this message has offended you, then you are most likely one of those who would offend me if I encountered you on the road.
-Pop
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
