Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Mico is awesome.

I've done it before, and I am not scandalized.

Hey now. Mico asked it for Kirke to answer and he didn't do it before he left. No harm done.

Ouch, bismark! I do have a blog Anyway, I gave an explanation in the answer.

Whistler, I'm glad I'm not the only one. It would be awkward to set precedent. I wonder how many times a question has been answered by the questioner.

You're a bunch of Board apologists! I really hope Board 5.0 has a setting to filter out such shenanigans.

Is your blog allowed to be read by the likes of me? Or is it one of those ones that tries to stay hidden. (it doesn't work, by the way.)

I've been banned from further posting in this thread by Dragon Lady.

My blog isn't private, but it isn't anonymous or under the name "Mico" either. If you find it then that is awesome, just let me know

It doesn't look like my support is really needed, but writers have been answering their own questions since before you started reading the Board, bismark, so this is by no means something that started since you've been gone. Sometimes, writers ask a question and end up finding the answer themselves after asking, so they go ahead and answer it. Sometimes there are other very valid reasons, like here. And sometimes, people do ask a question just because they feel like it's an interesting question or answer and they feel like readers would be interested too.

I haven't personally done any of those, but I can't honestly find fault with any of them either. However, I do find fault with completely failing to read/understand Mico's explanation and then publicly, snarkily attacking her.

Well, Laser Jock, you could always make your debut of answering your own question by informing the world of your recently acquired knowledge about the Provo parking code . . .

Nice save, bismark.

Nice way to get around my ban of further posting. Just change your post. Oddly enough, I approve. But only if you change your posts for the better.

Wisteria wrote:Well, Laser Jock, you could always make your debut of answering your own question by informing the world of your recently acquired knowledge about the Provo parking code . . .

I could, but I haven't asked the Board a question since I started writing, and I'm sort of proud of that record.

Laser Jock wrote:

Wisteria wrote:Well, Laser Jock, you could always make your debut of answering your own question by informing the world of your recently acquired knowledge about the Provo parking code . . .

I could, but I haven't asked the Board a question since I started writing, and I'm sort of proud of that record.

I think that you should tell that story here, then.

Giovanni Schwartz wrote:

Laser Jock wrote:

Wisteria wrote:Well, Laser Jock, you could always make your debut of answering your own question by informing the world of your recently acquired knowledge about the Provo parking code . . .

I could, but I haven't asked the Board a question since I started writing, and I'm sort of proud of that record.

I think that you should tell that story here, then.

First, I should probably clarify that I have zero problem with writers asking questions after becoming writers. I just don't ask any myself, and by now it's been going on so long that I'd sort of like to keep it going.

For a Board question (not sure which one now), I was looking through the Provo City Code and ended up idly reading chapter 9.32.140, which deals with parking enforcement and towing. There was some very useful/interesting information in there, namely: if you show up while someone is about to boot or tow your car, if they haven't actually attached the boot/tow then they are forbidden to continue, and can't charge you as long as you promptly move the car off the premises. If something is already attached, they can't charge you more than half the posted rate. (And once you've paid, they have to release your car immediately.)

I've heard some rants about parking enforcement that made it obvious that at least some parking companies are unaware of these laws. Now that you know, hopefully you'll have more luck contesting their illegal practices!

And randomly: did you know that, per 9.12.050, anyone who "rudely or improperly follows, pursues, lays hands on, molests, insults or insolently or offensively speaks to or addresses" (emphasis added) someone of the opposite gender in a public place is guilty of a misdemeanor? That's right, insulting someone of the opposite gender is a crime! However, this statute doesn't apply to someone of the same gender as you, or in a private place.

(However, I am not a lawyer, etc.)

That's really interesting, Laser Jock.

I was once looking through some California laws, in regard to libel and slander, I believe, when I came across an unusual law. It has been a long time, I could be wrong about this, or they might have changed the law. But as I remember the law stated that if you catch someone littering, and your report or testimony helps to convict that person of littering, you are entitled to one half of the fine leveled at the person who littered. If true, and it was widely known, imagine what this law would do to the number of accusations of littering. Or, perhaps, how it would help keep our highways clean.