XPost: nyc.general, nyc.transit, nyc.motorcycles
XPost: alt.autos
From: secret.fromyou@freespeech.com
In article <21ccnvs3md2opp6l03lq2rk04rj0pgjbbh@4ax.com>
Phil wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:28:58 +0000 (GMT), Whomever
> wrote:
>
> >If you want your statements to be taken seriously and as from a
> >sane and sober adult, speak like one. You sound like an
> >aggressive teenager.
>
> I sound like a teenager? You broke the rules and are not accepting
> responsibility for it.
>
> >This is a parking lot for public use, privately owned. Yes, the
> >owners have a right to set the rules,
> >but such heavy-handed
> >dealing with an unintentional first offense is certainly unfair
> >if not illegal.
>
> Signs were posted. They said that cars can and will be towed. There
> is no surprise here. What's unfair about it.
Because many places have such signs and no one gets towed. Yes,
the abuse of parking priveleges should be discouraged, but not
by such heavy-handed means except in the case of chronic
violators or those that block in other vehicles.
> > Are you capable of understanding that, and
> >putting yourself in my position?
>
> No! I accept the consequences for my own actions. If I get a ticket
> for something, I don't complain that the cops should've been chasing
> killers and rapists. I accept the fact that I got caught; you should
> do the same.
Obviously you ARE incapable of understanding that and putting
yourself in my position. The police were not involved here. This
may not have been a crime technically, but it was a mean-
spirited, draconian action that far exceeded what was justified
by the circumstances.
> >> You're asking them to keep records of parking violators? Put someone
> >> on payroll to watch out for repeat offenders? You don't believe in
> >> personal responsibility, do you?
> >
> >I do. That's why I advocate that everyone take responsibility
> >for combatting and eliminating these unscrupulous practices -
> >beginning with boycotting CVS and other such avaricious,
> >captious property owners.
>
> The best way to combat these 'unscrupulous practices' is not to give
> them reason to tow you.
I have far better ways to fight than cowardly capitulation to
being legally robbed!
> >> What consequent cost are you referring to? You don't have a legal leg
> >> to stand on.
> >
> >Yes I do. I'll divulge the details if and when I see fit, Phil.
> >I can, legally, cost CVS far, far more than the sum extorted
> >from me, and it will be easy to do should I choose to do it. I
> >would not do anything illegal, but as I said, I fully sympathize
> >with those so frustrated with victimization by corporate
> >billionaire bullies, and the lack of legal recourse available to
> >them, that they see no other means to get justice than through
> >vandalism or other such acts.
>
> A sign was posted. You ignored it. You got caught. You have no
> legal leg to stand on.
Believe what you will, but I will either get fair compensation
or cause CVS a loss far greater than my own. That I swear!
> >Do your beloved companies that pay little or no taxes accept
> >"responsibility?" How about when they flout the law because they
> >have good lawyers and friends in government that can protect
> >them? I believe I am a more responsible individual than many
> >wealthy executives, and I sleep well and with a clear conscience.
>
> Apples and oranges, here. Apples and oranges. This thread is about
> how you parked illegally and how your car was towed.
Your mentality is that of the masochistic victim that thinks,
"Gee, it was my fault I got robbed. I should have known better
than to walk the streets at night. I've been WARNED not to do
so. The guy that mugged me had nothing personal against me, it's
MY FAULT for being there."
I'll get my compensation, or CVS will pay the price! Disagree
all you wish, but that's the way it will be. And were it not for
masochists like you that suck up to those that abuse us -
corporate, government, or private - they would not in most cases
get away with it.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|