why are cars allowed in the National Arbortetum? Why? Why? WHYYYY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

That might be the goal, but no, they haven't done that. I'm not OP.

I assume you are referring to the (relatively speaking) lack of public transportation options? But that's almost entirely out of the arboretum's control.

That the presence of cars takes away from certain people's enjoyment of the arboretum does not mean the cars limit their access. Those are two different issues.

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

Right. I think the Arboretum needs to do some harder thinking about the purpose of cars in the park. I'm willing to concede that there may be more purpose to people driving to different points in the park than just the 3 lots. But even so, I do not think that "viewing the arboretum by cars in thematic loops" is an acceptable usage pattern. If they focus on the points they think people should be able to travel by car between, then they could create some very limited car traffic routes and leave the rest of the arboretum to pedestrians.

The fact is, we are a growing nation with a shrinking amount of green space. We're going to need to learn to manage it better to preserve what people need when they experience nature. Quiet, calm, and no cars.

And the bolded, in a nutshell, is why I still suspect that OP has only visited during the pandemic and/or azaleas. Because otherwise, in my hundreds of visits to the arboretum, quiet, calm and no cars is exactly what I've gotten. Which is why OP's "proposal" feels like a solution in search of a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

Thank you for writing this. I'm sorry you're getting obnoxious responses from ableist people. I hope these people realize that it could be them with a mobility issue tomorrow, either temporary or permanent. My father also used a wheelchair for the last fifteen years of his life and I never could have imagined our struggles with accessibility until we were living them. I would hope people would be more respectful when others share their experiences. There are many stages to life and yes, it is perfectly valid to enjoy the azaleas, lilacs and other beauties from the window of a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

Thank you for writing this. I'm sorry you're getting obnoxious responses from ableist people. I hope these people realize that it could be them with a mobility issue tomorrow, either temporary or permanent. My father also used a wheelchair for the last fifteen years of his life and I never could have imagined our struggles with accessibility until we were living them. I would hope people would be more respectful when others share their experiences. There are many stages to life and yes, it is perfectly valid to enjoy the azaleas, lilacs and other beauties from the window of a car.

My father too -- he is disabled in the last years of his life due to Huntington's. I remember going on drives with my mom in the last months of her life with cancer. The drives meant so much to her. We weren't even sure if we could take it. Once we accidentally went to an area where no cars were allowed. the guard looked in the window, saw my dying mother, and said carry on. It's a season of life for some people and for others, it's their whole lives. Learn to share the space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

Choice? Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. It's exactly the same as the argument that there has be to be car access because not everyone can walk or bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

Choice? Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. It's exactly the same as the argument that there has be to be car access because not everyone can walk or bike.

Except that it’s served by bus (and taxis and Uber, for people who don’t have a problem with the business model).

Do you complain about anyplace not near a Metro stop or walkable from your home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

Choice? Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. It's exactly the same as the argument that there has be to be car access because not everyone can walk or bike.

Except that it’s served by bus (and taxis and Uber, for people who don’t have a problem with the business model).

Do you complain about anyplace not near a Metro stop or walkable from your home?

OK, so the bus drops you off a few blocks away from the Arboretum, and then you...

It's just a fact that cars on roads limit access for people who are walking or biking. You may believe that the benefits of cars on road outweigh the disadvantages of limiting access to people who are walking and biking, but the limited access is simply not up for debate, just like gravity isn't up for debate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

Choice? Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. It's exactly the same as the argument that there has be to be car access because not everyone can walk or bike.

Except that it’s served by bus (and taxis and Uber, for people who don’t have a problem with the business model).

Do you complain about anyplace not near a Metro stop or walkable from your home?

OK, so the bus drops you off a few blocks away from the Arboretum, and then you...

It's just a fact that cars on roads limit access for people who are walking or biking. You may believe that the benefits of cars on road outweigh the disadvantages of limiting access to people who are walking and biking, but the limited access is simply not up for debate, just like gravity isn't up for debate.

Look, you’re arguing with someone who goes to the arboretum to... walk. But I can also clearly see that not everyone has that option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look, you’re arguing with someone who goes to the arboretum to... walk. But I can also clearly see that not everyone has that option.

OK? So the driving access doesn't limit walking access for you. Yay! But for others, it does. What works for Person A doesn't necessarily work for Person B, just like people keep telling the OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

Choice? Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. It's exactly the same as the argument that there has be to be car access because not everyone can walk or bike.

Except that it’s served by bus (and taxis and Uber, for people who don’t have a problem with the business model).

Do you complain about anyplace not near a Metro stop or walkable from your home?

OK, so the bus drops you off a few blocks away from the Arboretum, and then you...

