Originally posted by: Loki S13
Wow, I had to sign up here just because of this thread.
A lot of you are being good little tools for the system.
(And by system, I do not mean the one that school taught you to believe in.)
Washington, DC is a waste of land - and a contradiction to all things ethical in this world.
- Yes, the spot was a "rush hour" zone.
- Yes, "rush hour zones" were created because DC intends for there to be traffic jams and parking violations.
- Yes, DC is run by money-hungry entities who do not own cars or need to park anywhere in a 12 mile radius of their offices
- Yes, other cities eliminate parking regulations after the hours specified on their signs
- Yes, other cities are actually real cities located within the United States of America.
- Yes, other cities have legitimate parking infractions which are served by a legitimate police force or municipal agency (not printed, unsigned pieces of rubbish from whichever currently rented "Adjudication Services" extortion office.)
- Yes, I agree with the OP to not send money to an extortionist for this or any other piece of litter placed on his/her vehicle in DC.
Kthxbai,
Originally posted by: Loki S13
Wow, I had to sign up here just because of this thread.
A lot of you are being good little tools for the system.
(And by system, I do not mean the one that school taught you to believe in.)
Washington, DC is a waste of land - and a contradiction to all things ethical in this world.
- Yes, the spot was a "rush hour" zone.
- Yes, "rush hour zones" were created because DC intends for there to be traffic jams and parking violations.
- Yes, DC is run by money-hungry entities who do not own cars or need to park anywhere in a 12 mile radius of their offices
- Yes, other cities eliminate parking regulations after the hours specified on their signs
- Yes, other cities are actually real cities located within the United States of America.
- Yes, other cities have legitimate parking infractions which are served by a legitimate police force or municipal agency (not printed, unsigned pieces of rubbish from whichever currently rented "Adjudication Services" extortion office.)
- Yes, I agree with the OP to not send money to an extortionist for this or any other piece of litter placed on his/her vehicle in DC.
Kthxbai,
Originally posted by: Loki S13
Wow, I had to sign up here just because of this thread.
A lot of you are being good little tools for the system.
(And by system, I do not mean the one that school taught you to believe in.)
Washington, DC is a waste of land - and a contradiction to all things ethical in this world.
- Yes, the spot was a "rush hour" zone.
- Yes, "rush hour zones" were created because DC intends for there to be traffic jams and parking violations.
- Yes, DC is run by money-hungry entities who do not own cars or need to park anywhere in a 12 mile radius of their offices
- Yes, other cities eliminate parking regulations after the hours specified on their signs
- Yes, other cities are actually real cities located within the United States of America.
- Yes, other cities have legitimate parking infractions which are served by a legitimate police force or municipal agency (not printed, unsigned pieces of rubbish from whichever currently rented "Adjudication Services" extortion office.)
- Yes, I agree with the OP to not send money to an extortionist for this or any other piece of litter placed on his/her vehicle in DC.
Kthxbai,
Originally posted by: Caveman
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: Syringer
everywhere I've ever been, when a street parking signs that say "2 hour parking from 9am - 6pm" means that you can park for FREE after 6pm until 9am.
LOL what??
why have a sign that saying you can park for 2hours from 9a-6p if there's free parking from 6p-9a?
why not have a sign that says "unlimited free parking forever"
or why not just remove the sign.
the sign is there to tell you when you CAN park.
if there's no sign, you can park
if there's a sign, you can park during the limited hours only.
Read your post very carefully. Several times if necessary.
A sign that says "unlimited free parking forever" would mean exactly that.
Parking restrictions during business hours are there to help people do their business in those areas the OP is referring to. I was just in DC myself about a month ago and wanted to understand the intent of the sign. This was corroborated by a meter maid and a local.
In this case the sign is there to let you know there is a restriction to the zone. The restriction is 3 hrs during the time listed. Obviously, after 4 pm when most are heading home, there is no reason to restrict parking to 3 hr block.
