Twitter account shames 'D-bag' Calgary parkers

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by fotze

I don't think I've ever seen an argument in this board as perplexing as this one.

I will never look at a parking lot the same again.

There's a whole underworld there that I was unaware of.

[photon]

First science fair my son gets into we're doing this as an experiment. He's got no choice in the matter.

First school science experiment where step 1 will be to rent or borrow an expensive looking car.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

Hm, psychologist psychoanalyse thyself?

Passive aggressive insults aside, there's two sides to what you're calling "jumping" to a conclusion.

Short of being omniscient, all conclusions are based on incomplete information. We all use other information in our brain to try and fill in the gaps, and we all have a strength of confidence in our conclusion roughly based on the direct and indirect information available.

Tons of things happen to everyone every day where we assume what people's thoughts and motivations are, that's the only possible way to get through the day. That's one side.

The difference between that and someone with an actual flaw in their psyche is reasonable people will change their view when new information demonstrates their previous conclusions to be inaccurate, or will scale their conclusions in proportion to the confidence in the conclusion. That's the other side.

I wondered about what would motivate someone to park right next to someone else in the picture I posted and haven't read a single speculation, let alone one that is as plausible as the simplest explanation; that there's jerks out there that derive enjoyment from antagonizing others (which you readily agreed there are). I don't see how that's such a leap when even reading this thread shows the exact same kind of behaviour.

The reason it got to the insult stage is that despite showing other motives that might influence a person's choice for parking other than him thinking it is entirely a dirt bag move meant to antagonize, he didn't want to adjust his opinion.

As for getting through the day, unless it is blatantly obvious, I like to not judge a person's motives. As for your parking diagram, yeah that might be blatant or at least confusing but I wouldn't get all upset about it unless there was some actual damage.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

I'm sure the owner of those businesses and paying customers really appreciate you using up parking spaces for such things. D-bag move #2?

I'm not sure about the bus stop thing but if there is an abundance of parking, who cares. Some places don't mind people parking overnight with their recreation vehicles, some might.

I've used parking spots in a mall where the company I worked for made arrangements with the mall for our parking in the back for our company bus to transport us to the out of town job site, but of course to you with your jump to conclusions mind, call it a dirt bag move.

The funny thing is that Acey may be parking where I've been directed to park in that situation.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Acey

However, correct me if I'm wrong, you seem to be implying that you would actively seek out the two aforementioned spots next to a vehicle in the middle of nowhere? Yeah you said you won't hit it (clearly haven't lived in Lethbridge ) but still, just trying to understand why you would do that?

You are wrong. And maybe this is the problem, maybe we're arguing different things. I'm not saying I ever actively seek out the lone car amongst a sea of empty spaces and park beside that, not at all. But random reasons come up. There have been situations where, say, I'll be looking for a spot, think "maybe I'll loop around and try the other aisle", go down the row a bit, passing empty spaces and think "actually, forget it, I'll just park here." Whether "here" is next to another car or not is completely irrelevant. Maybe it's winter, I don't want to park near the door, but I want to block the wind a bit, so I sneak in beside another car near where I'd like to park.

Again, not saying I actively seek out lone cars and park beside them for no reason (or any evil reason), but I don't think anyone here has seriously said that.

If anything, I'm trying to get you to understand that if you see me parked next to you, then I'm sorry if it upset you or anything like that, because I never park to upset others.

Originally Posted by photon

He didn't say that, he said "I'll say that your car doesn't have to be expensive to give a damn about protecting it". Meaning you could have a Neon but still be concerned about protecting it.



Heh, if "what possible reason for parking next to a car not near anything" isn't a valid question then this isn't either.

I understood what he was saying perfectly.

And you've proved my point exactly. If "why would anyone park in the middle of nowhere" isn't a valid question, then neither is "what possible reason is there for parking next to a lone car."

There are plenty of reasons, a couple I noted above. I can personally say, and I'm sure I speak for most others, that if you find my car next to yours, any sort of malicious, antagonistic, or disrespectful intent didn't even factor in.

