XPost: nyc.announce, nyc.general, nyc.bicycles 
 XPost: nyc.seminars 
 From: secret.fromyou@freespeech.com 
  
 In article  
 Phil  wrote: 
 > 
 > On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 22:02:40 +0000 (GMT), Whomever 
 >  wrote: 
 > 
 > >In article  
 > >Phil  wrote: 
 > >> 
 > >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 22:07:43 +0000 (GMT), Whomever 
 > >>  wrote: 
 > >> 
 > >> >Sour grapes, Phil? 
 > >> 
 > >> Sour grapes?  I'd have to believe you in order for sour grapes.  And 
 > >> you're so full of shit that you're staining your hat. 
 > > 
 > >Hmm - uncontrolled hostility. Yes, sour grapes! 
 > 
 > Again, I'd have to believe you for sour grapes, and I don't believe 
 > you. 
  
 Don't believe me about what, specifically? 
  
 I went to the CVS store today and picked up $160 cash from the 
 manager, as the district manager directed him to give me. 
 Whether you believe me or not, justice has been served and I am 
 very happy about it. 
  
 > >> If the president of CVS agreed to pay you, he would be setting a very 
 > >> dangerous precedent.  Anytime some idiot wrote a letter demanding 
 > >> money because they felt wronged (without going to court or providing 
 > >> any proof), the company might feel obligated to pay. 
 > > 
 > >It is obvious that _I_ am not the idiot here, as I have 
 > >prevailed and won justice in the form of monetary compensation. 
 > >I DID send proof; towing receipts. I commend CVS on their TAKING 
 > >RESPONSIBILITY for this, as they admit that the tow truck driver 
 > >was "overzealous," and indeed are going to modify their policies 
 > >re. parking enforcement. As things are, anyone that leaves a 
 > >prescription to be filled and comes back 15 minutes later has a 
 > >chance of finding they've been carnapped. They recognize that 
 > >fact, and do not want it to happen in the future. 
 > > 
 > >> No corporate president got to where he is by giving away company 
 > >> money. 
 > > 
 > >And many have gone to jail for maximizing their profits in 
 > >unscrupulous ways. But that doesn't bother you, does it? You 
 > >simply can't stand it when an individual stands up to the 
 > >bullies and wins. Is it true you were once a police officer? If 
 > >so, it's a damn good thing you no longer are. I can imagine how 
 > >you would treat people. Were you a bully as a kid? 
 > 
 > Apples and oranges here.  You're changing topic to strengthen your 
 > pitiful and nonsensical argument. 
  
 Not at all. You are so convinced of your viewpoint, so closed- 
 minded to the possibility of me being right or even partially 
 right, that you refuse to open your eyes. Even CVS has done so, 
 and reimbursed me. It was simply UNJUST to take my car and 
 extort $160 from me as a penalty for a trivial parking violation 
 that harmed no one. Can you understand that? It is not just a 
 matter of legality, but of fairness and proportion. 
  
 In their extremes, both capitalism and communism display similar 
 evils. Under extreme communism, the rights, freedoms, and 
 priveleges of the individual citizen are suppressed and 
 subordinated to the will of the state, which owns and operates 
 the economic structure. Under extreme capitalism it is the same, 
 but with corporations and the wealthy and powerful being the 
 oppressors. You have apparently been indoctrinated to accept 
 this sort of thing without daring to question it. I suspect you 
 went to a parochial school, no? It is closed-minded thinking 
 like yours that produces murderous mob enforcers and the staff 
 for concentration camps. And bullies and rogue cops, too - 
 people that simply believe "might makes right," and are without 
 a conscience. 
  
 > >> >You really didn't want me to win, because my doing so shows 
 > >> >there may be some fallacies in the rigid conservative viewpoint 
 > >> >you seem to have been indoctrinated with. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >If you WOULD have fought as I did, you are a hypocrite in 
 > >> >telling me that I was wrong. 
 > >> > 
 > >> >If you would NOT have fought as I did, you would be a loser not 
 > >> >by the actions of others, but due to your own inaction beased on 
 > >> >your beliefs about "responsibility." 
 > >> 
 > >> I would not have parked illegally.  That's my belief on 
 > >> 'responsibility.' 
 > > 
 > >Good for you. But would you complain if your tires were slashed 
 > >for it? The cost would be comparable to that of being towed, and 
 > >the penalty just as out of proportion to the violation. 
 > 
 > Apples and oranges, again.  Slashing tires is illegal; towing an 
 > illegally parked car is not.  If you felt it was illegal, you would've 
 > gone to the courts to settle the matter. 
  
 As I said, this is not a matter of legality alone, but of common 
 sense, fairness, and proportion. I suppose you approve of 
 Singapore's practice of sadistically "caning" people for such 
 crimes as spitting on the sidewalk. Why don't you live there, 
 where your way of thinking is acceptable - to the police-state 
 government, at least. But not here; this is America! 
  
 > Either way, you claim this matter has been resolved.  This, 
 > fortunately, means that you won't be posting your nonsense again. 
  
 I'll speak out and fight for my rights whenever I believe it is 
 necessary, as is my right as an American citizen. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)