And I let the dent sit there for several months, as I didn't want to pay the hit-and-run deductible.

However, a friend's father clued me into a great tip:

Take a blow dryer and heat the affected area until it becomes slightly malleable and use a small plunger to pull the bumper back out. It seems that these parts have a shape memory, and the heat will make it take its original shape pretty well. The plunger is just to coerce any stubborn bits.

It worked for me, and my dent was *much* bigger.

You don't deserve that car after all the abuse you've put it through.

Dude, take it easy, he is already bummed out as it is. I do like Josh's suggestion, if it works for you let us know. I know once my stupid mom did something like that once, she scraped the side of someones car and just took off, what am I suppose to do other than yell at her... oh well, good luck getting it out.

"what am I suppose to do other than yell at her"

1. tell the police, since it is a felony and all.

2. post her name and address with a picture on the internet.

I'm not sure that getting your mom popped for a felony is the *best* solution I've ever heard.

karma's a bitch, huh? Here's hoping you have more examples coming.

I was thinking the exact same thing. What goes around comes around, as they say.

And tell us agian why did you run unto a bridge during Pie Trip II? Where you trying to run from the police perhaps? Talk about asshat.

It is good to know that there are still pillars of morality and just adjudication like you gentlemen amongst us mortal sinners.

You're right Stork, let's toss out morality, since we all make mistakes anyway. Hell, let's eliminate the entire criminal justice system, because well, let those without sin cast the first stone.

You are not making sense. What does the criminal justice system have to do with your victorian tightass?

OK you're right. Ideas of morality and honor-bound behavior are victorian and antiquated and therefore invalid.

Respiration is so Victorian, we should all give it up.

"OK you're right. Ideas of morality and honor-bound behavior are victorian and antiquated and therefore invalid."

I'll make the assumption that this and your earlier comments refer to http://wonko.com/content.php?id=266, "Adventures in homewrecking, or: wonko gets more than he bargained for". Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Also note that I, having no personal involvement in that series of events, can have almost no relevant opinion on what actually happened. Feel free to comment on abstract matters (providing concrete assumptions as necessary), but keep in mind that what one reads in a blog is hardly as accurate or complete as the thoughts and actions of those directly involved.

"karma's a bitch, huh? Here's hoping you have more examples coming."

To me, this comment indicates that you believe that Wonko is (depending on your personal beliefs) being punished for his actions, or experiencing random events which he happens to deserve.

Aside from the questionable position that your personal beliefs correspond exactly to a hypothetical absolute concept of good and evil, I'd like to point out that wishing harm to property and psyche of another goes against many major belief systems. Take Hinduism (the religion from which you drew the word karma), and it's "highest duty" of noninjury to self and others. You can find similar concepts expressed in the Bible and Quaran. If you aren't religious, or don't like the idea of not enjoying the misfortunes of others, why make a statement regarding morality at all?

I think the above paragraph overlaps with Stork's comment, where he notes that single individuals may not always be the best judges of other's morality. You raised an interesting point in your response:

"You're right Stork, let's toss out morality, since we all make mistakes anyway. Hell, let's eliminate the entire criminal justice system, because well, let those without sin cast the first stone."

Stork never said we should toss out morality. You link his statement to something vaguely related and inflammatory in what I would describe as a straw man argument--Removing the criminal justice system--and include a biblical quote to establish a relation to a book many rely on as a source of moral guidance. Yet, if he who is without sin should indeed cast the first stone, then you shouldn't be the first to deride Mr. Grove for his actions.

There is one exception to this, but I consider it highly unlikely.

The interesting point I alluded to earlier is the question of establishing social order through punishment in a society composed of flawed human beings. So far, an effective solution has been in fact the criminal justice system, coupled with the laws set down by elected officials to provide guidelines for order and morality.

There's also the question of whether laws really exist to enforce moral behavior, or to safeguard the rights of the populace. I tend to subscribe more to the view that (in the US at least) it's best to protect everyone's rights to life, liberty, and happiness while constraining those who would challenge those rights, by punishing entities that interfere with these.

The difference is that while almost everyone can agree that people can agree that we have the right to be mostly free, but not everyone has the same definition of morality. In some societies, it's immoral not to cover every part of a woman's body in public. In our society, we have a more relaxed view towards female attire. My point is that any nation founded on diversity and freedom should respect, as much as possible, the common *human* interests of it's members and not arbitrary laws set down in social customs like religion. That's not to say that religious morals are bad, per se, simply that they may not correspond entirely to who we are as human beings.

I don't know where Victorianism plays into all of this, but respiration is almost certainly not Victorian. It's been happening for millions of years, and on a cellular level for quite some time longer.

Feel free to disagree, but provide some level of reasoning for your arguments, please.

You have entirely too much free time.

I don't need 8 paragraphs of reasoned argument to demonstrate right from wrong in a clear cut case like the above mentioned. We all know, on a basic level, appropriate behavior from that which is not.

Everyone is punished for misdeeds. Whether you call it karma or divine intervention or subconscious mind-over-matter type self-flagellation, it's all the same.

The boy did a heinous, childish, selfish thing, and that's not truly up for debate. You can pontificate on definitions of morality all you like, it's all noise.

Forgive me for my inadvertant creation of a 'straw man' argument. Obviously my aim was sarcasm and not reasoned discourse. There's ample room for both in the world, you know.

Try and get over yourself.

Try and get over yourself.

That is just too ironic, coming from a bigoted, condescending zealot as yourself. If your presence wasn't so depressing, it would even be funny.

can't we all get along guys?

Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Blind morality, without reason or insight, particularly the kind sought to be imposed on a stranger, is mere stupidity.

He who cannot or will not understand this inevitably fails to inspire credence and respect in his fellow man. Hence, as matters stand, the answer is no.

I don't agree with you, and therefore I'm not only a bigotted zealot, but I'm blinded by an unexamined morality, as well.

It must be great to sit in your ivory tower and declare all those whose world view is incompatible with your own too incompetent to have a valid opinion. How comfortable.

It must be great to sit in your ivory tower and declare all those whose world view is incompatible with your own too incompetent to have a valid opinion. How comfortable.

On this occasion, I will take your word for it.

Wonko is Hitler!

hates non-whites, and has no morality

and eats babies

Slippingaway is really a militant, man-hating lesbian butch who envies Wonko's penis. And butt-ugly, to boot.

AND has a humongous fat ass!

I'm invoking Godwin's Law. Slippingaway loses the argument, discussion is over.

From the aforementioned page:

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

Well thank you for noticing my ass! Its about time someone complimented it

I guess this explains it then.

"Any attempt at recourse to formal logic or identification of classic fallacies will simply increase the irrationality of the discussion."