Eye Contact


Here’s a cautionary tale from Sharon White, a member of the PDOT “Community and School Traffic Safety Partnership” who often plays the role of ‘decoy’ in crosswalk stings. Everyone have a safe and happy Thanksgiving…

It is rare that I get scared during a Crosswalk Enforcement Action because I an generally very cautious and very alert. However, the last portion of this Crosswalk Enforcement Action did frighten me.

As usual, I proceeded into the crossing area as a pedestrian showing intent to cross and provided adequate time for the approaching eastbound vehicle to stop. I worked to make eye contact with the driver and when I finally got a clear view of the driver’s face could tell that he was looking at the storefront of the adjacent building and did not appear to be aware of me in the crossing. At about the same time, the driver’s vehicle veered a little to the north and then a little to the south pointing right at me. Since I had no indication that the driver was going to slow down or stop, I jumped out of the crossing and back onto the sidewalk.

The police officer working on the Crosswalk Enforcement Action with us, put on his siren and headed onto Division to stop the driver and initiate a conversation about Oregon crosswalk laws. Instead of slowing down, the driver increased his speed, took the first right turn and then an immediate left into a dead end driveway where the police officer caught up with him.

As it ended up, there was a warrant out for his arrest for hit and run of a pedestrian!!!!!!!! In addition to receiving 4 tickets, he was sent to jail.

Thanks Portland Police Traffic Division for a job well done! Feel free to share this story with your families this holiday season.


32 responses to “Eye Contact”

  1. I’ve followed a simple rule to avoid being hit by cars again: Don’t walk till I see their eyes. Once I see their eyes, they’ve seen me. Until then, I get one foot off the sidewalk (to show I’m crossing) but go no further.

    It’s been 100% effective since I first tried it.

  2. My partner and I were driving on Bybee in Sellwood/Westmoreland this afternoon, when we stopped to allow an elderly man with a walker to cross the street at an intersection.

    We had been fully stopped (pointed westbound) for some time, and the man had begun his crossing, when an impatient pickup-truck driver (pointed eastbound) a few cars behind the stopped traffic decided to “pass” the stopped cars and came roaring through the intersection, nearly hitting the man with the walker and forcing him to return to the sidewalk.

    The man was so shaken up that he waved traffic by… we waited for a moment but he insisted we pass. I don’t know if he ever made it across the street.

  3. I live near and use several pedestrian crossings. Last week, a car stopped for pedestrians and the driver behind that car slammed hers into its rear. Most drivers are really nice about stopping for peds in the marked crosswalk, but every few days I see a car or three blow through it, not to mention the unmarked crosswalks a few feet away. (Peds have the right of way when using unmarked crosswalks as well.) Do you think better signage would help? Now, we have a yellow sign with a pedestrian figure on it. Do you think adding “Drivers MUST yield to pedestrians in crosswalk” or something would help?

  4. That story just scares the crap out of me. Reminds me of the crosswalk video they show at the Share the Road Class – a driver shredding his tires as he almost hit a pedestrian crossing a marked crosswalk at Powell Blvd.

    It seems like there are a huge number of idiots who just don’t understand that when a car is stopped on the road, they are required by law to at least slow WAY down in case there is a pedestrian or traffic accident. I mean, what are these people from California??

    If I was a cop I could give out tickets all day and probably balance the state budget!

  5. I have been using the same marked crosswalk at work for 24 years and still cannot believe how many rude or oblivious drivers there are. We now have a blinking light activated by a button, but a good percentage of drivers ignore it and cruise right through the intersection, even with a pedestrian well out into the road.

    I’ve been in the middle of the crosswalk, holding the hand of an 8 y.o. child and been brushed back by cars. I’ve been out there struggling with an umbrella in pouring rain and wind while people comfortably sitting in warm dry cars act like I’m invisible or an irritating inconvenience.

    It would be nice if Portland Police ran some kind of sting there for a few days (it would be great for city revenue) but it’s never happened.

  6. When I was young, I was taught to look both ways for traffic before crossing. I also learned to wait until the street was clear of traffic before crossing, not step out and expect someone to stop.

    If traffic was too heavy, I learned it was probably best to walk to the nearest signaled intersection.

    I don’t see why this is such a problem for so many people. Only in Oregon will you find someone dumb enough to step out in the road right in front of a car and expect them to stop.