It's just a fact that cars on roads limit access for people who are walking or biking. You may believe that the benefits of cars on road outweigh the disadvantages of limiting access to people who are walking and biking, but the limited access is simply not up for debate, just like gravity isn't up for debate.

Look, you’re arguing with someone who goes to the arboretum to... walk. But I can also clearly see that not everyone has that option.

But that’s not why cars are allowed everywhere. The arboretum could remain perfectly accessible, even moreso, if cars were limited. Disabled people could still drive in, park, and access the features. They could be supplied with scooters. The reason cars have the run of the place has nothing to do with the goal of accessibility. It’s lack of deliberate planning, combined with an anachronistic idea of “autotouring” in national parks that’s already on its way out, and was always a bad fit for such a relatively small space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

Thank you for writing this. I'm sorry you're getting obnoxious responses from ableist people. I hope these people realize that it could be them with a mobility issue tomorrow, either temporary or permanent. My father also used a wheelchair for the last fifteen years of his life and I never could have imagined our struggles with accessibility until we were living them. I would hope people would be more respectful when others share their experiences. There are many stages to life and yes, it is perfectly valid to enjoy the azaleas, lilacs and other beauties from the window of a car.

My father too -- he is disabled in the last years of his life due to Huntington's. I remember going on drives with my mom in the last months of her life with cancer. The drives meant so much to her. We weren't even sure if we could take it. Once we accidentally went to an area where no cars were allowed. the guard looked in the window, saw my dying mother, and said carry on. It's a season of life for some people and for others, it's their whole lives. Learn to share the space.

You realize you can also look at pictures of flowers and trees in the comfort of your home , right? You don’t need to drive your dying oldster to a place where they can see them one last time, and in so doing, ruining everyone else’s experience and causing us to worry that you’re going to run us over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The presence of cars does limit access. When people use roads in cars, that makes it difficult for people who are not in cars to use those roads.

No, it limits access in the exact manner you would prefer it. You can still walk on those roads. In a place like the arboretum, in many areas there are places you can walk off of the roads if you prefer.

You have every bit the same access to the arboretum (via walking, bike, uber, bus, etc) whether there are cars or not.

As you said: it limits access.

Only if you choose to be so limited. Absent your choice, it is fully open to you.

Choice? Not everyone has a car. Not everyone can drive. It's exactly the same as the argument that there has be to be car access because not everyone can walk or bike.

Except that it’s served by bus (and taxis and Uber, for people who don’t have a problem with the business model).

Do you complain about anyplace not near a Metro stop or walkable from your home?

OK, so the bus drops you off a few blocks away from the Arboretum, and then you...

It's just a fact that cars on roads limit access for people who are walking or biking. You may believe that the benefits of cars on road outweigh the disadvantages of limiting access to people who are walking and biking, but the limited access is simply not up for debate, just like gravity isn't up for debate.

Look, you’re arguing with someone who goes to the arboretum to... walk. But I can also clearly see that not everyone has that option.

But that’s not why cars are allowed everywhere. The arboretum could remain perfectly accessible, even moreso, if cars were limited. Disabled people could still drive in, park, and access the features. They could be supplied with scooters. The reason cars have the run of the place has nothing to do with the goal of accessibility. It’s lack of deliberate planning, combined with an anachronistic idea of “autotouring” in national parks that’s already on its way out, and was always a bad fit for such a relatively small space.

New poster. Not one to whom you're responding. Re: the bold: This demonstrates your lack of understanding of the myriad issues involve with accessibility. "They could be supplied with scooters." OK. Do you have even a remote idea how much a single scooter costs? Thousands, for a safe and stable one. How much are you personally willing to pony up in new admission fees or whatever to help fund a fleet of scooters that would be kept on standby? How much should those who would need scooters pay to rent one for...an hour, a few hours, most of the day? Because that will end up being how it's done--rentals--unless you generously donate quite a few very pricey scooters. And what happens when the last scooter is taken out and a person who needs one turns up but there's no scooter? So, a reservation system will take care of that problem--reserve, and don't you dare turn up on a whim if you need a scooter because we can't guarantee you one. And on and on. By the way, have you ever tried actually driving one yourself? I'm betting not. Some models require the person to be able to use their hands to squeeze the handlebars to make the scooter run. Try doing that for a long period--or even a short period--gripping hard to keep the scooter running. Even models that don't run that way can require users to use their arms and hands a lot.

Before someone leaps in to say, "Off topic! This isn't about scooters!": My point is that people who have no real experience with accessibility issues blithely toss out "solutions" like this one. Provide them with scooters. Provide them with wheelchairs. (An earlier poster correctly noted that wheelchairs must be pushed and doing so over distances, hills, etc. isn't always a realistic option.)

