I’m trying to decide if this is the part where I tell you sarcastically that I live for your approval and that I’m so crestfallen by your low perception of me, or is it the part where I point out that you’re about three hours late to the party?

What does shoes have to do with any of this?

You’re partially butt-hurt. It’s OK to have feelings. This is a safe space for you.

That’s fair. If we see this guy in another jam later on, I will take no pleasure in telling you I told you so.

Isn’t that the whole point of this? This whole platform? In a way, it’s endearing that you have been able to hold onto your ability to default to truth and trust. I hope you never change. I react strongly because I despise seeing people being taken advantage of. In this case, I think in a collective sense, those who default to truth with this story were used, meaning that you were used by him. I think he was being manipulative, and I don’t have any tolerance for that.

That’s the most interesting part, is that by that Occam’s Razor standard, it is not the simplest conclusion. To me, the simplest conclusion is that the guy is not being forthright. It is simpler to believe that he is omitting the truth in order to gain sympathy and avoid repercussions. And while it may seem more plausible because it involves the perception and reputation (admittedly a well deserved reputation) of incompetence at the RMV, that is a fallacy.

Which if that’s really the case ( like this one guy who lives out of an old 1990s jaguar nearby) then yeah I think anyone would have “made the call.” I think that almost makes it the most likely scenario when you introduce that possibility. And if he was being honest about that, either in his hearing, or to the rest of us, my reaction would be 180 degrees different. I would want to be helpful and sympathetic. But again, it requires some honesty on his part, that is thus far elusive.

Ask the RMV who originally had a judge, magistrate, or other hearing officer look at the facts and came to a decision based on those facts and not based on a popularity contest. They will be able to tell you what accountability looks like. The sad fact that they caved in to pressure because of a popularity contest doesn’t change what should have happened

Your insistence on winning me over is dubious. You played on people’s sympathies and wrapped yourself in the warm blanket of “yeah! Screw the RMV” sentiment, in order to get yourself out of a self created crisis. It’s worth every downvote to tell you straight up, you are not to be believed.

He might be a plain old-fashioned transient, living out of his car. That would be a better explanation for what transpired. And, I am only now getting a look at him, and let’s be honest with each other, it strains credulity to call him a “young person.” You can think he’s telling the truth. I just can’t.

Exactly. I fully expect that. I don’t think this guy is being forthright about all the details. I will never believe that this was a “vacation.” Keep in mind that the whole media firestorm resulted after this case was originally adjudicated, and he only took to Reddit and the local media because it wasn’t adjudicated in his favor. Sometimes accountability sucks, and sometimes we screw up. The difference is this guy played on everyone’s sympathy and their disdain towards the RMV in order to get out of a mess he created. I guess that’s the part that bothers me, not just that he’s full of shit, but that he used you all in order to avoid accountability, and worse yet, it worked.

This changes nothing. I bet he’ll end up back in the same predicament because he’s not just “vacationing” and he just ran to the press because, heaven forbid, he’s accountable. I stand by my point on this case. The guy is bullshitting

The Boston College Club dining room, if you have the juice to get in.

It’s part of the T’s new fitness initiative

The part that exists

Shenanigans! They’re filming. It’s a prop plate.

Can we all start demanding that, when a police officer commits a crime, that it is not reported as “former” police? The fact is that these crimes were committed when the officer was on active duty. It is reported this way constantly. The officer who shot her neighbor because she walked into the wrong apartment was immediately characterized as “former,” even though she shot the victim as an active duty officer. The 4 who murdered George Floyd were right away called “former.” By characterizing these criminals as “former,” it takes away the gravitas that these are not only criminals, but they are also breaching the trust that society places on them. Saying “former” gives a false impression that the crimes were committed at some point after their law enforcement career.

They fixed the drive through but the Salem one would get your adrenaline pumping

I’m sorry you had to go through that, and I hope you keep getting serious and helpful replies only. You already have a couple of good suggestions, and the only thing I can add is that if you have homeowners or renters insurance, they generally cover theft outside of the home as well. Depends on the policy, and if they require you to register specific items above a certain value, and definitely depends on your deductible or potential rate increases as to whether it makes financial sense. Good luck 🍀

I feel terrible for them.

Oh no no no…did I hear correctly that the flight attendant got stabbed in the neck?