  7. When I was young, I was taught to look both ways for traffic before crossing. I also learned to wait until the street was clear of traffic before crossing, not step out and expect someone to stop.

    That’s all well and good, but it would not have prevented the situation yesterday with the elderly man using a walker. He did wait until all traffic in both directions had come to a full and complete stop. It was only after he had started across that an impatient pickup truck driver pulled out to pass stopped traffic and nearly struck him.

    I just reviewed the Google Maps aerial photo of the intersection… there is a double, solid yellow line (meaning no passing) on Bybee at this intersection, so the guy broke multiple laws.

    If traffic was too heavy, I learned it was probably best to walk to the nearest signaled intersection.

    It’s too bad so many drivers routinely broke the law that you had to walk to a different intersection than the one where you had the legal right to cross.

    This is why I don’t get _too_ upset when I see fellow bicyclists breaking traffic laws in otherwise safe situations (as long as nobody has to swerve or brake to save you from injury while you’re skirting a traffic law, it doesn’t get my temper flaring), because I see so many fellow motorists breaking the law in a far more dangerous fashion every day.

    The incident yesterday was by far not the first time I’ve seen terrible driver behavior when I’ve legally, safely, and correctly stopped my vehicle to wait for a pedestrian.

    That being said, I do agree Anthony that nobody should just dart out into traffic (that’s not the impression I got from Chris’s post)… there is a popular TriMet bus stop near my house where kids (and sometimes adults) often dart out in front of the bus, in the blind spot of drivers. Very dangerous behavior which _does_ cause motorists to have to swerve and slam on their brakes.

  8. Anthony Says:

    I don’t see why this is such a problem for so many people. Only in Oregon will you find someone dumb enough to step out in the road right in front of a car and expect them to stop.

    Actually, my best friend died that way 25 years ago. In California.

    I don’t see any reason why I should have to walk five blocks out of my way because Oregon drivers are failing to obey the law, which gives the right of way to pedestrians at any intersection, whether it has a painted crosswalk or not.

  9. I was just in Los Angeles now a week ago, and the comments about California drivers are false insinuations.

    I found, almost consistently, California drivers were respectful to me as a pedestrian in a crosswalk – despite crossing some very wide (i.e. more than five lane) intersections, the drivers waited each time until I was precisely half-way across the intersection.

    Try that in Oregon (even before the reckless changing of the law that now allows drivers to proceed with only six feet of clearance…how can you measure six feet on the fly?)

    Now, I make sure I look the driver in the eye…and if necessary I will hit their car with my hand.

  10. He did wait until all traffic in both directions had come to a full and complete stop. It was only after he had started across that an impatient pickup truck driver pulled out to pass stopped traffic and nearly struck him.

    I got a car pretty wrecked once by pulling in front of someone trying the same. It was a bad idea at the time, but in hindsight, it was well worth it.

    Yes, I scared the living hell out of a pedestrian, but he realized he was still walking and my Mustang took the hit his body would have. I don’t suggest it if you have back problems though.

  11. Pedestrians who are able and willing need to be more assertive here; it actually makes it easier for drivers as there is less question of intention.
    I am reminded of a day in Rome when I waited and waited for traffic on a busy street to have a break in both directions. I finally got across, but later when work was letting out, I saw groups of pedestrians crossing the same street without even breaking stride or, it seemed, paying any attention. All as fine.
    Sometimes we need to hold up our hands, point or otherwise indicate to drivers that they must stop, always being ready in case they don’t. And of course, eye contact is essential.
    Crossing distance is critical…hence the importance of curb extenions; congestion helps too…its easy to cross NW 23rd because it is narrow and slow, except north of Lovejoy where it is deadly.
    And please let’s have the PPB enforce crosswalks which can be deadly and NOT waste time bothering bicyclists who coast thru stop signs… harmless activity.
    Remember, J-walking is safest as you are sure to have gooded look both ways; never trust a “walk” signal.

  12. Cross walks might do more harm than good. By fostering the impression motorists will respect them, they set the pedestrian up for some hard education. Where I work in Beaverton I have learned that it is much safer to “jaywalk” whenever a car-less opportunity presents itself rather than risk the cross walk, which most drivers have no idea what it means.

