Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender" and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
On 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender" >> and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown >> Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
a few years.
For what it's worth, I completely agree that it is beyond absurd for
kids under 18 to get "gender-affirming" medications or surgery without parental consent. (Even if they had parental consent, I'd hope some of
the people who had those meds or procedures would turn around and sue
their parents eventually once they grew up a little and realized what a
bad idea it was.)
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender" >>>and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the >>>front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown >>>Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >accommodate this silly law?
. . .
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender" >>>> and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the >>>> front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>> under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US, passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote: >>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender" >>>>>and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>>consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the >>>>>front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April
Fools Clown Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>>>under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>>a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US, >>passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is >>farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is >>not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, >>properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant >>will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this,
shouldn't it at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter
Dinklage at age 55 be in just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the >>>>> front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>>> under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>> a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is >> farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is >> not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with
shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't it >at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be in >just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender" >>>>and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the >>>>front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown >>>>Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>>under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US, >passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is >farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is >not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, >properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant >will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
Even an adult woman who is tiny could be receive serious traumatic
injury or be killed by this airbag.
Yes, with an airbag, the driver needs to consider whether the passenger >weighs enough not to be hurt by the airbag. I wouldn't criminalize this.
This has been well studied for years, yet Congress won't repeal the law.
. . .
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>>>> under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>>> a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>> have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>> from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is >>> not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, >>> properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive >>> a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant >>> will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>> the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with
shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't >> it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be >> in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your
way.
On 4/7/2025 2:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>>>> under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>>> a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>> have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>> from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is >>> not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, >>> properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive >>> a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant >>> will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>> the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with
shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't >> it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be >> in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
Perhaps. But he'd also be more responsible for his own safety concerns.
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the >>>>> front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids >>>> under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>> a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is >> farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is >> not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with
shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
Apr 7, 2025 1:06:58 PM PDT, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 2:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
. . .
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, >>>shouldn't it at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter >>>Dinklage at age 55 be in just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
Perhaps. But he'd also be more responsible for his own safety concerns.
Individual risk-based decision making is against the whole point of these >laws. These laws are specifically intended for the government to decide for >you what's in your best interest since it knows better how to live your life >than you do.
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>>>> a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>>> have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>>> from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives
saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, >>>> properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive >>>> a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant >>>> will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>>> the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't >>> it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be >>> in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your
way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can >sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
On Apr 7, 2025 at 1:06:58 PM PDT, "moviePig" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 4/7/2025 2:28 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>>> have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>>> from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>>> the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
Perhaps. But he'd also be more responsible for his own safety concerns.
Individual risk-based decision making is against the whole point of these laws. These laws are specifically intended for the government to decide for you what's in your best interest since it knows better how to live your life than you do.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents' >>>>>>>> consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite >>>>>>> a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>>>> have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>>>> from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as
having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant, >>>>> properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive >>>>> a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant >>>>> will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>>>> the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your
way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can >> sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
You don't want some Great Value ice cream sandwiches? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdwJudCTlQ
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >>>> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as >>>>> having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your
way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can >> sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
You don't want some Great Value ice cream sandwiches? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdwJudCTlQ
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> >>> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>>>>>> have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>>>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury >>>>>> from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as >>>>>> having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah, >>>>>> the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your >>>> way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can >>> sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
You don't want some Great Value ice cream sandwiches?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdwJudCTlQ
OMG
You’ve actually found someone stupider and more vacant than Sandra Lee.
She padded a five minute video out to 20 minutes by distracting herself. >Shiny!
Every time she called us her lovelies I realized she’s actually an evil >witch.
Who the hell thinks room temperature is 62° and is surprised when stuff >isn’t melting like it’s in a blast furnace?
I hate her more than life itself.
PS: the Walmart does indeed sell chocolate ice cream sandwiches. The thing >is, there’s absolutely no English writing on the package.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:55:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>: >>>>>>>>> 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have >>>>>>>> back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US,
passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>>>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>>>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as >>>>>>> having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>>>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>>>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your >>>>> way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can
sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
You don't want some Great Value ice cream sandwiches?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdwJudCTlQ
OMG
You’ve actually found someone stupider and more vacant than Sandra Lee.
She padded a five minute video out to 20 minutes by distracting herself.
Shiny!
I will give this one to her. Youtube keeps changing the algorithm.
Last I heard if you wanted to monetize your video it has to be at
least ten minutes long or you get penalized. (Not sure if it won't
earn any money or it just earns much less.) So padding a video is a
common thing.
Every time she called us her lovelies I realized she’s actually an evil
witch.
Who the hell thinks room temperature is 62° and is surprised when stuff
isn’t melting like it’s in a blast furnace?
Yeah, even regular ice cream isn't going to flow the way she expects
at that temp. At least she did place the sandwiches in the oven for a
few minutes to show which ones would melt somewhat like we expect.
I hate her more than life itself.
PS: the Walmart does indeed sell chocolate ice cream sandwiches. The thing >> is, there’s absolutely no English writing on the package.
