Official Crappy Parkers Thread

[njobe89]

Originally Posted by JARblue

I didn't say I had respect for the Jeep itself but rather it's owner. IDGAF what your car looks like or costs; you don't get to take up two spaces unless you're in the back of an empty parking lot, in which case it is entirely unnecessary. Allowing people to get away with this crap is what makes them think it's ok. That being said, the action of parking next to the Lambo like that was a douche move as well. I like the thought, but the execution was flawed.

Would you have felt differently about the Jeep guy if he had parked normal within a space and then pulled the Lambo's cores for parking like a douche?

that's what i was saying.
in russia you get killed for this stuff
mother russia!!

[Haboob]

Originally Posted by JARblue

I didn't say I had respect for the Jeep itself but rather it's owner. IDGAF what your car looks like or costs; you don't get to take up two spaces unless you're in the back of an empty parking lot, in which case it is entirely unnecessary. Allowing people to get away with this crap is what makes them think it's ok. That being said, the action of parking next to the Lambo like that was a douche move as well. I like the thought, but the execution was flawed.

Would you have felt differently about the Jeep guy if he had parked normal within a space and then pulled the Lambo's cores for parking like a douche?

I was implying Jeep owners.

Pulling the Lambo's cores? No, because the Lambo isn't preventing the Jeep owner from entering the vehicle, etc.

Maybe a note saying they park like a douche, but not to block them in and prevent them from being on their way.

[Haboob]

Originally Posted by cooltoy

Good thing it has lambo doors.

This one doesn't have the stereotypical "Lambo doors".

[cooltoy]

Damn.

[TexasChuck]

I agree with Benji. I know we all can't just "cruise" and avoid parking lots. I DO avoid "good ole boy" restaurants, and park way out BEtween the lines! I suggest some of you guys re-think your attitude on this. If you think of harming someone else's car, you are just as bad, worse, than they are.
Promote good will when you can.
TxCh

[Haboob]

I wouldn't harm someone's car unless they harmed mine, and blocking me in would be considered harming my car. Game on.

And it's just a valve core. They can put their spare on and get to the tire shop.

[jpkirk]

Originally Posted by Haboob

I wouldn't harm someone's car unless they harmed mine, and blocking me in would be considered harming my car. Game on.

And it's just a valve core. They can put their spare on and get to the tire shop.

Unless ...

you do more than one.

[JARblue]

Originally Posted by Haboob

I was implying Jeep owners.

Pulling the Lambo's cores? No, because the Lambo isn't preventing the Jeep owner from entering the vehicle, etc.

Maybe a note saying they park like a douche, but not to block them in and prevent them from being on their way.

I figured what you meant. I was just trying to specify that my tiny inkling of respect was only towards this one specific douche and not towards all Jeep owners As a generalization, I bet most Lambo and Jeep owners are douches before they even get in their car (with exceptions of course, as there are with any broad generalization).

Yes, causing physical damage or a significant delay/hassle for them to leave is a douche move. But retaliation in a similar fashion makes you the same as them. You don't get to say that you would never be the first douche and would leave a note and then say that retaliation in the same vein is the appropriate action if you were the victim of the first douche. Well, I guess you get to say that if you want (this is America after all), but then I get to call you a hypocrite

Originally Posted by Haboob

I wouldn't harm someone's car unless they harmed mine, and blocking me in would be considered harming my car. Game on.

And it's just a valve core. They can put their spare on and get to the tire shop.

Tit for tat, eh and lol at your definition of "harming". See my above comment

[Haboob]

Originally Posted by JARblue

I figured what you meant. I was just trying to specify that my tiny inkling of respect was only towards this one specific douche and not towards all Jeep owners As a generalization, I bet most Lambo and Jeep owners to be douches before they even get in their car (with exceptions of course, as there are with any broad generalization).

Yes, causing physical damage or a significant delay/hassle for them to leave is a douche move. But retaliation in a similar fashion makes you the same as them. You don't get to say that you would never be the first douche and would leave a note and then say that retaliation in the same vein is the appropriate action if you were the victim of the first douche. Well, I guess you get to say that if you want (this is America after all), but then I get to call you a hypocrite

Nothing hypocritical about it. I was saying that the Jeep guy could have left a note, rather than preventing the Lambo owner from getting into his car and leaving, but, because he did so, the Lambo driver would be entitled to prevent the Jeep owner from leaving by removing a valve core or something.

