DrWorm

I'd love to but I honestly have no idea where to start. That 30 percent ruling is interesting.

Here I am, stuck in the middle of the Reich?

I'm not a real doctor. But I am a real worm.

You rang?

I'm convinced he's unable to actually read anything we're saying. He's projecting that we are the ones being hateful. But he's blinded by his own hate. It's really sad to see. No one is taking his car away. I don't understand how providing multiple forms of mobility is a bad thing. But he believes that car is the only one.

You can't reach a person that's unwilling to read and comprehend what is being said. He's being contrarian to be contrarian. I hope he gets help, but seeing how he contracts himself, he's delusional enough that he thinks he's justified in being an ass. You'll be unable to have any productive conversation with this individual. But it is truly a sight to behold.

Don't put words in my mouth that I did not say. I never stated a goal without cars. My two examples still have cars and they have public transportation. You're being entirely disingenuous and contrarian, truly ironic that you're calling me out as the contrarian. I never said fuck cars. Now this community is called that but it's just an umbrella for better urban design. So I'll concede that it's not helpful language in that specific regard. But if you can provide multiple forms of transportation for everyone that is not a bad thing. To think that's a bad thing is wild. Some people can't even afford cars and depends on there cities to provide public transportation. What do you say about those people, do they deserve to improve there material conditions? Cars don't have to be a primary way for commuting and there's plenty of people in my two example that don't use a car to get to and from work. But there's also people in those countries that do.

I've recently visited my friend in Japan and his family they live about 2 blocks from a station. We traveled all around that city via the subway system. No car, they don't even have a car, they can't really even afford one. Cars aren't always the primary modern necessity of getting around. Now in places like the North America, it very much is. But we can improve conditions for people that can't afford cars by improving those system. It does not mean remove all cars. If you want to drive a car to and from places you still can. You'll deal with less traffic. You'll get to places faster, your quality of live will improve. You still get your car.

I'm not. But you're unwilling to have a productive conversation. With unproductive language. So it's pointless to really continue this.

Both countries still have cars. You can still get around with a car. The idea is to reduce car usage so that people that have a need for a car can and with less traffic. You'll get to point a and b quicker without people that don't need a car clogging the street. But hey I'm apparently being ableist. When you're willing to be productive in conversation we can continue with this. But if you're gonna be thick about it. I'm not interested in continuing this.

Because public services and transportation hasn't and can't provide services to disabled people? You really think that? Fuck man, these systems can work and provide for you easily. Japan and the Netherlands have a lot of handicap support and you can get around without needing to be privileged. I hope you get the help you need.

Which you can disable, thankfully.

The Sioux Chef is excellent and deserves all the praise.

• CBS, Playboy, CocaCola, ABC, Camel Cigarettes, Windows
• ?, Travelers, Apple, Nike, AT&T, Chrysler
• Warner Brothers, ?, Chase, Intel, Pizza Hut, McDonalds
• Xerox, Adobe, IBM, General Electric, Internet Explorer, Bell Laboratories
• United Airlines, Shell, Adidas, NBC, Pepsi, Compaq

How can you forget Thomas Sankara and Burkina Faso. That dude did a lot of good, improved education, healthcare and helped the county become food self-sufficient.