So where are they coming from? It would be strange to ship ice cream
from China, but I could see it coming from Mexico.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:55:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>>>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>>>>>>>> accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US, >>>>>>>> passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>>>>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head >>>>>>>> on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as >>>>>>>> having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>>>>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>>>>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your >>>>>> way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can
sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
You don't want some Great Value ice cream sandwiches?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdwJudCTlQ
OMG
You’ve actually found someone stupider and more vacant than Sandra Lee. >>>
She padded a five minute video out to 20 minutes by distracting herself. >>> Shiny!
I will give this one to her. Youtube keeps changing the algorithm.
Last I heard if you wanted to monetize your video it has to be at
least ten minutes long or you get penalized. (Not sure if it won't
earn any money or it just earns much less.) So padding a video is a
common thing.
Every time she called us her lovelies I realized she’s actually an evil >>> witch.
Who the hell thinks room temperature is 62° and is surprised when stuff >>> isn’t melting like it’s in a blast furnace?
Yeah, even regular ice cream isn't going to flow the way she expects
at that temp. At least she did place the sandwiches in the oven for a
few minutes to show which ones would melt somewhat like we expect.
Yeah, she thinks 84° is summer. She lives in a very very different >temperature zone than I do.
I hate her more than life itself.
PS: the Walmart does indeed sell chocolate ice cream sandwiches. The thing >>> is, there’s absolutely no English writing on the package.
So where are they coming from? It would be strange to ship ice cream
from China, but I could see it coming from Mexico.
It’s not English characters. I assume it’s Asian. I’m going to see if I can
find a link that will work for you.
On Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 canThey may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been
"change their gender" and consent to life-altering
medical procedures without their parents' consent (or
even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride
in the front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set
on April Fools Clown Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
illegal for kids under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the
front seat in the UK for quite a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what
if you don't have a back seat? There are plenty of sports
cars that only have a driver and a passenger seat and a
lot of pickup trucks also don't have back seats. Do you
have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
accommodate this silly law?
For what it's worth, I completely agree that it is beyond
absurd for kids under 18 to get "gender-affirming"
medications or surgery without parental consent. (Even if
they had parental consent, I'd hope some of the people
who had those meds or procedures would turn around and
sue their parents eventually once they grew up a little
and realized what a bad idea it was.)
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 21:57:19 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:55:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 can "change their gender"
and consent to life-altering medical procedures without their parents'
consent (or even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride in the
front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set on April Fools Clown
Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
They may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been illegal for kids
under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the front seat in the UK for quite
a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't
have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a >>>>>>>>>> driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US, >>>>>>>>> passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much >>>>>>>>> smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is
farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
The statute requiring passenger-side airbags is routinely cited as >>>>>>>>> having done more harm than good, resulting in more deaths than lives >>>>>>>>> saved. Parents may put infants in car seats in the passenger seat. This is
not negligence but misunderstanding, for there's no reason why an infant,
properly restrained in a car seat in the passenger seat, wouldn't survive
a crash with just bruising. But due to the airbag's inflation, the infant
will die. Depending on how much an older child or teenager weighs, yeah,
the airbag might cause serious trauma or death when the seatbelt with >>>>>>>>> shoulder harness would have been sufficient.
So if we're going to have an intrusive nanny-state law like this, shouldn't
it
at least be size based, not age based? Wouldn't Peter Dinklage at age 55 be
in
just as much danger as a 13-year-old?
I should have read ahead.. Some pistachio almond ice cream headed your >>>>>>> way.
Just make sure it melts. I don't want any of that anim8r ice cream that can
sit on an Arizona sidewalk in high summer and not melt!
You don't want some Great Value ice cream sandwiches?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpdwJudCTlQ
OMG
You’ve actually found someone stupider and more vacant than Sandra Lee. >>>>
She padded a five minute video out to 20 minutes by distracting herself. >>>> Shiny!
I will give this one to her. Youtube keeps changing the algorithm.
Last I heard if you wanted to monetize your video it has to be at
least ten minutes long or you get penalized. (Not sure if it won't
earn any money or it just earns much less.) So padding a video is a
common thing.
Every time she called us her lovelies I realized she’s actually an evil >>>> witch.
Who the hell thinks room temperature is 62° and is surprised when stuff >>>> isn’t melting like it’s in a blast furnace?
Yeah, even regular ice cream isn't going to flow the way she expects
at that temp. At least she did place the sandwiches in the oven for a
few minutes to show which ones would melt somewhat like we expect.
Yeah, she thinks 84° is summer. She lives in a very very different
temperature zone than I do.
That's like the people I know who in Los Angeles who will call temps
in the 60s freezing. I guess if you live in that sort of climate long
enough it becomes your norm. We don't have your 110F summer days but
we do have temps in the 90s regularly along with 50-90% humidity.
So I get the temps to have it be a race when eating an ice cream cone
between your finishing it or it melting and hitting the sidewalk.
I hate her more than life itself.
PS: the Walmart does indeed sell chocolate ice cream sandwiches. The thing >>>> is, there’s absolutely no English writing on the package.
