Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3225658)

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?

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3225658)

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?

Originally Posted by cooltoy (Post 3225710)

Good thing it has lambo doors.

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226538)

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.

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3225922)

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.

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226538)

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.

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3226649)

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 :icon17: 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 :p

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226667)

Nothing hypocritical about it.

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226667)

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.

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226667)

Eye for an eye.

Originally Posted by JARblue (Post 3226730)

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 :tiphat:

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 :wtf2:



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 :shakes head:

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 :twocents:

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226736)

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

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226736)

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.

Originally Posted by Haboob (Post 3226736)

What I'm saying is defending my property.