Eye for an eye.

[JARblue]

Originally Posted by Haboob

Nothing hypocritical about it.

lol it is the very definition of the word ... IF you are suggesting that the first person should not be a douche, but if they are the second person should be a douche

My point is you either advocate for non-douchery or you advocate douchery. The Lambo guy was a douche for parking like that in that parking lot (i.e. lots of cars). So he was the first douche. And according to your argument below, the Jeep was entitled to park like a douche

Originally Posted by Haboob

I was saying that the Jeep guy could have left a note, rather than preventing the Lambo owner from getting into his car and leaving, but, because he did so, the Lambo driver would be entitled to prevent the Jeep owner from leaving by removing a valve core or something.

You have an inherent right to defend yourself and your property. But you do not have the right to mess with someone's property in petty retaliation

The Lambo should not have parked like that. The Jeep should not have parked like that. About the only thing anyone here is entitled to is the Lambo driver possibly having the Jeep towed.

Originally Posted by Haboob

Eye for an eye.

Also, eye for an eye is such crap. $hit happens. Either get over it or do something about it. And if I wanted to do something, I would go way further than eye for an eye. If someone dings my door, I would prefer to beat the snot out of them while scolding them for damaging other people's property. Make it so painful that they pay close attention to their actions in the future. Putting a door ding in their car (eye for an eye) isn't likely to have much impact on their future actions. Just my

[Haboob]

Originally Posted by JARblue

lol it is the very definition of the word ... IF you are suggesting that the first person should not be a douche, but if they are the second person should be a douche

My point is you either advocate for non-douchery or you advocate douchery. The Lambo guy was a douche for parking like that in that parking lot (i.e. lots of cars). So he was the first douche. And according to your argument below, the Jeep was entitled to park like a douche



You have an inherent right to defend yourself and your property. But you do not have the right to mess with someone's property in petty retaliation

The Lambo should not have parked like that. The Jeep should not have parked like that. About the only thing anyone here is entitled to is the Lambo driver possibly having the Jeep towed.



Also, eye for an eye is such crap. $hit happens. Either get over it or do something about it. And if I wanted to do something, I would go way further than eye for an eye. If someone dings my door, I would prefer to beat the snot out of them while scolding them for damaging other people's property. Make it so painful that they pay close attention to their actions in the future. Putting a door ding in their car (eye for an eye) isn't likely to have much impact on their future actions. Just my

No, it's not hypocritical at all.

The Lambo owner wasn't preventing the Jeep guy from doing anything, so he wasn't entitled to park like that. Sure, it isn't right to park taking up two spots, but the Jeep is entirely at fault for being a ******* prick and preventing the other owner from entering and leaving.

What I'm saying is defending my property.

[JARblue]

Originally Posted by Haboob

The Lambo owner wasn't preventing the Jeep guy from doing anything, so he wasn't entitled to park like that.

Excuse me? He was preventing the Jeep from parking there. Sorry but that's a douche move. I don't think the Jeep driver was entitled to park like that; I'm saying your argument could be seen by the Jeep driver as feeling entitled to park like that.

Originally Posted by Haboob

Sure, it isn't right to park taking up two spots, but the Jeep is entirely at fault for being a ******* prick and preventing the other owner from entering and leaving.

Talk about a conflicting statement lol ... if it isn't right to take up two spots, then how is the Jeep driver ENTIRELY at fault? Even if you don't think the Lambo driver is a douche, that doesn't absolve him of fault

Originally Posted by Haboob

What I'm saying is defending my property.

Pulling the Jeep's valve cores after he parked like that and walked away is not defending your property. It's called petty retaliation

Look, we all know that parking like a douche is potentially drawing attention to your vehicle. So if you were the Lambo owner and decided to park like that, you have to know that there's a possibility of someone fucking with your car. You were the first douche, so for you to say they shouldn't mess with your car but then say you are entitled to fuck with their car in retaliation, that's the definition of a hypocrite.

[Zbrah]

All the talk about a Jeep and Lambo...What do you guys think of this Honda Accord?

[GZ3]

^ unreal! is his mirror scrapped from the paint it took off the Z? There would be souls taken for this smh

[njobe89]

i don't see how he didn't hit the Z there? but that's a reason to empty a clip out the .40 lol... jk, but seriously.