This really isn't too hard to understand. I think you're making this harder than it is. Common sense is key here.
Thats what I thought.Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Do you even know how awesomely you have failed? Do you even have a clue? Do you? Do you know?
Your post makes no sense.
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: Loki S13
Wow, I had to sign up here just because of this thread.
A lot of you are being good little tools for the system.
(And by system, I do not mean the one that school taught you to believe in.)
Washington, DC is a waste of land - and a contradiction to all things ethical in this world.
- Yes, the spot was a "rush hour" zone.
- Yes, "rush hour zones" were created because DC intends for there to be traffic jams and parking violations.
- Yes, DC is run by money-hungry entities who do not own cars or need to park anywhere in a 12 mile radius of their offices
- Yes, other cities eliminate parking regulations after the hours specified on their signs
- Yes, other cities are actually real cities located within the United States of America.
- Yes, other cities have legitimate parking infractions which are served by a legitimate police force or municipal agency (not printed, unsigned pieces of rubbish from whichever currently rented "Adjudication Services" extortion office.)
- Yes, I agree with the OP to not send money to an extortionist for this or any other piece of litter placed on his/her vehicle in DC.
Kthxbai,
You registered just to post that rambling, incoherent mess? Pathetic.
Originally posted by: Born2bwire
My God Martello is a fucking idiot.
Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Here's what happened.
EricMartello parked his car at 3:30 at an area of DC that allows parking for up to 3 hours between 8am to 4pm. The metermaid, theflyingpig, who also worked nights as a troll on various message boards had a quota to meet. Seeing that EricMartello's license plate indicated that he was from out of town, theflyingpig figured that EricMartello would be an easy mark since he would be less likely to contest the ticket. As such, even though EricMartello hadn't broken any laws, theflyingpig wrote EricMartello a ticket at 4:12pm, skipped work early, went home to meet his accomplice, helped Glen Beck allegedly rape and kill another girl just like in 1990, disposed of her body, and still made quota for a whole day of metermaiding.
It was brilliant except for one thing. EricMartello decided not to be a pussy and fought the ticket. There was no way EricMartello would have been ticketed had theflyingpig been in the area the whole time to do his job properly. Thanks to EricMartello's testimony, theflyingpig and allegedly Glen Beck will be going to jail for a long, long time for allegedly raping and killing a girl just like in 1990.
Interesting story, the only problem with it is that if I were really there I would have punched EricMartello's face out through his asshole and across the Potomac. Everyone knows this.
theflyingpig admits to not being there to do his job properly because he was too busy allegedly raping and killing a girl with Glen Beck just like in 1990. EricMartello's face not having gone through his asshole is further proof.
Originally posted by: Jeeebus
does it still qualify for Ownage of the Year if the OP is too fucking stupid to realize he's been owned?
Originally posted by: guyver01
Originally posted by: Jeeebus
does it still qualify for Ownage of the Year if the OP is too fucking stupid to realize he's been owned?
Does it qualify as double-ownage if the OP then posts a thread saying he cant keep a girlfriend because he's a cheap fucking asshole
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
Interesting story, the only problem with it is that if I were really there I would have punched EricMartello's face out through his asshole and across the Potomac. Everyone knows this.
It's funny how you simultaneously fail at:
1) Understanding this thread.
2) Trolling
3) Internet tough guy
I'll even give you a chance to back up your claim. Where do you live?
Originally posted by: JS80
Dude, stop digging that hole. No stopping means no parking with a threat of no dropping off passengers either. City buses are allowed to stop; their stop/go is a few seconds long. No stopping = no parking. Why would you let cars park, but not "stop"?
Why in G-d's name would you allow traffic to park in the far right lane, but not just "stop"?
Wait, did I say ANYTHING about city buses? NO, I specifically cited DELIVERY TRUCKS and TOUR BUSES as the intended target of a NO STOPPING sign. City busses have designated areas to load/unload passengers. Parking =/= Stopping because you park your car OUT OF THE WAY of traffic and STOPPING impedes the flow of traffic.
