Mega-MFFY

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>
> It sounds like you're a little unclear on the concept.

Yup. Uh-huh.

"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message news:w1rpf.1634
>
> I've noticed that most MFFYs are unclear on the concept. It's the people
> who aren't MFFYs who understand what you're referring to.

Now there's some resounding logic. "If they disagree with us, that proves
they're wrong." Hoo-boy!!

Ulf wrote:
> Scott en Aztlán wrote:
>
>> http://tinypic.com/invclh.jpg
>>
>> This furniture delivery truck was parked along the curb behind an
>> entire row of legally parked cars while the scumbag delivery crew went
>> into the food court for lunch. The driver of the pickup truck on the
>> left side of the picture as well as the driver of a (not visible in
>> this shot) Dodge sedan were boxed in by this truck and unable to
>> leave.
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
> You could have moved it yourself. Ten bucks says they left the keys in
> the ignition...

A friends father did this to a BMW after its driver parked him and
another vehicle in, about 15 years ago. After waiting patiently for
nearly an hour for the BMW driver to return, he put a brick through the
car's window, released the handbrake, and pushed the car out of the way.
He didn't hang around to see the BMW drivers reaction.

In article >, John Gaquin wrote:
>
> "Arif Khokar" > wrote in message news:w1rpf.1634
>>
>> I've noticed that most MFFYs are unclear on the concept. It's the people
>> who aren't MFFYs who understand what you're referring to.
>
> Now there's some resounding logic. "If they disagree with us, that proves
> they're wrong." Hoo-boy!!

That's not what he wrote. Here's how it works, those people who engage in
'me first, **** you' behavior don't understand that it is anything wrong.

Their sense of entitlement has been built up over the years with the
concepts of "consideration" and 'just let them do it' that they don't
understand what's wrong about blocking a person's car in. About blocking
the isle in the parking lot, etc and so forth. To them, they are entitled
to screw things up for everyone else, they think everyone else has to
show them "consideration" and nobody can object, they just have to 'let
them do it'. They think the person who complains about their behavior is
the one in the wrong, not them, they can't be in the wrong when they've
blocked traffic for 20mins, it's those assholes who found it an
inconvience to go around the other way or just wait, they are in the
wrong.

Much like you don't seem to be seeing why it's wrong to do those things
and appear to be blaming scott because he objects to those behaviors.

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:05:16 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>> It sounds like you're a little unclear on the concept.
>
>Yup. Uh-huh.

All right, since you think you know what MFFY is, let's give you a
quiz:

Of the following pairs of drivers, which one is the MFFY?

#1:
a) The Sloth driving 50 MPH in the passing lane (posted speed limit:
65 MPH)
b) The guy who passes the Sloth in a) on the right

#2
a) Some asshole who double-parks their vehicle, blocking several
others in
b) The guy who complains about a)

#3
a) A bimbo on a cell phone who pulls out of a strip mall driveway
directly in front of oncoming 55 MPH traffic, forcing those drivers to
slam on their brakes and swerve to avoid hitting her
b) The guy who honks his horn at driver a) as he swerves around her

Go ahead, take your time - and feel free to use your notes (it's an
open book test).

"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>
>> Now there's some resounding logic. "If they disagree with us, that
>> proves
>> they're wrong." Hoo-boy!!
>
> That's not what he wrote.

Well, it's quite clear those are not the precise words that he wrote, but
the overarching premise from you, scott, and arif is that anyone who doesn't
"understand" your notion of MFFY must probably be one. This is the worst
sort of self-justifying circular logic.

> Here's how it works, those people who engage in
> 'me first, **** you' behavior don't understand that it is anything wrong.

