gaddafi

Richie

I'd be surprised if you can't see why I interpreted your following post the way I did:

"TBH Gad, you seem little different to the aonymous car keyer/tyre slasher who is annoyed that someone has more money than him, in this case"

The "in this case" bit, didn't work for me and I didn't like the inference.

If you think keying someone's car because you are jealous of their wealth, is directly comparable to exacting anonymous revenge on someone who has ed you over on the road, then compounded that action by insulting you, then we might need to continue the discussion.

Ditto the stereotype angle.

In answer to your last question (and Mark's), I want a degree of satisfaction.

Nothing to do with wanting anything from them.

That opportunity passed when they took the decision to give me the finger, rather than hold up a hand of apology.

I can assure you that, had they done that, this thread would not exist.

mikerich

That wd make the driver paranoid!
Probably carries out the same manoeuvre several times each trip - with or without the sign language - with or without noticing.

Richieh

The similarity is that both you and the car keyer want anonymous revenge on someone who has wronged them which will serve no benefit to themselves and not correct the behaviour of those that wronged them nor even give the victim any indication of the reason they were attacked.

The difference is the nature of how you or the car keying victim were wronged.

gaddafi

Richie

You are right, let's forget the 'guns blazing' analogy and address the 'face to face or not at all' analogy generally. Z is along the right lines in his comments, but there is more to it than that.

If you look at my replies to TimD, you will see that I have addressed that point.

It's too simple to work for me.

It means you confront in person or you walk away. Or am I missing something?

Assuming I'm not, I think I've explained why confronting or walking away falls down for me.

There are circumstances where I walk away all the time - like most of us. People irking you in queues, yobbish behaviour not quite affecting you, etc.

But I prefer not to walk away if I am directly affected, and especially if the offender appears to take pleasure in their actions.

Now in these cases you can confront someone. But this is not a simple matter. However carefully you may remonstrate, the fact is that you may find yourself in an escalating situation, and one that you may not be equipped to deal with. Or any of the points I made earlier to TimD.

As an example, say I had been cut up by a pikey (I wasn't), who had given me the finger. And let's say I followed them to their site where I attempted to remonstrate. Fancy predicting who would get the kicking? Feck me, twenty of them would jump you!

So you are left with 'walk away'. Feck that!!!!

In my world you have a THIRD option, not a PREFERRED option. Do you see?

Finally, another true story.

Some time ago, far, far away, I was the 'victim' of a road rage incident. In that incident I was subjected to a barrage of abuse and physical threats from a diminutive thug. He believed I had done something wrong. I disagreed.

I calculated that I could take him down and hurt him without too much difficulty. Despite the shaved head and neck tattoo. I told him as much. I invited him to take a swing if he fancied it that much. I did all this because I was aware I was surrounded by observers and I am someone with a professional reputation to protect (now ).

He declined, and decided to use a few more insults before leaving. I wasn't satisfied with that outcome and would have very much liked to inflict some physical damage on this individual. But I could not afford to start it.

Put it down to personality of you will. But I like a more clearly defined end to matters.

Richieh

Until they invent three sided coins, I am unable to inhabit a world which involves making decisions from three choices

I understand your reasoning, but in my view, you have nothing to gain. Your victim will not know why he has come under attack, or from who. Would you really gain satisfaction from this?

gaddafi

I don't quite understand your point, but I don't think there is much similarity beyond the fact than an anonymous revenge attack takes place. That much can't be argued. The difference is:

The anonymous car keyer is making an attack because of something the victim IS. The victim is entirely passive in the matter and utterly blameless.

In my case, the 'attack' may happen because of what the victim DID. The victim was very active. In the driving behaviour in the first place (which is forgivable) and then the insult (which is less so) so are not completely blameless. Even someone with half a brain would know an insult such as this might provoke a reaction.

I agree that in neither case will the victim be likely to know why this has happened or 'correct' their behaviour.

Like I said, that's not my concern or interest.

I'm not a lifestyle coach.

gaddafi

Yes.

A lot.

MarkB

In that case, wire cutters to the tyre valves.

How many you do depends on the degree of satisfaction you require. Unlike simply letting the tryes down, this requires new valves, but does not require new tyres. So, maximum disruption and minimum damage.

Welshman

Police won't pay any attention to an unconfirmed complaint of bad driving. If 2 or more complain then they have verification but otherwise they're not to going to waste time when it's one word against another.

gaddafi

Lots of good ideas playmates.

Maximum inconvenience, not vicious personal attack.

That's the name of the game.

If any you seriously thought I was on about chucking acid on someone who had given me the finger - I never was.

Different if it had been a hit and run.......