[XYZ]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I've mentioned it exactly twice, and the last time contained a new observation.

Actually it is 3 times (see quote from post #11 below). The implication is that you know that road intimately and therefore are the most qualified to comment about it. Unfortunately we have no way of verifying whether anything you say is true or not.

My wish isn't for a different speed limit or more signage. My wish is for you egomaniacs to realize the entire universe doesn't revolve around your desire to put the hammer down.

"You egomaniacs." You get into an ongoing personal exchange of insults with Tjts and then you use a broad brush to tar anyone else who might disagree with you or who isn't a part of your fan club.

If we review all your comments in this thread it is obvious that you are trying to find every possible justification for your attitude that you have a right to drive as slowly as you please on a highway, just as the defendant in this case tried to do, unsuccessfully.

Actual quotes from your posts:

Post #11: "Next time I'm on 7 it'll be at 30 mph."

Post #28: "I wouldn't go 30 either, unless I knew tits1 was behind me and it was a no passing zone."

Post #35: "So if the commisioner is a **** with little understanding of the stautes, what she says goes anyway. Got it."

169.15 IMPEDING TRAFFIC; INTERSECTION GRIDLOCK.
Subdivision 1.Impeding traffic; slow speed.
No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic except when reduced speed is necessary for safe operation or in compliance with law or except when the vehicle is temporarily unable to maintain a greater speed due to a combination of the weight of the vehicle and the grade of the highway.

"No person shall drive a motor vehicle at such a slow speed as to impede or block the normal and reasonable movement of traffic..."

That phrase may be subjective, but it is broad enough providing reason enough for a police officer to cite you on it - especially if you show him an attitude or are found doing it repeatedly without a valid reason. That's what this whole case was about, but you are "sour grapes" - showing disappointment that the defendant lost his case.

Regarding a reply I made in a different thread, irrelevant to this one:

You wrote that?

You know I did, and you pulled it out of context and dragged it into this thread in a desperate attempt to put me in a bad light. That's a low blow, Frank, but coming from you I'm not surprised. BTW, I'm not ranting and threatening to unsubscribe from the thread which was what I was addressing in that response. However I AM holding you accountable for everything you said in THIS thread - and that's entirely relevant.