  13. The closest I have come to being hit in a crosswalk has been several times in downtown Portland where I had the walk signal and a bicyclist either whizzed past right in front of me or directly behind me, close enough that I could have put my arm out and knocked the rider off of his ride. Unfortunately and discriminately bicyclists only receive slap on the wrist warnings when traffic enforcement stings are aimed at them and therefore demonstrate no respect for traffic laws. For the most part, I rarely go downtown anymore because it less expensive to transact business and do shopping elsewhere.

  14. Cyclists receive the same $224 fine for a moving violation that an auto driver does, and PPB has run a number of missions specifically directed at intersections where cyclists present a safety issue for pedestrians.

  15. Lenny Anderson wrote: And please let’s have the PPB enforce crosswalks which can be deadly and NOT waste time bothering bicyclists who coast thru stop signs… harmless activity.

    Many times motorists who coast through stop signs is quite harmless; further I’ve been near-hit several times by bicyclists as a pedestrian. (In fact as a bicyclist I had more near-misses with other bikes who weren’t following the rules of the road than I had with motorists, including one bike who nearly caused me to spill in the intersection of the Springwater Trail and Spokane Street after he stopped and blocked the path with his tandem bike (without stopping at the stop sign, by the way). Meanwhile, three motorists all obeyed their stop signs (two of which actually yielded their right of way to me even though they approached their respective stop signs before I stopped at mine.)

    Harmless? Only because I was smart enough to take evasive action.

    So when does a stop sign mean stop, and when is it optional? Stop means stop, and it applies to everyone. Yes, I agree that motorists who don’t stop for pedestrians deserve to be cited and fined, but equally as much as bicyclists who don’t follow the law.

  16. I work with alot of teenagers, and one point I constantly try to drive home is that they always bear the full responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

    As it relates to this – a pedestrian following the traffic laws who nonetheless is struck, is still the one who pays the penalty – with their life, or time in the hospital and living with a horrific injury. In the end, it’s not relevant who made the mistake that led to the accident, it’s who’s living with the consequences. That will always be the pedestrian, and in some cases, a driver may face some consequence.

    My point is – better safe than sorry. I’d approve stricter enforcement of “quality-of-life” driving offenses (even forcing inconsiderate drivers to sit there for 30 minutes while the cops run their ID and plates would probably get the message across, even if there were no legal penalty) could help to reduce those types of incidents, but in the end, pedestrians must proactively protect themselves.

  17. Chris,

    The in the STOP sign sting PBB did a few months ago just West of I-5 near the Rose Quarter on Broadway, only two out of a much larger number bicyclists received citations for blowing through a STOP sign. One because he blew through the STOP sign so fast he crossed several lanes of traffic on Broadway, and one because the motorcycle officer had to follower her for several blocks because she would stop. The rest of the bicyclists that blew through the STOP sign only received written warnings with no fines thereby being a slap on the wrist and discriminatory in how traffic enforcement of bicyclists is handled as compared to motorists.

  18. There is simply no comparison, from a public health perspective, between being hit by a motor vehicle and by a bicycle. The former is deadly, the latter unpleasant at best.
    Police resources need to be applied where the most risk of injury and/or death exists; not for public relations purposese.
    Citing bicylists is absurd, and puts pedestrians at risk because it takes resources away from needed crosswalk enforcement.

  19. Lenny Anderson wrote: There is simply no comparison, from a public health perspective, between being hit by a motor vehicle and by a bicycle. The former is deadly, the latter unpleasant at best.

    Under Mr. Anderson’s logic, all forms of rail based transit would have to be eliminated, because trains kill people, trains are deadly, and it’s the train’s responsibility to look out for other travellers (i.e. motorists, bikes, pedestrians, etc.)

    But since there are very clear laws that in many circumstances give trains a right of way – the specific reason is because they cannot stop easily – why then are bicyclists allowed to throw out all common sense and be allowed to act as though they own the road and without regards for their own safety or the safety of others?

    So what if a bicyclist most likely won’t kill someone? More often than not a motorist who blows a red light won’t kill someone. Hurt seriously? Yes. Potential of death? It’s there. But more often than not there is no victim or the victim is simply hurt.

    Laws are laws. If you choose to not follow certain laws, which laws can I choose not to follow? Why should I pay a fare to ride TriMet, after all nobody dies when I evade the fare. We are wasting millions in fare inspectors (excuse me, transit supervisors) for no reason at all – money that could be used to expand transit services. Why do we have code enforcement officers or animal control; that money could go towards more schools.