> Their sense of entitlement has been built up over the years..... To them,
> they are entitled
> to screw things up for everyone else, they think everyone else has to
> show them "consideration" ....They think the person who complains about
> their behavior > is the one in the wrong, not them,

High sounding sophistry indeed, but here's where your little game breaks
down. You can't possibly document that these actions are intentional, or
that the people who engage in these actions lack any sort of understanding;
much less that they are based on some sense of entitlement. In some cases,
there is surely intent, in others not; in others the drivers may simply be
obliviously inept. All these types are found on our roadways, but the
response from the "MFFY patrol" is the same -- aggravation at these
deliberate disruptions to the traffic flow. In virtually all of the cases,
the events involve one or another of you, and the response that reads
through and through your posts is consistent -- look at this incompetent
fool, he slowed me down --made me swerve -- blocked my lane-- doesn't
accelerate briskly enough. Its all about *you* and the fact that you
weren't able to drive precisely when, where, and how you wanted, which makes
you guys the biggest MFFYs of all, because your posted complaints are
virtually always made intentionally and knowingly about your own
inconvenience, whereas the folks you're complaining about may or may not be
aware of what they've done at all. There seems to be a self-centeredness
about your personas that is really quite remarkable.

>
> Much like you don't seem to be seeing why it's wrong to do those things
> .....

Go back and reread my posts. Never have I said or implied any such thing.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>
> All right, since you think you know what MFFY is, let's give you a
> quiz:
>

sigh.

My sense is you're rather young, although perhaps not chronologically.
Eventually, you will likely realize that the world's events do *not* center
on your activities, and from that point on life will become more pleasant
for those around you.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:39:36 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>>
>> All right, since you think you know what MFFY is, let's give you a
>> quiz:
>>
>
>sigh.

What's the matter? Questions too tough for you?

>My sense is you're rather young, although perhaps not chronologically.
>Eventually, you will likely realize that the world's events do *not* center
>on your activities, and from that point on life will become more pleasant
>for those around you.

You have ADD, don't you?

The above has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic, which
is your complete lack of understanding of what the term MFFY is all
about.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:35:03 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> Now there's some resounding logic. "If they disagree with us, that
>>> proves
>>> they're wrong." Hoo-boy!!
>>
>> That's not what he wrote.
>
>Well, it's quite clear those are not the precise words that he wrote, but
>the overarching premise from you, scott, and arif is that anyone who doesn't
>"understand" your notion of MFFY must probably be one. This is the worst
>sort of self-justifying circular logic.

Let me give it one more try, and then I'll stop wasting my time with
you.

Have a look at this: http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/mffy.html

If, after reading that page and seeing those pictures of real MFFYs,
you are sill unable to grasp the concept, then there's just no hope
for you.

>> Here's how it works, those people who engage in
>> 'me first, **** you' behavior don't understand that it is anything wrong.
>
>> Their sense of entitlement has been built up over the years..... To them,
>> they are entitled
>> to screw things up for everyone else, they think everyone else has to
>> show them "consideration" ....They think the person who complains about
>> their behavior > is the one in the wrong, not them,
>
>High sounding sophistry indeed, but here's where your little game breaks
>down. You can't possibly document that these actions are intentional

Since when is ignorance of the law an excuse?

>deliberate disruptions to the traffic flow. In virtually all of the cases,
>the events involve one or another of you, and the response that reads
>through and through your posts is consistent -- look at this incompetent
>fool, he slowed me down --made me swerve -- blocked my lane-- doesn't
>accelerate briskly enough. Its all about *you* and the fact that you
>weren't able to drive precisely when, where, and how you wanted

Fascinating. I guess you are also unclear on the concept of advocacy.

Tell me, when a cop pulls you over for blocking the passing lane, or
running a red light, or making an unsafe merge, is it "all about him?"
Or is it possible that cops occasionally pull people over in order to
enchance the overall safety of the driving public?

If a drunk driver almost collided with your car, cut you off, and
forced you to slam on your brakes, and you called the police to report
him, does this mean "it's all about you?"

One might begin to suspect that you are being deliberately
inflammatory...

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>
> Let me give it one more try, and then I'll stop wasting my time with
> you.
>
> Have a look at this: http://www.geocities.com/scottenaztlan/mffy.html

Good Lord! You've even created a website to display your obsession? You
truly need a life. Have you considered therapy?