I understand that as someone who doesn't really care about a car and sees them as transport, that I will never truly understand "car guys" or those who park far away for reasons I can't frankly fathom. Are these weird, awful people, loners in the wind, trying to rebel and separate themselves from the herd? No, they're probably just had some reason for parking there. I don't seek to mystify their cause. I just accept that they parked there.

Why are you having trouble accepting the same? You should understand, as someone who really cares about your car or your version of what constitutes your own personal space, that those that park next to you are not, in fact, antagonists, miscreants, low skill demonizers of the unwritten rule and all that is wrong with the world, but rather just someone who parked there for a reason you obviously don't relate to.

I'll never understand why you'd be mad to see someone beside you when you park in the middle of nowhere, because when I park in the middle of nowhere I do it without real reason, and would NEVER be mad at someone for simply parking beside me.
You'll never understand why I parked beside you, because you don't park beside others because of a very specific set of reasons.

Perhaps the obsession is more about understanding why someone would do something, and being frustrated when the reason is not one you relate to.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

showing other motives

What other motives?

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As for getting through the day, unless it is blatantly obvious, I like to not judge a person's motives.

Of course, but we still speculate about them, we just don't judge. And your definition of blatantly obvious is different than someone else's, or changes depending on the situation.

I see a car parked across two handicapped stalls, it's blatantly obvious they're a jerk. Until I drive past and see the driver fallen out with a medical emergency. Not so obvious.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As for your parking diagram, yeah that might be blatant or at least confusing but I wouldn't get all upset about it unless there was some actual damage.

The "upset" seems to be more projecting on people who area asking the "why park there" question than actual upset. Like I said, I'd roll my eyes and wonder what could possibly motivate them to do it other than being a jerk on purpose.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not sure about the bus stop thing but if there is an abundance of parking, who cares. Some places don't mind people parking overnight with their recreation vehicles, some might.

I've used parking spots in a mall where the company I worked for made arrangements with the mall for our parking in the back for our company bus to transport us to the out of town job site, but of course to you with your jump to conclusions mind, call it a dirt bag move.

The funny thing is that Acey may be parking where I've been directed to park in that situation.

A designated parking lot in most instances would not be entirely empty in your scenario since everyone would show up at the same time and park in the same area. It's also definitely in the minority of such instances where people park to ride the bus.
Your "who cares" remake really goes to show your sense of entitlement. get off your high horse already!

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

What other motives?



Of course, but we still speculate about them, we just don't judge. And your definition of blatantly obvious is different than someone else's, or changes depending on the situation.

I see a car parked across two handicapped stalls, it's blatantly obvious they're a jerk. Until I drive past and see the driver fallen out with a medical emergency. Not so obvious.



The "upset" seems to be more projecting on people who area asking the "why park there" question than actual upset. Like I said, I'd roll my eyes and wonder what could possibly motivate them to do it other than being a jerk on purpose.

Other motives, like I said maybe a nearby bus stop or a place to meet for a car pool or a company bus or a mall employee who has been told to park in the back or maybe the driver has car troubles and wants to leave his car in an inconspicuous spot where it won't be bothered for a while, or maybe it's in the shade on a hot day. There are other alternatives other than being just a jerk move.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I'll never understand why you'd be mad to see someone beside you when you park in the middle of nowhere, because when I park in the middle of nowhere I do it without real reason, and would NEVER be mad at someone for simply parking beside me.

A door ding is a two step process.

Step 1: Someone simply parks beside you (absolutely nothing wrong with this)

Step 2: Someone opens their door and it strikes your vehicle. (I very much like my car, so I don't much care for step 2)

Most of the time, the parking procedure ends after step 1. But for step 2 to occur, step 1 must have first occurred and thus, if my vehicle has been struck, that is situation where I am mad at someone for simply parking beside me. I very much like my car so if the parking lot is sufficiently empty, I take precautions to avoid step 1, which in turn allows me to avoid step 2.

For simply avoiding step 1 (when possible), which in turn allows me to avoid step 2, I am apparently entitled and pompous.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by monkeyman

A designated parking lot in most instances would not be entirely empty in your scenario since everyone would show up at the same time and park in the same area. It's also definitely in the minority of such instances where people park to ride the bus.
Your "who cares" remake really goes to show your sense of entitlement. get off your high horse already!

