I wonder if this friend has considered that what he will do if she doesn’t answer is “find somebody else to call at 2 in the morning”. She may not have realized (or want to admit to herself) that taking her ex’s calls doesn’t make her special and important to him; she’s just available.

The bigger issue is that they’re going to harass the innocent owner of the vehicle you slapped it on “a lot”.

But nobody has answered his demand as to why it’s “acceptable” to even say such things in public!

The book came out in 1969, so they absolutely were. 

A friend of mine bought a used Toyota from a dealership. At some point he took it to an independent repair shop for maintenance, and the mechanic found a tracking device installed in the car - it was the kind you can buy over the Internet and almost certainly wasn’t put there by law enforcement. The mechanic figured…

This. Why throw some innocent person in between yourself and the cops when you can just throw it in a Dumpster or stick it to a light pole?

What’s the thing with aerosol spray supposedly stripping off nonstick coatings? How would that even work? 

“Even untrue”! Almost as if he’s admitting that his wife and daughter would hate him if they found out what he’d done and who he really was.

I can’t wait until “who?” becomes the dominant response to the canon of books that only gained renown because they spoke to white Boomer dudes’ thoughts about their penises.

a single legitimate reason as to why this kind of rhetoric is acceptable in public discourse

“She would always insist her version of events was correct and anyone who disagreed was gaslighting her” is classic DARVO.

“Better than most automakers!” is an exceptionally low bar.

That, and trying to destroy evidence of the exploding sunroof. If she or, more likely, somebody badly hurt by another exploding sunroof had sued, GM would claim they inadvertently destroyed the car and so don’t have any evidence of there being a defect.

“Maybe he’s being dramatic because it’s the only way for him to get attention from his emotionally-stunted father?”

Okay but... what you’re describing is not people misusing the term “gaslighting”. What you are describing your friend doing is gaslighting. 

Don’t forget the tax evasion!

It is actually possible both to get vaccinated AND to study the effects of the leading vaccines on menstrual cycles! Possibly even with the goal of improving vaccine recommendations, such as suggesting that a particular vaccine is safer or better-suited to menstruating people than a different one!

If you have a Foodsaver or similar food preservation system (they’re pretty cheap!), you can easily make bags of whatever size you need without screwing up your good kitchen knives. Faster too.

Did he also know that Chauvin and his wife are charged with massive tax fraud, and had a judge reject their initial agreed-on divorce plan (something that NEVER happens) because it was apparent they were trying to hide his assets from a lawsuit?

Absolutely! It just seems like the #1 way to fight off religious-legal encroachment is to insist it be used to protect some other religious practice.