Nor For Fat People. Nor For Fat People isfunny.net/i-will-find-you-and-i-will-kill-you/. PARKING FOR . ll',',] DISABLED PERSONS NOT we FAT PEOPLE. _ YOU 5: 10:  funny
Upload
Login or register
Hide Comments
Leave a comment Refresh Comments (29)
[ 29 comments ]
> hey anon, wanna give your opinion?
asd
User avatar #1 - flemsdfer
Reply +91 123456789123345869
(07/30/2014) [-]
I think there should be some handicap spots in the middle of the lot too. I don't care about rolling up to the store. I just need the space to get the chair in and out of the car.
#27 to #1 - cdmin
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
User avatar #18 to #1 - kabuthefox
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
just dont park in a handicap space....

literally the center of most parking lots is empty less its a busy part of the day
User avatar #19 to #18 - flemsdfer
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
The problem is people do park in them though, and that creates a problem for me that I think could be solved by moving some spaces to the middle of the parking lot.
#5 to #1 - captainwow
Reply +23 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Gotta disagree with ya there. I hate when I spot an open parking space close to the entrance out of the corner of my eye, get excited and then see I can't park there. If that **** happened in the middle too, I'd probably never drive. I say keep em up front, give em less distance to travel. I don't mind walking from the end of the lot, but I do mind my hopes being shattered by little blue signs.
User avatar #14 to #5 - flemsdfer
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
I'm not talking about putting little blue signs everywhere in the lot. I say move some of the ones in the front to the middle. There will be normal spots up front instead of all blue and blue spots in the middle instead of all normal. It could stop people from taking the spot because there's no incentive of it being up close, so the only way someone would want to take it is if there were no spots left.
User avatar #7 to #5 - toosexyforyou
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Quite possibly one of the retarded arguments I've heard.
#10 to #7 - captainwow
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
>keep handicapped spots in where the is already am located
>retarded
#11 to #7 - vorarephilia
Reply +11 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Thinking you found a good spot twice in a row can break the souls of lesser men.
#8 to #7 - anon id: b60ab9f9
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
One of the what!?! Least? Most? The suspense is killing me man.
User avatar #9 to #8 - toosexyforyou
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
...
...
most
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
#6 - spidurman
Reply +38 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#16 to #6 - tacticalhog
Reply +6 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#22 - mrketchupboy
Reply +33 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
i was fat once.....
i was fat once.....
User avatar #13 - MatthewDMerrill
Reply +21 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Fat Shaming Fridays isn't for 1 more day.
User avatar #28 to #13 - Dember
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
... I waited for it to load... :c
User avatar #3 - tfwigetbanned
Reply -10 123456789123345869
(07/30/2014) [-]
how can a sign have bad grammar
User avatar #4 to #3 - tfwigetbanned
Reply -4 123456789123345869
(07/30/2014) [-]
oh, right even the top part is false
User avatar #12 to #3 - angelooo
Reply +12 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
>Didn't capitalize the letters in the beginning of the sentence.
> Didn't put a question mark after "bad grammar" or a period after the second comment.
>0/20 ***** is u even tryin?
User avatar #23 to #12 - tfwigetbanned
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
so you aren't annoyed by that ''persons'' over there?
User avatar #24 to #23 - holeymoley
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
The normal plural of person was persons, as in “two persons were present”. However, some writers chose to use people as a plural for person, not only in the generalised sense of “an uncountable amount” but also in specific countable cases. This began to be questioned in Victorian times, and the rule grew up that the plural of person is persons when a specific, countable number of individuals is meant, but that people should be used when the number is large or indefinite.
Modern style guides disagree, being able to quote many examples of the use of people as the plural of person in both situations, for example in sentences like “the plane crash killed 370 people”, and “Many people visit the park every day”. Though persons survives, it does so largely in formal or legal contexts (“Killed by person or persons unknown”, “This taxi is licensed to hold four persons”)

TL;DR The sign is correct because it is used in a formal or legal context
#25 to #24 - tfwigetbanned
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
OOOOH
well then i take back my previous statement
#17 - grolsch
Reply +9 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
This guy can't be that disabled.
User avatar #29 - gamehartz
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
its like someone is gonna get fined if its ONE disabled person,

the persons unite and strive together

persons are life, persons are love.
User avatar #26 - minorian
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
r00d as fok sign.
#21 - anon id: 7eeb23e0
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/31/2014) [-]
Im forever seeing able bodied ******* abusing the handicapped placard
And **** dont stink bougie whites
I live in L.A.
Ppl got no shame
#2 - anon id: 60472a05
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(07/30/2014) [-]
Yeah .. 1000 shall be fine..
[ 29 comments ]
Leave a comment