My who cares remark comes from if I'm not interfering with you, in most cases, why is it your business. I can see the point of outing some blatant parking infractions but a lot of it seems to be overzealous want to be cops who are over quick to judge.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

And you've proved my point exactly. If "why would anyone park in the middle of nowhere" isn't a valid question, then neither is "what possible reason is there for parking next to a lone car."

That's what I said, either neither are valid or both are valid.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

There are plenty of reasons, a couple I noted above.

But your example wouldn't apply to the picture I posted. If you are looping looking for a spot you're not looping up and down empty isles. Or if you're looking for a windbreak, a single car isn't as good as a bunch of cars. But the windbreak one does make some sense, so on -40 windchill days that might mitigate the eyeroll to someone parking next to my red arrow parking spot.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I can personally say, and I'm sure I speak for most others, that if you find my car next to yours, any sort of malicious, antagonistic, or disrespectful intent didn't even factor in.

There's tons of people out there who would do it, just like there's people on this forum who's intent is antagonistic and malicious for their own entertainment. I think jerk is far higher on the probability list than windbreak. You have to admit that jerk is going to constitute a percentage of the incidents if we could measure them all, be it 1%, 25% or 75%.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

No, they're probably just had some reason for parking there. I don't seek to mystify their cause. I just accept that they parked there.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous because while you might not put the same value to the appearance of your car as others, or the same value to money to repair your car as others, you DO understand the principle because you have something in your life that you value, and abstraction and perspective taking are human skills so abstracting the value you place on whatever it is you value and being able to see someone else's perspective about what they value even if it's a different thing being valued is something you are capable of.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Why are you having trouble accepting the same? You should understand, as someone who really cares about your car or your version of what constitutes your own personal space, that those that park next to you are not, in fact, antagonists, miscreants, low skill demonizers of the unwritten rule and all that is wrong with the world, but rather just someone who parked there for a reason you obviously don't relate to.

Well first your attributing a lot of things to me that I haven't claimed or expressed... overstating what I've said doesn't undermine it.

But I'm not having trouble accepting anything, I'm trying to find out what it is that I'm supposed to be accepting, the reason I am to relate to. I'm willing to accept reasonable things. So far windbreak is the only reasonable one I've seen, and that's tenuous since many rows of proximity to the entrance would far outweigh the benefit of a car-length windbreak.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

I'll never understand why you'd be mad

Where did I say I'd be mad??

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

You'll never understand why I parked beside you, because you don't park beside others because of a very specific set of reasons.

I'll never understand your reasons because I had reasons? That doesn't follow. Every action has reasons, even if they aren't conscious.

My entire point is trying to understand why, and now you're telling me I'll never understand why? That's nonsense, even if I wouldn't agree I'm perfectly capable of understanding a explanation. Or if there is no reason, well people who act with no reason at all are usually classified as insane. There's always a reason.

Originally Posted by Chill Cosby

Perhaps the obsession is more about understanding why someone would do something, and being frustrated when the reason is not one you relate to.

No, and telling someone what they feel or think is confrontational, it doesn't facilitate communication.

As I've already said, I don't care if I relate to a reason, as long as there is a reason and it actually is reasonable (which is kind of a requirement for it being a reason, reason being part of the word reasonable).

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Acey

Correction, it would seem Resolute, Chill Cosby, and MarchHare do it antagonize because they have now been made aware of why somebody might be inclined to park away from others.

You have evidence that I do, I assume? Not that it matters. You seem to find it necessary to demonize those who disagree with you to salve your own ego.

The truth is, like everyone else, I park where most convenient for me. Sometimes that means the front, sometimes the back, sometimes the middle. Sometimes near other cars, sometimes not. But at no time will the narcissistic ramblings of why someone like you feels he should be entitled to three stalls instead of one ever matter in my decision making process.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Other motives, like I said maybe a nearby bus stop or a place to meet for a car pool or a company bus or a mall employee who has been told to park in the back or maybe the driver has car troubles and wants to leave his car in an inconspicuous spot where it won't be bothered for a while, or maybe it's in the shade on a hot day. There are other alternatives other than being just a jerk move.