  20. Erik ranted:
    “We are wasting millions in fare inspectors (excuse me, transit supervisors) for no reason at all – money that could be used to expand transit services.”

    I’m fairly sure that the fare inspectors pay for themselves in terms of increased compliance with fare payment and ticket revenue. So, no that money can’t be used to expand transit services, in fact, without fare inspectors, they’d have to decrease transit service.

    I suspect the only reason you want to eliminate fare inspectors is because you are a bus fan, and most (but not all*) bus lines don’t have fare compliance issues, so eliminating fare inspectors would hurt MAX ticket revenue, and make buses look better in the long run.

    “Why do we have code enforcement officers or animal control; that money could go towards more schools.”

    Unsafe housing/animals kills many people every year. For instance, just looking at dogs, there were 32 fatal dog bites in 2007, and homeowners insurance paid $350M in dog bite related claims, (mainly kids, bitten on the face, by rottweilers and pit bulls: This isn’t people just being sue happy, this is people going to the hospital.)

    *The 4F has fare compliance issues, (this isn’t a secret, or at least, it shouldn’t be.) There are various ways people do it, but the trick I saw last week involved a bunch of kids getting on at one stop, showing their transfers, then giving the transfers to one person, who got off at the next stop. A bunch more kids were waiting at that stop, and shortly afterward, (I didn’t see what was going on outside,) those kids got on, including the one that had taken all the transfers out the back door at that stop. (And who would have guessed, but all the kids seemed to know each other…)

    Another trick I’ve seen have involved two people, (and a busy stop,) one of which shows the transfer, the other which fumbles around with his pockets looking for his transfer, while other people are going though the door. They wait until the driver is busy with the other people, and then the first person gives the transfer to the fumbler.

    It should be noted that 4F is one of the few lines that I can get on at 4am or 11pm at night, and not get a seat, (and it isn’t just full of non-paying riders, the thing has a lot of people on it,) so one would think it would be a good candidate for articulated buses. But until they get the fare compliance under control, it would have to go to honor system with inspectors, since the current PAYB system can be defeated…

  21. I’m not suggesting that we choose which laws to observe…we do that every hour of every day; only that limited police resource should be deployed against activities with the highest risk of harm, especially to others. Victimless traffic infractions should be the lowest priority.
    Actually I think fare inspectors should spend more time watching out for poor behavior, threatening people, etc than on inspecting fares.

  22. Actually I think fare inspectors should spend more time watching out for poor behavior, threatening people, etc than on inspecting fares.

    From what I understand, that’s part of the idea behind the inspector changes–that the people will be also focusing on enforcing violations of the TriMet code. Oh, and I don’t think the changes have happened yet–the call for supervisors just recently went out.

    Also, I think its been said that the Fare Inspectors don’t pay for themselves, because they can only issue so many actual fines and because it takes time and money to issue/process them. However, this does not include the people who do pay the fare because, unlike on the streetcar, there is a possibly of inspection. But even if they only check fares, they provide a security-like presence that can discourage crime and increase ridership.

    The bottom line is that evading the fare may not kill anybody, but it violates the social contract that we all have by breaking the law. And unlike a bicyclist who does not obey a traffic control device, it results in lost money to TriMet. All those ~$2s add up.

    Lastly, bicyclists can be more aware of their surroundings/better see when its safe to go and, since they’re smaller, more easily avoid crashes than cars. Though, in fairness, I think there have been people killed by bicyclists.

  23. Matthew wrote: Erik ranted:

    Personal Attack #1.

    I’m fairly sure that the fare inspectors pay for themselves in terms of increased compliance with fare payment and ticket revenue.

    Please cite your sources. Are fare inspectors paid for strictly out of fine revenue?

    I can tell you that they don’t. TriMet doesn’t receive the revenue from fines, Multnomah County does. So for every ticket that TriMet writes, they don’t get a penny. Even a city (such as the City of Portland) whose police officers write a ticket don’t receive (the full) fine revenue, it is shared with the State and the County (to offset costs such as courts, judges, district attorneys).

    I suspect the only reason you want to eliminate fare inspectors is because you are a bus fan, and most (but not all*) bus lines don’t have fare compliance issues, so eliminating fare inspectors would hurt MAX ticket revenue, and make buses look better in the long run.

    Personal attack #2.

