I Was a Patient JLEDI Yesterday

On Sat, 09 Sep 2006 09:07:17 -0700, Scott en Aztlán >
wrote:

>http://i2.tinypic.com/2j2hy1d.jpg
>
>So I was pulling into a strip mall parking lot yesterday evening (I
>was at the position marked in blue in the above picture). As I'm
>preparing to make a left turn along the path indicated by the blue
>arrow, I noticed an SUV stopped in the traffic lane at the location
>marked in red. A pedestrian was standing on the passenger side of the
>SUV attempting to enter the vehicle. In a scene straight out of
>"Saturday Night Fever," the driver of the SUV kept moving forward and
>reverse just as the pedestrian's hand was about to touch the door
>handle, preventing him from gripping the handle and opening the door.
>
>Now, I suppose I could have taken the path marked in yellow. Yes, it
>would have been driving the "wrong" way, but this was, after all, a
>parking lot, and the proper lane was being blocked by a MFFY. Or I
>could have continued straight ahead and taken the long way around.
>Instead, for a (literal) change of pace, I decided to follow the
>teachings of the JLEDI masters in this group, and I sat there and
>waited while these two assclowns ****ed around. Finally the pedestrian
>got in and the SUV pulled forward, clearing the way for me to complete
>my turn.
>
>Net loss: 30 seconds of my valuable time.
>Net gain: NOTHING.
>
>So I gotta ask you JLEDIs: what's in it for you? What do you get in
>exchange for the time that you allow others to steal from you? Do you
>get a warm fuzzy feeling inside? Do you feel better about yourself in
>some way? And what is it that stops you from defending yourself
>against those who would use you as their doormat?
>
>What am I missing?

What some people get is, I think, an opportunity to not start something that
they have no idea how it is going to end. For the price of 30 seconds, we get
less hassle in our daily lives. Getting somewhere 30 seconds earlier isn't
worth the price of the eventualities of attempting to use personal force to
make something happen your own way, even if you're right.

Using personal force is generally illegal. Doing something like using your car
to limit their driving back and forth might be construed in court as agressive
driving. Look at the way the laws are being applied today - they aren't "fair"
in a lot of cases, they seem to be applied to the nearest bystander. It
doesn't even have to be your fault, or your doing, or whatever - if you get
involved in an altercation, it can be _very_ expensive, and/or even end up with
jail time.

If there's something really illegal going on, I'll call a cop.

Not using personal force, but, say, getting out of the car and walking up to
give someone a tongue lashing is a way to get hurt. Is 30 seconds worth a
broken jaw? Or getting shot? Not to me.

What would I have done? Probably used the "other way" lane - hell, its just a
parking lot, not a police-patrolled street. Not likely to get a ticket. Doing
that avoids confrontation that is unpredictable in its outcome. Anything
confrontational that one can do is _still_ likely to take _more_ than the 30
seconds otherwise expended, and bring less acrimony and other negative feelings
into the world.

Avoid getting involved with other people in a negative way. Almost nothing
good can come from it, while the bad outcomes are virtually limitless. You
_ain't_ gonna "teach 'em a lesson" - they're never going to "get it". The only
thing they're going to "get" is that you're an annoying prick in their lives,
and something they may feel that _they_ need to deal with. A lawyer might sue
you - a gang member might shoot you. Why take the risk for a 30 second gain?
Anyone that thinks that equation works just does bad math, in my opinion.

As for parking lots, I regularly attempt to use pathways that avoid interacting
with other people at all. There's a Home Depot where there's the regular
entrance that everyone uses, that goes right in front of the store, and the 2nd
entrance, that deliveries and other people use. Its a little farther down the
road, but... the 1st entrance is characterized by people entering it and, 90%
of the time, finding some reason to stop and sit there. Drives me insane.
Sooo... I pass up that entrance, go into the truck entrance, and approach the
parking from the _other_ end of the lanes of parking, and I'm parked and into
the building before these others in the other end of lot get moving again. As
much as possible, I treat every parking lot like that. I often just take an
abrupt turn, right or left, when getting into the lot, and going down to the
_other_ end _away_ from the store, driving 'til I spot a place to park, and
then swooping in on it and getting it over with. Much faster, and I don't 1)
**** off someone else nor 2) get ****ed off myself. I _value_ not being ****ed
off... it _always_ is an unpleasant experience, and I try to avoid those.