So where are they coming from? It would be strange to ship ice cream
from China, but I could see it coming from Mexico.
It’s not English characters. I assume it’s Asian. I’m going to see if I can
find a link that will work for you.
I found it. Looks to be an Oreo Ice Cream Sandwich imported from
Taiwan.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oreo-Chocolate-Ice-Cream-Flavored-Sandwich-Cookies-Imported-from-Taiwan-6-oz-2-Packs/13360269991?classType=VARIANT&from=/search
Would not have expected something like that to even be imported since
it would be so easy to make here.
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 21:57:19 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:55:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
PS: the Walmart does indeed sell chocolate ice cream sandwiches. The thing
is, there’s absolutely no English writing on the package.
So where are they coming from? It would be strange to ship ice cream
from China, but I could see it coming from Mexico.
It’s not English characters. I assume it’s Asian. I’m going to see if I can
find a link that will work for you.
I found it. Looks to be an Oreo Ice Cream Sandwich imported from
Taiwan.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oreo-Chocolate-Ice-Cream-Flavored-Sandwich-Cookies-Imported-from-Taiwan-6-oz-2-Packs/13360269991?classType=VARIANT&from=/search
Would not have expected something like that to even be imported since
it would be so easy to make here.
Thanks!
We grow shrimp here in the desert in very shallow ponds and ship them to >China, where they tempura batter them and package them and ship them back >here to sell.
All parts of this process amaze me. I might understand if they did it the >other way around, grew shrimp in China and shipped it here to package and >sell. But round-trip? And who the hell decided to grow shrimp in the
desert in the first place?
BTR1701 wrote:
On Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, "Rhino"
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
On 2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Wait, so California says children as young as 12 canThey may have gotten the idea from the Brits. It's been
"change their gender" and consent to life-altering
medical procedures without their parents' consent (or
even knowledge) but they're not mature enough to ride
in the front seat of a car until they're 16.
The California legislature seems to be permanently set
on April Fools Clown Mode.
https://ibb.co/4RnTHKLt
illegal for kids under 16 (or it may be 14) to sit in the
front seat in the UK for quite a few years.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what
if you don't have a back seat? There are plenty of sports
cars that only have a driver and a passenger seat and a
lot of pickup trucks also don't have back seats. Do you
have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to
accommodate this silly law?
For what it's worth, I completely agree that it is beyond
absurd for kids under 18 to get "gender-affirming"
medications or surgery without parental consent. (Even if
they had parental consent, I'd hope some of the people
who had those meds or procedures would turn around and
sue their parents eventually once they grew up a little
and realized what a bad idea it was.)
In many places, kids can get their learner's permit and/or
a driver's license at 15.
How are they supposed to learn to drive from the backseat?
Nyssa, who knows that some 15 year olds can be on the tall
and bulky side, especially those who play basketball,
football, and other sports or just have tall parents and
have a growth spurt
On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 06:35:58 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 21:57:19 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:55:47 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 20:05:23 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 12:47:31 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 18:28:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Apr 7, 2025 at 11:02:49 AM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Apr 5, 2025 at 4:32:10 PM PDT, Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com>:
2025-04-05 6:02 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
PS: the Walmart does indeed sell chocolate ice cream sandwiches. The thing
is, there’s absolutely no English writing on the package.
So where are they coming from? It would be strange to ship ice cream >>>>> from China, but I could see it coming from Mexico.
It’s not English characters. I assume it’s Asian. I’m going to see if I can
find a link that will work for you.
I found it. Looks to be an Oreo Ice Cream Sandwich imported from
Taiwan.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Oreo-Chocolate-Ice-Cream-Flavored-Sandwich-Cookies-Imported-from-Taiwan-6-oz-2-Packs/13360269991?classType=VARIANT&from=/search
Would not have expected something like that to even be imported since
it would be so easy to make here.
Thanks!
We grow shrimp here in the desert in very shallow ponds and ship them to
China, where they tempura batter them and package them and ship them back
here to sell.
All parts of this process amaze me. I might understand if they did it the
other way around, grew shrimp in China and shipped it here to package and
sell. But round-trip? And who the hell decided to grow shrimp in the
desert in the first place?
Ah, we get shrimp from Vietnam (I see the frozen packages at the local
Publix grocery store) so even though we can get it most of the year
from Florida it happens. As for growing them in Arizona what else are
they going to do with the desert areas. My question would be where is
the water coming from? Also why not cut out China because it seems the expensive part is growing the shrimp. Packaging shouldn't be that man
power intensive.
My question (beyond the absurdity mentioned above) is what if you don't >>have a back seat? There are plenty of sports cars that only have a
driver and a passenger seat and a lot of pickup trucks also don't have
back seats. Do you have to go out and buy a whole new vehicle just to >>accommodate this silly law?
As always, it's so much worse than you say.
I have no idea what equipment is required in the UK. In the US, >passenger-side airbags are required. The driver's side airbag is much
smaller because of the proximity of the steering wheel but the dashboard is >farther away. In a crash, a child is in far more danger of a neck injury
from the inflation of the airbag than concussion from hitting his head
on the windshield.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 25:24:35 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,035 |