Recent comments in /f/massachusetts

TheCavis t1_jeg5bdf wrote

They're also probably fine. The law, as written, makes an exception if you have liability insurance, aren't using the car as a company vehicle, and don't let MA residents drive the car.

It was basically written as a "don't register in NH to avoid taxes and insurance when you're living in MA" law, but the RMV just skipped the very specific "except" clauses when applying it here.

20

The_rising_sea t1_jeg4zrc wrote

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.

−2

therealcmj t1_jeg43d5 wrote

Not necessarily.

When I go somewhere for work I am on an expense account. But that doesn’t mean I don’t drive my own car. It’s my choice - take cabs or Uber/Lyft, rent a car, or expense 55c per mile. For lots of people having their own car is more convenient and saves them from parking it at an airport or wherever and worrying about it while you’re away.

16

cowleidoscope t1_jeg2qd9 wrote

It's actually annoying that this is being peddled as a trans related thing. It's obviously being used to gain support from the left (and likely from the cis straight allies, not the actual queer people) but will be equally likely in losing support as a result.

This is an issue that impacts everyone, but predominantly women who get married and/or divorced. If I want to change my name, obviously I'd like it to be a smooth and easy process. But among the things I hear discussed among trans people... This is very much not a concern.

13

The_rising_sea t1_jeg2osv wrote

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.

−14

The_rising_sea t1_jeg1rkr wrote

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.

−1

A_Man_Who_Writes t1_jeg1eu0 wrote

Why are you not able to imagine Occam’s Razor here? Young dude stays with friends in Boston for a month and random Karen calls in the out-of-state car that’s been in her neighborhood for 30 days. Not that difficult to imagine. And whether you like it or not, requesting the dude after-the-fact to register his car in Massachusetts even though he’s a permanent Virginia resident is beyond silly.

21

ungusbungus69 t1_jefzieh wrote

Damn I assumed that's what happened because out of state cars get called in and towed near me all the time during the uni semesters. It can be really annoying to get called in (and be asked to get there in 30 minutes) and have to find your car again like 20 minutes away. That's fucking rough, Idk how they got you then, maybe someone flat out lied about how long they saw your car for.

1