The intention may be good but the suggestions as made here are showing a lack of understanding of how scooters and wheelchairs work, or don't, in places like the arboretum.

My MIL in the UK used scooters for many years at nature preserves and other similar places. Locations far more "wild" than the Arboretum. The issues like having to reserve, there being very limited numbers of scooters available at any time, having to deal with models that required a strong hand grip, etc. are all for real. We were always very grateful for the organization that provided those scooters at so many places! But this is also why I can't see scooters working at the Arboretum as THE "solution" for accessibility. As ONE option to offer, for rental? Sure. As the way for people with mobility issues to be expected to see this place, period? Not very feasible.

I guess its' good that the PP (is that you, OP?) thought about providing scooters but the reality is that scooters will be expensive and very limited availability.

And the Arboretum is fine if you don't go at peak times on good-weather days when a pandemic has made everyone stir-crazy. The dramatic "why why WHYYYY" of this thread's original post is just that--drama.

[Anonymous]

Think about wasting your time, energy and youth on something as asinine as cars using a road at a research facility. It truly is sad.

You will wake up one day at 60 and beg for these days back so you could better use them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't wait for OP to walk into The Gap and bemoan that cheeseburgers aren't served.

It’s more like - walking into the Gap and wondering why all the clothes are only size 12.

It’s an open green space, not a giant parking lot.

No, you have it backwards. OP has walked into Gap, loves the tops and is bemoaning the fact that they waste so much space on dresses, pants and shoes when they should be offering a wider selection of tops in her size and screw everyone else who wants dresses, pants and shoes. They should be focusing on what she wants and ignoring what others want.

The point is that the arboretum is an agricultural research facility focusing on trees, shrubs, bushes and flowers. They have opened up the facility for the public to come and view and they have made it as accessible as possible for the widest range of people. OP is objecting that by making it more accessible to people, they have ruined the way that she wants to use the facilities for walking and enjoying nature.

She claims that if they restricted driving internally, that it would make the part more accessible by wheelchairs or scooters or strollers. But she obviously does not use wheelchairs or scooters. My father was in a wheelchair for most of the last 10 years of his life. We traveled as a family frequently and we pushed his wheelchair around a lot. Do you know how long it would take to travel around the arboretum with a scooter? Unlike a walking person, a person in a scooter travels slower and cannot always walk in a straight line. While an able bodied person can cut across the lawn of a roundabout, a person in a scooter is going to have to go around at a slower pace. You can't cut corners, you can't take shortcuts. And a wheelchair or scooter is going to travel slower. So a two hour trip to the arboretum means that that person is going to see so much less of the arboretum if you restrict the access as OP wants. I took my father there, we went to one garden, got him in his wheelchair and explored for a half hour. Got him back in the car and went to another part of the facility and again explore a half hour. In 2 hours we got to see 3 parts of the gardens and he was pleased. With OP's changes, we'd part by the entrance, we'd make it out to one part of the park, see it for a half hour and have to start turning back to head back to the car.

Likewise families with young kids who can't walk as far or as fast or they have to use a stroller. I took my kids when they were young. We went and hung out around the architectural pillars for a while while they ran around. Then we drove over to the vegetable garden so they could see the planted garden.

The arboretum currently works for the able-bodied and the mobility-restricted. It works for the the old and the young. But sorry to disappointed OP, the arboretum isn't only for the young able-bodied and shouldn't be focused purely for their pleasure.

Thank you for writing this. I'm sorry you're getting obnoxious responses from ableist people. I hope these people realize that it could be them with a mobility issue tomorrow, either temporary or permanent. My father also used a wheelchair for the last fifteen years of his life and I never could have imagined our struggles with accessibility until we were living them. I would hope people would be more respectful when others share their experiences. There are many stages to life and yes, it is perfectly valid to enjoy the azaleas, lilacs and other beauties from the window of a car.

My father too -- he is disabled in the last years of his life due to Huntington's. I remember going on drives with my mom in the last months of her life with cancer. The drives meant so much to her. We weren't even sure if we could take it. Once we accidentally went to an area where no cars were allowed. the guard looked in the window, saw my dying mother, and said carry on. It's a season of life for some people and for others, it's their whole lives. Learn to share the space.

You realize you can also look at pictures of flowers and trees in the comfort of your home , right? You don’t need to drive your dying oldster to a place where they can see them one last time, and in so doing, ruining everyone else’s experience and causing us to worry that you’re going to run us over.

LOL. You remind me of the sad spinsters at work that try and equate aunthood with motherhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

LOL. You remind me of the sad spinsters at work that try and equate aunthood with motherhood.

"Sad spinsters"? Is it 1890?