MFFY du jour...

> Jim Yanik wrote
>> There should be expiration dates on all handicapped tags,with a
>> limited lifetime.

fbloogyudsr wrote:
> AFAIK, there is (in WA state). The original application filled out by the
> MD has a permanent or expiration. The DOL issues the permit (or re-issues
> them yearly) based on that. HarryK may have more specific info.

In California there are both temporary and permanent versions. For the
permanent version (the license plate with wheelchair symbol) you have to
have a doctor certify permanent disability, and they last until the title
to the vehicle is transferred. The temporary ones are tags you hang from
the inside mirror after parking, and they have expiration dates imprinted.

People who've been injured but are expected to heal can get the tags, but
they expire in 3 months, 6 months, or a year (depending on diagnosis) and
require recertification to renew.

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:26:02 -0600,
>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Big Bill > wrote:
>>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:55:50 -0600,
>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
>>>>Big Bill > wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:28:06 -0600,
>>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If by "there" you mean I could have used them, gotten ticketed, then
>>>>>>later gone into court to fight the $500-$1000 fine (and lost). That's
>>>>>>a meaning of "there" I have a bit of argument with.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong meaning. And you know it.
>>>>
>>>>Too bad, because that's the only meaning that applies. Park in a
>>>>handicapped spot without a placard, and it doesn't matter if you've
>>>>got only one arm and one leg (and that one prosthetic from the knee
>>>>down), you're guilty. So now when I look at handicapped spots, all I
>>>>think of is the pain of limping past them. **** them.
>>>
>>>Well, your definition of "there" sucks, because your definition is
>>>extremely self-centered, and doesn't take into condiseration that you
>>>could have gotten a temporarty plackard.
>>
>>My original message _said_ "there for me".
>
>Well, your definition of "there" was:
>
>"If by "there" you mean I could have used them, gotten ticketed, then
>later gone into court to fight the $500-$1000 fine (and lost). That's
>a meaning of "there" I have a bit of argument with."

In context, emphasis added:

Me: "The handicapped spots weren't _there for me_ when I could have used them..."

You: "If they were empty, they were obviously there when you could
have used them"

Me: "If by "there" you mean I could have used them, gotten ticketed..."

You: "Wrong meaning. And you know it."

Me: "Too bad, because that's the only meaning that applies."
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:00:52 -0600,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>In article >,
>Big Bill > wrote:
>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:26:02 -0600,
>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Big Bill > wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:55:50 -0600,
>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article >,
>>>>>Big Bill > wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 15:28:06 -0600,
>>>>>>(Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If by "there" you mean I could have used them, gotten ticketed, then
>>>>>>>later gone into court to fight the $500-$1000 fine (and lost). That's
>>>>>>>a meaning of "there" I have a bit of argument with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong meaning. And you know it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Too bad, because that's the only meaning that applies. Park in a
>>>>>handicapped spot without a placard, and it doesn't matter if you've
>>>>>got only one arm and one leg (and that one prosthetic from the knee
>>>>>down), you're guilty. So now when I look at handicapped spots, all I
>>>>>think of is the pain of limping past them. **** them.
>>>>
>>>>Well, your definition of "there" sucks, because your definition is
>>>>extremely self-centered, and doesn't take into condiseration that you
>>>>could have gotten a temporarty plackard.
>>>
>>>My original message _said_ "there for me".
>>
>>Well, your definition of "there" was:
>>
>>"If by "there" you mean I could have used them, gotten ticketed, then
>>later gone into court to fight the $500-$1000 fine (and lost). That's
>>a meaning of "there" I have a bit of argument with."
>
>In context, emphasis added:
>
>Me: "The handicapped spots weren't _there for me_ when I could have used them..."
>
>You: "If they were empty, they were obviously there when you could
> have used them"
>
>Me: "If by "there" you mean I could have used them, gotten ticketed..."

And there's your mistake.
You could have used them.
Yes, you would have had to actually *get* a tag, but you evidently
try.
So it was *your* fault that you couldn't use them.
Blaming this on someone else is just yourself trying to be a victim.
>
>You: "Wrong meaning. And you know it."
>
>Me: "Too bad, because that's the only meaning that applies."

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"