    Regardless my basis of opinion has nothing to do with such; however you bring up an interesting point that fare inspectors are a “system” cost yet spend a disproportionate time patrolling the MAX system. Is it fair that bus riders pay for that cost yet receive little to no benefit? So apparently even Matthew agrees that the problem is MAX specific.

    Thanks for giving me ammunition.

    Unsafe housing/animals kills many people every year.

    So name a sign, an awning, a lot of tall grass, a fence – that has killed someone. Those are some things that are regulated by Portland’s Code Enforcement Officers.

    A vehicle that is parked illegally.

    Disabled vehicles on private property.

    Certain auto repairs.

    A garage sale.

    Cutting down a tree.

    Trash.

    A basketball hoop.

    Airplane noise.

    Horses.

    Chickens.

    Some punk playing his hip-hop too loud, and/or at 3:00 AM.

    The 4F has fare compliance issues

    Wait a second, first you said that my “rant” was directly related to the fact that I’m a “bus fan”, and now you’re saying that buses DO have fare evasion problems? Which is it, Matthew? Apparently your post is more anger directed at me rather than actually discussing the topic at hand because you can’t even write a coherent post.

    So now you’re saying buses do have fare problems. So? Are you arguing for MORE fare enforcement (despite no one ever having been killed for evading fare?) or LESS enforcement (in which why did you bring it up)?

    It should be noted that 4F is one of the few lines that I can get on at 4am or 11pm at night, and not get a seat, (and it isn’t just full of non-paying riders, the thing has a lot of people on it,) so one would think it would be a good candidate for articulated buses. But until they get the fare compliance under control, it would have to go to honor system with inspectors, since the current PAYB system can be defeated…

    You mean…people actually RIDE buses? That buses, outside of rush hour, are over capacity? My God, what are we coming to? Nobody rides the buses, everyone rides MAX!

    Sarcasm off, what is your argument against articulated buses? Why wouldn’t an articulated bus work? The pay-as-you-board system can be defeated with a minibus. Heck, it can be defeated with a sedan. So why bother with fare enforcement, since it’s illegal to lock the doors until the rider pays? An articulated bus is no more prone to fare evasion than any other bus.

    If TriMet is so concerned it can always replace PAYB with PAYE (outbound) on artic routes, just as Seattle does (on any route leaving downtown, not just with artic buses).

    Lenny Anderson wrote: only that limited police resource should be deployed against activities with the highest risk of harm

    See the list of “victimless” codes above that are enforced by the City of Portland – should they all go away? What if I run a garage sale for three weeks straight? What if I have a garbage pile in my back yard? What if I raise chickens in my yard, or blare loud music? There’s no harm in any of those to anyone else.

    What if I overstay the parking meter, there’s no harm in that.

    Should law enforcement only be restricted to when there is a victim? In which case, 90% of red-light runners (including motorists) should be excused because nobody was harmed. Speeding doesn’t kill people, reckless driving does (else every NASCAR race would end at turn one on the first lap because every car on the track was “speeding”, and not a single airplane would get off the ground.)

    Victimless traffic infractions should be the lowest priority

    That’s fine as long as motorists are given the same courtesy. Which, judging by Mr. Anderson’s prior posts, he does not support.

  24. Personal Attack #1.

    Personal attack #2.

    Nothing worse than stuff you’ve said in the past, which has been allowed to stand. It’s borderline, but I’m going to let Matthew’s personally-directed remarks remain in the comments above, just as I have let yours on that level remain in the past.

  25. Bob Richardson wrote: Nothing worse than stuff you’ve said in the past

    Examples? (Apparently, “in the past” means you’re just holding a grudge against me, while you continue to let others take Moderator approved pot-shots.)

    I’m going to let Matthew’s personally-directed remarks

    I think that speaks volumes for you, Bob (and Chris). Save us both the hassle and just eliminate the rules, since you aren’t going to enforce them.

  26. Plenty of examples have been given in the past, you’ve ignored them.

    As has been stated countless times, if you want enforcement of the rules against others at the level you’ve demanded, those same rules apply to you. Your choice, although you’ve never answered my requests to choose.

    There is no inconsistency. Your inflammatory remarks have remained, and so have the remarks of others which were of a similar vein.

    Grow up or get lost.

  27. Bob Richardson wrote: There is no inconsistency. Your inflammatory remarks have remained, and so have the remarks of others which were of a similar vein.