Dave Head

In article >, Dave Head wrote:

> What some people get is, I think, an opportunity to not start something that
> they have no idea how it is going to end. For the price of 30 seconds, we get
> less hassle in our daily lives. Getting somewhere 30 seconds earlier isn't
> worth the price of the eventualities of attempting to use personal force to
> make something happen your own way, even if you're right.

And with it the quality of life continues to decay. All it takes is for
good people to stand down for things to go to crap.

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:27:21 -0500, (Brent
P) wrote:

>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>
>> What some people get is, I think, an opportunity to not start something that
>> they have no idea how it is going to end. For the price of 30 seconds, we get
>> less hassle in our daily lives. Getting somewhere 30 seconds earlier isn't
>> worth the price of the eventualities of attempting to use personal force to
>> make something happen your own way, even if you're right.
>
>And with it the quality of life continues to decay. All it takes is for
>good people to stand down for things to go to crap.

Yeah, but its a philosopy to apply to something really important - something
_worth_ risking your life for. That wouldn't be 30 seconds of time.

DPH
>

In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:27:21 -0500, (Brent
> P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>> What some people get is, I think, an opportunity to not start something that
>>> they have no idea how it is going to end. For the price of 30 seconds, we get
>>> less hassle in our daily lives. Getting somewhere 30 seconds earlier isn't
>>> worth the price of the eventualities of attempting to use personal force to
>>> make something happen your own way, even if you're right.
>>
>>And with it the quality of life continues to decay. All it takes is for
>>good people to stand down for things to go to crap.
>
> Yeah, but its a philosopy to apply to something really important - something
> _worth_ risking your life for. That wouldn't be 30 seconds of time.

The point is, it's not 30 seconds of time.

For instance, I blocked 3 shoulder passers the other day. As did a semi
driver once one got by me. Because of this resistance, the flood of
shoulder passers didn't occur. Because as soon as one gets through with
it, other people follow. 30 seconds as some enabler ahead allows each one
back on to the road... eventually that flood of shoulder passers becomes
many minutes.

But that's only one event. Now combine all the little things throughout
the day where we are told 'it's not worth the risk' to stand up.
Everytime we turn around it's another delay for some selfish prick.
seconds become minutes, minutes become hours, over the course of a year
we are losing days.

And that doesn't even account for quality of life decline all around.

And when the population is conditioned that it's not worth the risk, that
they should just let someone else be a selfish prick, why shouldn't we be
selfish pricks?

What reason is there then that I don't take to the shoulder myself and
pass? It's been declared acceptable by the fact that nobody is to block
it. Cops aren't around, I can get away with it, so why shouldn't I do it?

That become's the mentality. So the selfish behaviors that delay the rest
of us become more common as more people just become selfish pricks.

Just-let-them-do-it doesn't scale. If there are few people and only a
tiny percentage are selfish arses then it works. If there are many people
even a tiny percentage is a lot of people and the effect is magnified by
numbers of people one arsehole can effect. Not to mention the effect it
spreads. I've seen it spread. One arsehole escapes a backup by exiting
the interstate using an _on_ ramp, then dozens are, just like the
shoulder passing.

In article >,
Brent P > wrote:
>
>numbers of people one arsehole can effect. Not to mention the effect it
>spreads. I've seen it spread. One arsehole escapes a backup by exiting
>the interstate using an _on_ ramp, then dozens are, just like the
>shoulder passing.