Bus stop or back of the lot employee are common so anyone parking to avoid other cars will avoid those as well (or wouldn't wonder because it'd be obvious why others parked around his car).

Guy with car trouble could be even more inconsiderate, if he has to make repairs or get it towed parking near other cars makes it annoying for others and a tow truck driver. Just watch a Canadian Tire parking lot for a while, there's a whole species of people who don't care that they inconvenience others while they try and use the parking lot as their personal garage. They even had to specifically put up signs for it!!

The shade one is a good possibility and one that might not be obvious (though usually the things that cast shadows aren't tall enough to reach into a middle of a parking lot, but maybe it's near tall buildings).

I never said there were no other alternatives, or that everyone that did it is a jerk full stop.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

But at no time will the narcissistic ramblings of why someone like you feels he should be entitled to three stalls instead of one ever matter in my decision making process.

I'd hope you don't seriously think I'm entitled to three parking spots while driving a Kia. As I said...

Originally Posted by Acey

For simply avoiding step 1 (when possible), which in turn allows me to avoid step 2, I am apparently entitled and pompous.

It's kinda like how we keep 5 miles between airplanes at work. Most pilots are great and I'm sure we could run them right up to the point they hit the turbulence from the guy in front... but even the best pilots make mistakes, or misunderstand a transmission and do the wrong thing. So 5 miles it is.

Just a nice little buffer I like to give my car to save the wings from dings, when able.

[Resolute 14]

No Acey, you're not entitled and pompous for choosing to park away from other cars. You are entitled and pompous for getting angry if someone dares to park beside you. And for actually believing you are so important that whoever does park beside you did so specifically to upset you.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

No Acey, you're not entitled and pompous for choosing to park away from other cars. You are entitled and pompous for getting angry if someone dares to park beside you. And for actually believing you are so important that whoever does park beside you did so specifically to upset you.

I'm irritated at step 1 having occurred only if step 2 occurred, as I said.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You have evidence that I do, I assume? Not that it matters. You seem to find it necessary to demonize those who disagree with you to salve your own ego.

The truth is, like everyone else, I park where most convenient for me. Sometimes that means the front, sometimes the back, sometimes the middle. Sometimes near other cars, sometimes not. But at no time will the narcissistic ramblings of why someone like you feels he should be entitled to three stalls instead of one ever matter in my decision making process.

What is with this?

Nobody is expecting entitlement, nobody is being narcissistic.

Park right next to me for all I care, that's your perogative. But in a near empty lot, we are questioning why someone would go out of their way to do that. I makes absolutely no sense for either side.

In fact the bigger narcissist is the guy that does what you are suggesting. Because any of the guys here that 'wish' not expect, 'wish' you would park a couple spots over, will extend that same courtesy they hope for, to other drivers. If I saw your car whatever it is, parked the way we are suggesting, I certainly wouldn't park next to it if there is a plethora of other spots to choose from, because it would be a courteous thing to do.

You're the narcissist.

[Acey]

Materialstic would be a better word for it anyway. Narcissism isn't the word for loving your car, it's the word for loving yourself, ain't it?

[pylon]

Either way, you have one side saying. "It would be nice if someone respected my space a bit, and used some common courtesy. And I will extend that common courtesy to others."

Then you have the other side saying. "I don't care what you think, I'm gonna do what I want whether you like it or not. Screw you." Even though they are benefitting from the courteous side whether they know it or not.

Who's the jerk in that equation?

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by photon

That's what I said, either neither are valid or both are valid.



But your example wouldn't apply to the picture I posted. If you are looping looking for a spot you're not looping up and down empty isles. Or if you're looking for a windbreak, a single car isn't as good as a bunch of cars. But the windbreak one does make some sense, so on -40 windchill days that might mitigate the eyeroll to someone parking next to my red arrow parking spot.



There's tons of people out there who would do it, just like there's people on this forum who's intent is antagonistic and malicious for their own entertainment. I think jerk is far higher on the probability list than windbreak. You have to admit that jerk is going to constitute a percentage of the incidents if we could measure them all, be it 1%, 25% or 75%.



