what about people who assume what other people think?
Thank you! And, for the record, I stand by my character, both here on the board and in real life. While I do look back on my entrance to this board with a small cringe (I feel that I shouldn’t have been so “guns a blazing”), I do feel that I was unfairly maligned early on in my time here and have been unable to escape that shadow ever since. To me, it is a testament to the character (or lack thereof) of some of the members here who get more satisfaction out of lambasting (disingenuously in many instances) every little aspect of my presence here rather than engaging with me in the threads I’ve posted in.
ETA: At least I make worthwhile fucking contributions to this board. clears throat
Well there was a bit of that but this is your third thread along the same lines. Picture someone starting a thread asking if they should dial 911 because they saw a speeder and then another asking about people running stop signs.
I personally wouldn’t make the call but that’s me. YMMV. There is definitely a theme in your threads and you obviously feel strongly about it. I don’t think it’s healthy to think ill of someone who at least at one time needed the parking space. Maybe you could give the person the benefit of the doubt until you learn otherwise.
Hey,
Back then I tried to nicely caution you that you would develop a reputation but you just had to keep on keeping on and now here you are.
SMH.
Yeah, you were cautioning me because your attitude towards me was being cemented back then wasn’t it? That quote of mine above could be a verbatim description of you, in my opinion.
You’re not going to change peoples’ opinions of you over night – especially not if you keep going over the same topics again and again.
Look-I’m not trying to drag this needlessly on but once again: three threads in thirteen months. Am I not allowed to bring up these issues whatsoever? If I do am I automatically branded a “one-trick pony”? Because I don’t see how on earth that sort of sparse thread generation on a subject could possibly be considered “going over the same topics again and again”; especially when (as I’ve already noted) each specific thread was based on certain circumstances unique to the situations presented within it.
The coffee place doesn’t open for a bit yet, and I got curious.
A cursory look at your posting history reveals 103 threads started, and based on the titles and mouseovers, about 14 are handicap related, and maybe as many as 10 of these are the parking/plane/gym subset. So at least 90% of the time you’re not starting ‘parking spot at the gym’-threads.
Man, nothing gets my goat more than people who don’t fill out the correct paperwork!
I’ve gotta give Jamie some credit this time. Look at his first parking post where he blocked the guy in and how everything escalated. Yeah he came across as an arsehole. This time he called the cops, using the method reccomended by an officer. And when he didn’t get the exact response he was hoping for, what did he do?
He came here to ask for clarification. And it turns out that the laws on parking and issuing tickets varies widely. So he’s going to take the advice he was given here and request clarification from local law enforcement.
I kinda think this is what the Dope’s supposed to be about, that and the snark of course.* As for “regularly” posting about matters involving his disability, I’m assuming that being in a wheelchair is a major factor of life for someone who spends most of their waking life in a wheelchair.
I know I’m a drive-by poster with little to offer to most discussions here. But I admire the different attitude Jamie showed on this occasion.
I concur. I’ve really been impressed by how much Jamie’s civilized himself.
In case that didn’t come across in the post above - me too.
It’s worth noting that police are given quite a disturbing degree (to me, at least) of immunity for not knowing the law they are charged with enforcing. Consider this example, in which a man is arrested when he refuses to show his driver’s license to a police officer. The charges were eventually dropped, but I don’t believe there were any consequences for the arresting officer.
So yes, PO’s are supposed to be well-versed on the ins/outs of the law, but often they are not - and there’s not a whole lot you can do about it.
Ninja - d by BunnyTVS! I was among those giving Jaime a ration in some of his previous complaint-fests, but in this instance I think he’s done everything exactly right. He even presents the issue here in a totally different light.
And I too await some rational explanation of a police policy (if in fact it exists) that exempts company owned vehicles from parking enforcement unless the driver of said vehicle volunteers to [del]self-incriminate[/del] – er, identify him or her self. That’s asinine.
I don’t see what is so mind boggling about giving someone with an expired handicap tag the benefit of the doubt. You’ve invested a fair amount of emotions over this.
This is a person who 1) had a temporary placard from three years ago, not a just-recently expired tag. And 2) specifically and carefully put an eyeglasses case over the exact location showing the expiration date on the placard; and who put the placard on the dashboard rather than hang it on the rearview mirror as designated. And finally 3) had this “coincidence” occur on numerous, often consecutive, days at the same establishment. Who, with a single ounce of brain matter, would give someone with this behavior and lack of proper authorization the “benefit of the doubt”.
I stand by my SMH and add an extra vigorous “S” just for making me explain this to you.
But he is directly impacted by the act. In his shoes, I’m sure I’d be pissed. However, I’m not directly effected by the act and I honestly don’t remember the last time (ever?) I noticed a handicap parking scofflaw.
He can have my share!
Meanwhile, I glare through my sunglasses at boaters who take up ramp space while they do the things that should already be done. Bastards!
I don’t think anyone thinks it’s a “coincidence”. The benefit of the doubt would be for all incidences and is based on the possibility that this person is still disabled.
It’s not difficult for me to believe (which is no comment on rightness, Jamie or anything else) that its an unintended wrinkle in the law.
Parking in handicap spot, could be something that the driver has to be ticketed for due to reasons of the nature of the crime, whereas parking tickets in general attach to the car as they are under a different code.
It might be as much an unintended technicality as anything else (as in, perhaps while its called a parking ticket, it is recorded under a criminal code or something - if I’m making any sense at all)