I can’t speak for other posters, but to me it’s not the BEHAVIOUR that’s hugely out of line, it’s the OP’s response to the consequences of their behaviour.
This actually has a rather large parallel to the other handicapped parking space thread, in that what the OPs did was kinda dickish but nothing huge in the grand scheme of life, but when getting called on their dickish behaviour as a natural consequence (the other thread with someone pointing out it was a handicapped space, in this situation with the OP having their gym membership revoked), suddenly everyone around them is bitches and pricks and oh civil rights are being eroded.
The OP hasn’t been locked up and hosed down with ice water. He’s had a gym membership revoked. A gym membership that probably includes terms that state they can do that at any time, for any reason. When you indulge in vigilante behaviour, you have to accept that at times you are going to end up on the wrong end of the rules and laws yourself.
No, that is not what I’m after. I know, what it comes down to the letter of the law, my actions were technically wrong. I said, earlier in the thread, I was NEVER trying to escape responsiblity for my actions. Secondly, the police, in the HHFC incident, unfortunately never were involved. It was only security. I never implied any sort of wrongdoing on the part of law enforcement or any law-enforcement authorities" specifically. And the airline situation, it not something that is done PURPOSELY wrong, I do understand WHY it is the way it is, I am just after a way of modifiying it because it needs be changed. And, despite what practically everyone here is so adamantly proclaiming, I still believe at least SOME level of pride and self-respect can be restored to the aisle-chair situation. As this thread has progressed, I admit to shifting my views on the matter ever so slightly. To a more realistic view of the state of things. But that doesn’t mean that I simply bow and accept the way things currently are. It does mean that, working WITHIN the framework of the existing possibilites, things can still be done (modifications, seat belt issues, legality issues, etc.) to better the situation. As far as the parking lot issue, my “vigilante” actions in the HHFC incident were not actions that I take every single time I encounter illegal parkers. Jesus Christ, no. As in the second incident mentioned in the online article, that time it was necessitated out of a lack of anywhere else to park. In the Hurley incident, it was the particularly obnoxious and blatant disregard for not only parking laws, but the ppl for whom those laws are in place for that this young man was displaying that put me over the edge. I simply could not let it go. And I did not confront him. I consider a confrontation something in which physical violence has the opportunity to take place. Despite what everyone may think here, I adamantly assure you, that was NOT a possibility. We communicated over a distance of about 15ft through our cars and then I parked my car(which was RIGHT next to the door) and immediately went inside. I didn’t even look at the young man as I got out and went inside.
Probably time to consider expanding your definition. Some of us would rather take a physical slap than a verbal one. Just throwing that out there.
Your grammar and spelling are quite good, your instincts for this will earn much forgiveness for what others may perceive as other faults. For your own sake, don’t do this here, it will only make you a target.
Probably time to consider expanding your definition. Some of us would rather take a physical slap than a verbal one. Just throwing that out there.
Your grammar and spelling are quite good, your instincts for this will earn much forgiveness for what others may perceive as other faults. For your own sake, don’t do this here, it will only make you a target.[/QUOTE
Well ok, if that’s the definiton of “confrontation”, it wasn’t a confrontation I started. I started a conversation. HE started a confrontation.
You’re very conveniently defining “confront” and “polite” to suit your purposes. I don’t buy it. I wouldn’t consider my car being blocked on purpose a nonconfrontational act, myself, let alone a polite one.
Blocking his car was absolutely confrontational. You remind me of when Bobby Brady became hall monitor and got drunk with power tattling on everyone. Ok, that’s a bit of a stretch, but it made me lol.
Not a huge deal, but now that it’s been pointed out an acknowledged could you please stop? It’s damn annoying and it will affect how posters perceive you.
What makes you think that it couldn’t have turned into a physical fight? 15ft of parking lot is hardly an insurmountable obstacle for either of you. While you were parking your car behind his and getting out, he could easily have walked over to your car. In fact, I’m a little surprised he didn’t.
You want to park in a handicap spot be my guess. There are way too many handicap spots that are unused and are taking valuable space from others who seek a parking space. Whoever calculated the number of handicapped spaces per parking lot obviously had no clue as to the few number that would ever use the spaces.
I don’t think he even knew what I was doing when I was parking my car behind his until the deed was done. He was obviously surprised. And I don’t think you are realizing the speed and efficiency with which I enter and exit my vehicle. Im telling you, since I was the one there and none of you were, that the possibility for a fistfight (or any other kind of physical fight) was absent.
See, this is exactly the mentality that makes people feel okay breaking the law and parking whereever the hell they want. “Well, there are WAY too many handicap spots anyway, they just go unused, why not?” This is a tunnel-vision way of viewing the world. Viewing it only through your experiences. Maybe those spots are empty when YOU see them, but are you monitoring those spots for the duration of business hours? And with the glut of “questionably disabled” people who manage to score a placard from a “could-care-less” doctor, those spaces are usually always full.
In the US, the number of spaces required can vary. It could be based on state law, building codes, or local zoning codes. Businesses and property owners are free to add more than the required number, but that can’t have less than the minimum. Unless, of course, they’re in an urban area and they don’t have off-street parking period.
Little known fact: the idea of handicapped parking was first conceived in the 1960s in Canada. Spaces were marked with a large letter “G”, which symbolized “gimp”. However, French-Canadians protested because the letter symbolized an English word. Thus, the wheelchair symbol was born. The symbol was designed in a way to allow easy modification of already-painted “G” spaces, converting the letter into a wheelchair with a few extra lines.
The poster signed up this month, and has two posts - one of which is the one you’re responding to, and another which is a snarky comment in a thread about healthcare.
You’re being trolled, and you’re dancing to his tune.