I think you're being a bit disingenuous because while you might not put the same value to the appearance of your car as others, or the same value to money to repair your car as others, you DO understand the principle because you have something in your life that you value, and abstraction and perspective taking are human skills so abstracting the value you place on whatever it is you value and being able to see someone else's perspective about what they value even if it's a different thing being valued is something you are capable of.



Well first your attributing a lot of things to me that I haven't claimed or expressed... overstating what I've said doesn't undermine it.



But I'm not having trouble accepting anything, I'm trying to find out what it is that I'm supposed to be accepting, the reason I am to relate to. I'm willing to accept reasonable things. So far windbreak is the only reasonable one I've seen, and that's tenuous since many rows of proximity to the entrance would far outweigh the benefit of a car-length windbreak.



Where did I say I'd be mad??



I'll never understand your reasons because I had reasons? That doesn't follow. Every action has reasons, even if they aren't conscious.



My entire point is trying to understand why, and now you're telling me I'll never understand why? That's nonsense, even if I wouldn't agree I'm perfectly capable of understanding a explanation. Or if there is no reason, well people who act with no reason at all are usually classified as insane. There's always a reason.



No, and telling someone what they feel or think is confrontational, it doesn't facilitate communication.



As I've already said, I don't care if I relate to a reason, as long as there is a reason and it actually is reasonable (which is kind of a requirement for it being a reason, reason being part of the word reasonable).

I went off on a more general tangent, not necessarily everything was directed at you specifically, so I apologise for the confusion.

I've given you reasons. They are my reasons, and there are people like myself that have those reasons. I assumed you may never understand because I've explained them several times, and still, nothing. Maybe that's my fault. You've even said you'll accept any reasonable reason, but claimed the ONLY acceptable reason this far is "windbreak". I cannot speak for everyone. Jerks exist, people who are out to get you exist, but that's not EVERYONE. I also can't speak to every diagram or example posted in this thread, and I'm not trying to.

I come from the belief that you give the benefit of the doubt, which is what I think you should do. To me, that's part of common courtesy. If someone parked beside me and there was a 88% they were just a jerk, I'm going to take the 12% and give them the benefit of the doubt. If you think 88% are jerks, well then I speak for the 12% and ask "Hey, can you not lump us in?" It's a simple ask. Not meant as anything more than that.

I value things, true. Do I value anything material? Not in the same way you do at all. I have a car, if it gets dinged up or damaged, oh well, that happens. I have a house, if a window gets smashed or a light fixture breaks, that happens (though, rarely! lol). I have a nice camera, if a friend knocks it off the table and marks it up, oh well, that happens. Someone spilt food over a $300 jacket of mine once. I wasn't upset, I simply got it cleaned. I don't fret over imperfections that can occur on material goods. Nothing. I also don't blame people for accidents. I value goods for what they provide, and so long as they continue to provide them, they are perfect. There's nothing wrong in you putting value in aesthetic perfection, but I don't in anything. I'm not materialistic in any way. I enjoy things, but "things" don't matter to me, you can't take them with you when you go. Does that mean I don't understand that some people do? No, but I don't spend time thinking about the aesthetic values of others when I'm out to grab laundry soap. I still respect your car, but perhaps we don't equate a showing of that respect in the same way.

I'm not trying to argue with you at all, so I'm not sure of your desire to dissect everything I'm saying and combat it. I'm just trying to explain a different side, not that you're wrong. As I've said before, if all anyone takes from this is that not everyone who parks beside you is a jerk or worth your ire, and that's all I wanted.

Accusing me of being confrontational, disingenuous, bringing notions of "insane" or generally unreasonable into the mix when I'm giving you a simple, honest account of a guy who occasionally parks next to other vehicles without ever having malicious intent doesn't seem to facilitate conversation either. If that's my fault, then I'll leave it be, and apologise because I certainly didn't intend to come off like any of those things.

That's it, take it or leave it, I can't explain it better than that. If it's not enough, then I'm upset I wasted as much time as I did! lol.