Of course it does. It changes the rules -- not the laws on paper, but
the unwritten rules which actually govern road behavior. Most drivers
have the idea that you don't use an on-ramp to get off a highway. But
if they see a bunch of people doing it without ill consequence,
they'll probably decide that it is, in fact, acceptable to do so, at
least in this case.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:27:21 -0500, (Brent
> > P) wrote:
> >
> >>In article >, Dave Head wrote:
> >>
> >>> What some people get is, I think, an opportunity to not start something that
> >>> they have no idea how it is going to end. For the price of 30 seconds, we get
> >>> less hassle in our daily lives. Getting somewhere 30 seconds earlier isn't
> >>> worth the price of the eventualities of attempting to use personal force to
> >>> make something happen your own way, even if you're right.
> >>
> >>And with it the quality of life continues to decay. All it takes is for
> >>good people to stand down for things to go to crap.
> >
> > Yeah, but its a philosopy to apply to something really important - something
> > _worth_ risking your life for. That wouldn't be 30 seconds of time.
>
> The point is, it's not 30 seconds of time.
>
> For instance, I blocked 3 shoulder passers the other day. As did a semi
> driver once one got by me. Because of this resistance, the flood of
> shoulder passers didn't occur. Because as soon as one gets through with
> it, other people follow. 30 seconds as some enabler ahead allows each one
> back on to the road... eventually that flood of shoulder passers becomes
> many minutes.
>
> But that's only one event. Now combine all the little things throughout
> the day where we are told 'it's not worth the risk' to stand up.
> Everytime we turn around it's another delay for some selfish prick.
> seconds become minutes, minutes become hours, over the course of a year
> we are losing days.
>
> And that doesn't even account for quality of life decline all around.
>
> And when the population is conditioned that it's not worth the risk, that
> they should just let someone else be a selfish prick, why shouldn't we be
> selfish pricks?
>
> What reason is there then that I don't take to the shoulder myself and
> pass? It's been declared acceptable by the fact that nobody is to block
> it. Cops aren't around, I can get away with it, so why shouldn't I do it?
>
> That become's the mentality. So the selfish behaviors that delay the rest
> of us become more common as more people just become selfish pricks.
>
> Just-let-them-do-it doesn't scale. If there are few people and only a
> tiny percentage are selfish arses then it works. If there are many people
> even a tiny percentage is a lot of people and the effect is magnified by
> numbers of people one arsehole can effect. Not to mention the effect it
> spreads. I've seen it spread. One arsehole escapes a backup by exiting
> the interstate using an _on_ ramp, then dozens are, just like the
> shoulder passing.

You need to get the hell out of that huge population center so you
don't meet so many pricks. You're "pricks met per day" factor is
_waaaay_ too high. There's prolly about the same percentage of pricks
in that population as anywhere else, but because you meet about 20 -
100 times as many people as the rest of us, you meet about 20 - 100
times as many pricks.

Maybe U should pick the other end of the state, say, Carbondale....

Dave Head

Dave Head wrote:

<SNIP>

> You need to get the hell out of that huge population center so you
> don't meet so many pricks. You're "pricks met per day" factor is
> _waaaay_ too high. There's prolly about the same percentage of pricks
> in that population as anywhere else, but because you meet about 20 -
> 100 times as many people as the rest of us, you meet about 20 - 100
> times as many pricks.
>
> Maybe U should pick the other end of the state, say, Carbondale....
>
> Dave Head

You weren't up near Dulles Airport on Friday, were you? about
lunchtime, I ended up directly behind a car with a vanity plate with
your name on it...

nate

In article .com>, Dave Head wrote:

> You need to get the hell out of that huge population center so you
> don't meet so many pricks. You're "pricks met per day" factor is
> _waaaay_ too high. There's prolly about the same percentage of pricks
> in that population as anywhere else, but because you meet about 20 -
> 100 times as many people as the rest of us, you meet about 20 - 100
> times as many pricks.

Good, then I don't have to explain that again. Most people accuse me of
being the problem without realizing that there are that many more people
around me. Also note that the behavior breeds more of it, so the
percentage here will be somewhat higher.

> Maybe U should pick the other end of the state, say, Carbondale....

Temporary relief at best. With the senate allowing in 100,000,000
legal imigrants in the next 20 years plus another 30,000,000 illegal
aliens and guest workers on top of that, there's going to be no running
away from it unless you are very rich and don't need to work for a
living.