The better question is how many times will you try to make a invalid claim without supporting yourself with any kind of valid reasoning.
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
This thead: TL;DR.
But EricMartello makes a valid argument, right or wrong there is logic behind it.
shortylinkens and theflyingpig are just being idiotic trolls as usual.
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
That you, Mayor Fenty?
Originally posted by: theflyingpig
You registered just to post that rambling, incoherent mess? Pathetic.
Originally posted by: TruePaige
That is the dumbest post I have ever read about parking.
That you, OP?
Originally posted by: grrl
I think the better question is WWYBYWB?
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Thats what I thought.
Also, we all know you are the new Loki guy.
BAD BAD BOY!
Originally posted by: brtspears2
I like to see the complete parking ticket. Should give someone in the DC area a chance to go to the spot of the violation along with figuring out what the fine is for.
Originally posted by: DLeRium
So bottom line is OP won't disclose whether or not there was a no stopping/no parking sign where he was right? No details about that. No details about what the violation exactly was on the citation.
So instead he'll argue about the difference between a No Stopping and No Parking sign. Is that correct? And at the same time most of us just assume he probably did park at one of those which was why he got the ticket.
But of course OP won't come out and admit anything nor refute anything.
If this is the case, how about we all stop posting till the OP addresses whether or not there was a sign like this where he was.
Originally posted by: Loki S13
Originally posted by: brtspears2
I like to see the complete parking ticket. Should give someone in the DC area a chance to go to the spot of the violation along with figuring out what the fine is for.
Originally posted by: DLeRium
So bottom line is OP won't disclose whether or not there was a no stopping/no parking sign where he was right? No details about that. No details about what the violation exactly was on the citation.
So instead he'll argue about the difference between a No Stopping and No Parking sign. Is that correct? And at the same time most of us just assume he probably did park at one of those which was why he got the ticket.
But of course OP won't come out and admit anything nor refute anything.
If this is the case, how about we all stop posting till the OP addresses whether or not there was a sign like this where he was.
And these posts are the best of the thread.
Wow! Not jumping to conclusions!
Unfortunately, that renders the "holier-than-thou"/"bow-down-before-the-one-you-serve" routine ineffective - so, it doesn't happen that often.
Mehh... done here.
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Please leave.
Originally posted by: Loki S13
Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Please leave.
?e?µe?a t??? ?e???? ??µas? pe???µe??? ?
Originally posted by: Loki S13
Mehh... done here.
Originally posted by: EricMartello
Originally posted by: Jeeebus
If it helps you shut your idiotic pie-hole, yes.
Courtesy of D.C. Municipal Regulations, Title 18, Chapter 99:
Stopping (when prohibited) - halting a vehicle except to avoid conflict with other traffic
or in compliance with the directions of a police officer or a traffic control sign or signal.
Park or Parking - the standing of a vehicle, whether occupied or not, other than
temporarily for the purpose of, and while actually engaged in, loading or unloading
merchandise or passengers.
TEXT
In case you can't quite figure it out for yourself, "no stopping" is more restrictive than "no parking," meaning you can't even stop to let someone out of the car/pick someone up curbside. Otherwise, it's exactly the same concept.
Now, if you'd kindly STFU, we can all go about our merry business.
EDIT: Creepy, Mugs. We were both typing the same message to this idiot.
Nice try slick, but first of all, traffic controls in the US are federally regulated and must comply with federal standards. Secondly, your own quotes show parking to be defined as STANDING while there are only signs that say NO STOPPING. Lawl...and nothing in your quoted definition of stopping says anything about parking.
So you want to continue your flawed assessment that signs imply something they do not? Because the proper signage would require DC to include NO PARKING in addition to NO STOPPING, and that's just to comply with DC's own DMV regulations.