    And in this thread, and countless others I have maintained myself within the rules and you continue to harp on the past, while complaining that I am in violation of the rules. Your inability to provide evidence shows that you are hard pressed to find anything – and I am not ignoring anything.

    And then, you come up with this:

    Bob Richardson’s personal attack on Erik: Grow up or get lost.

    Isn’t that mature. You apparently are more interested in shutting me up (censorship?) than actually reading the posts that I write that are without personal attacks, and yet you permit them against me without provocation.

    No, I won’t get lost.

  28. Your inability to provide evidence shows that you are hard pressed to find anything

    Erik, in this very thread, where you were the very first person to raise the topic of the rules, YOU made a personally-directed remark toward Jeff, the person whom you were raising the topic of rules about. It was a very mild remark, and I did not comment on it at all, I did not “censor” it, and I allowed it to stand as originally written _BECAUSE IT WAS HARMLESS_. This is the moderator’s discretion. I can let remarks stand and let the discussion go on. I do this all the time with you, but it seems to completely infuriate you to the point of distraction that I’m lenient with anyone else.

    You said to Jeff:

    “Maybe as a MAX rider, you would have no problem riding 20 year old, unrefurbished, worn out […]

    TO REPEAT: This was a completely OK remark as far as I’m concerned, wrongheaded and a bit rude, but mild. And I let it stand, but it was indeed PERSONALLY DIRECTED at Jeff, in violation of the rules. Why did you not immediately demand removal of the remark? Why do you have a double-standard when it comes to other commenters compared to yourself?

    On November 3, you made this PERSONALLY DIRECTED remark toward Lenny:

    But, I’m sure that Mr. Anderson will find my attempts to use, and obtain, high quality transit services of no concern to him […]

    But I let that one stand. No big deal, and Lenny didn’t complain either.

    Later in that thread, you also said to Lenny:

    Gee, Lenny, I don’t know. Why don’t you try READING sometime?

    That was very rude. But I let it stand, because Lenny had indeed addressed you personally (but politely) earlier in that thread. And Lenny didn’t come crying for moderator intervention.

    On November 15th, you also blew up at Lenny thusly:

    Lenny, what good is a bus if IT DOESN’T STOP FOR YOU? What part of that don’t you get? You can’t get on transit if the damn bus won’t stop!

    I’m sure there was a far more polite way to phrase your interrogative, but I let it stand exactly as it was and did not admonish you, and Lenny did not complain.

    Here’s a little personally-directed missive you tossed at Matthew on October 3rd:

    Now are you going to do the same, or are you going to hide behind your “light rail is all good/bus is all bad” persona?

    As with the others, it was allowed to stand, and I expressed my reasons why I thought the whole thing was an innocent misunderstanding between your comments and Matthew’s. And Matthew didn’t cry about it either. But you then turned the rest of the thread into a meta-debate about how you had somehow been harmed by some kind of mythical double-standard.

    Those were all recent examples. Not the worst, but recent.

    Face it, Erik. You are a serial rules violator and a serial complainer, by your own standards. In fact, you’re the #1 complainer about the rules that the site has, by far. It’s really saddening, because you have a lot of valuable information to add to discussions, but so often your tone and manner drifts into mild hostility and you violate the very rules you so often demand be enforced.

    You apparently are more interested in shutting me up (censorship?)

    What percentage of your comments have been removed in the history of this blog, Erik? Have you been keeping a log?

    I usually mark any changes I make with the text “[Moderator:” and a description. I just did a google search and couldn’t find any removal of your comments, just the correction of some stray italics. But it wasn’t an exhaustive search. I did find MORE intervention in comments from Matthew, Grant, Al, Billy/JK, than you, so don’t feel singled out or otherwise special.

    And what’s this nonsense about “censorship”?

    Clue for you: This is not a public forum. This is a moderated private forum which tries to be as open as possible. You have no implicit right to have your unfiltered content displayed here.

    The next time you want to cry “censorship” (and this isn’t the first time you’ve tossed that rhetorical bomb around), sit on your hands and chant “This is not my blog. This is not my blog. This is not my blog.”

    No, I won’t get lost.

    If you bring up these warrantless complaints one more time, you’re gone. You’ve been warned plenty enough, and I know I’m not the only person who is tired of hearing this pointless argument.

    Shape up or go away.

Leave a Reply to al m Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *