supposedly, if you saw a ticket on your car, and saw the TS meter maid and asked them about it, they would write you a more expensive ticket for arguing.

Maybe so, I do recall one particularly tense exchange with a meter maid several years ago where I was threatened that he'd call the cops if I didn't stop hassling him.

quote:

---

I am thoroughly convinced that should i EVER have a question about parking I will NEVER post it on here.

---

Similarly, should I ever have any information that would be handy to have but which hasn't already made the national news, you can bet I won't be telling the *******s around here about it.

robert

Lynch mobs.

Chill out, not that big of a deal.

I got the 12 hour suspension today for my sincere suggestion that A1 might want to consider another line of work after his concerns about A&M's towing policies orginally mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Ridiculous.

[This message has been edited by Newbomb_Turk (edited 3/1/2011 10:47p).]

actually, what was stated was the following:

1. park inappropriately, get a ticket.
2. if it is a towable ticket, and the metermaid calls the tow truck.
3. if you arrive prior to the vehicle actually being towed and approach the metermaid, you will be given another document that shows you have to pay for the tow, even though you haven't been towed, due to a contractual agreement between the parking goons at A&M and the towing company.

I have no clue if he's right, but let's stick to facts here and not embellish the truth to make yourself look better.

csrealist - Actually you are wrong

A1 stated inaccurate facts - something along the lines that A&M now has a 2 ticket policy before tow when it is actually 3. Reading comprehension my friend.

"you will be given another document that shows you have to pay for the tow, even though you haven't been towed, due to a contractual agreement between the parking goons at A&M and the towing company."

Which has repeatedly been ruled in court to be illegal and most have awarded treble damages (seriously, why he would say that on a public message board is flooring). Legally, you cannot pass a service charge for a nonrendered service in full without a prior contractual agreement between the individual and the service provider unless the policy is explicitly noted. The inclusion of contractual agreements between other 3rd parties is not a viable defense.

[This message has been edited by nnichols (edited 3/2/2011 7:45a).]

What I got from reading the thread was that it was 3 tickets to tow for impounding (rules according to Transportation Services website)and 2 tickets to tow for relocation (what A1 was saying was a new rule).

1. KW02, I didn't address the ticket issue, so you, my friend, have the reading comprehension fail. I was commenting on the "approach the officer and get another ticket" issue. In fact, I specifically didn't address the 2 vs. 3 ticket that makes it towable, because I have no idea about those rules.

2. Nichols - see the last sentence above. He may very well be repeating something he overheard. Whatever. I wasn't commenting on the legality of any tow. I was just commenting on the fact that people were getting bent out of shape about the fact you would get a "second ticket" for talking with the first ticket. As A1 presented it, the second "ticket" isn't a "violation", but rather a notification that you have to pay for the tow due to contractual agreement that has been made. Is that correct - I don't know. But, if someone is going to argue, argue the points as they were presented, not as someone else would interpret them.

Unfortunately, we don't have the exact wording available any longer to go back and recheck. It is possible that I misread his posts, but I don't think so.

So csrealist post a "portion" of what said and claims "this is what was said" like the A1 spotter saw a "portion" of the total sum of persons getting out of the vehicle like A1 the poster posted a portion of the story about the legal tow and called everyone else liers...I got it now.

Csrealist, I understand the point you are making. Sad that others can not, for whatever reason, or simply choose not to and look bad for doing so. I don't understand the joy people get for attacking someone else on here. If you don't like someone, or they annoy you, don't read their posts. You have a choice to read, or not read. I find way too many people have to be "right", to a fault.

So is A1 now Above and Beyond?

quote:

---

Csrealist, I understand the point you are making. Sad that others can not, for whatever reason, or simply choose not to and look bad for doing so.

---

We are in a bizarro world. The people that defend A1 astonish me.

Nm

quote:

---

We are in a bizarro world. The people that defend A1 astonish me.

---

The inability for people to understand a debated point is amazing to me. I am not siding with or arguing A1's posts, other than to state that one argument that some on here are making is based on a misstated point.

For example, let's pretend someone stated that Obama, a Democratic President, was a good example of a conservative because of his policies. Now, someone else argues that is incorrect, because Obama isn't a Democrat, but rather a Republican.

Guess what? The original post is incorrect for one reason. The point argued is incorrect for a completely different reason.

so the reality is that everyone is wrong...

Got it

everyone but me

Don't let it bother you realist. It's been a tough day for reasonable arguments today for some reason. You tried good brah.

quote:

---

...parking goons...

---

very adult like comment. Reminds me of the unions - if you don't like my policies or you disagree with me it is okay to demean individuals and call them derogatory names. You in the second or third grade???

The guy meant well. He just tried to warn people about what he heard.

heard. thirdhand. information that wasn't supposed to be released. unreliable. any of these words apply since none of us have any idea wtf is going on, because the only "source" we have is A1 the poster, who has been proved to be unreliable.


And I really feel sorry for the people who think we're "attacking" or "dogpiling." If multiple people disagree with someone, that's a dogpile. That's how it's been since they made this MyBSC - no one is allowed to disagree or go against convention, and definitely not in numbers. A1 was wrong. Twice. If he had admitted it, all of us would pat him on the head and "it's ok, little one, people make mistakes" like so many of you think we should. But he didn't. He insisted he was right, even though he didn't have the facts. Ever. On either story. How you people can think that's ok is beyond me. So label us "dogpilers" or whatever other names you choose, but I'd rather be opinionated and hated than not speak my mind and be liked.

quote:

---

Don't let it bother you realist. It's been a tough day for reasonable arguments today for some reason. You tried good brah

---

You have to be a troll, no one is this absurd over and over again.

Hey! He's just trying to keep it positive!













I actually made the troll argument before. techno doesn't like that.

Weal, 99. I love you guys.

Look in the mirror and smile for a change. Know that somebody loves you.

Do you really think I'm upset about this? I am loving every second.

I'll quote Fast Fred.

quote:

---

Before the world wide web, village idiots usually stayed in their own village

---

Not sure if it really applies since this is actually a local board, but I like it anyway.

quote:

---

Do you really think I'm upset about this? I am loving every second.

---

Me too. this has been the most entertaining thing on this board in years

these last few days have been great. I've been reminded of the Houston board, or how this board used to be.

Good times.

quote:

---

or how this board used to be.

Good times.

---