<p>^ Nah, there is nothing wrong with you being irritated. xSteven is trying to start crap. </p>
<p>You have the right to be angry. You’re paying thousands of dollars to live there. The room reeked of vomit induced by excessive alcohol use that you had to clean up and some of your personal belongings got … ewwww …</p>
<p>It’s college. Stuff gets puked on, and sometimes people blackout (not necessarily a sign of alcoholism). I think the biggest issue is that your roommate is drunk driving. That’s really scary.</p>
<p>You lot are pussies for not seeking retribution against the drunken buffoon. If someone were to try that in my apartment, Odin forbid, he would be lucky to escape with a penny to his name.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah…I’m sure a little bit of vomit is worth taking every cent someone has…</p>
<p>Seriously…it’s college…people get drunk, they puke, and they usually apologize and take responsibility the next day. If they don’t do that, then it’s time to find a new roommate. It’s really not a big deal</p>
<p>Don’t tell your RA, that is stupid.</p>
<p>Just talk it over with your roommate.</p>
<p>You’re an adult, don’t go running to someone else to fix your problems. That’s what kids do.</p>
<p>This is something my friends and I would laugh about, as someone else stated - things get puked on in college. Just make your roommate clean it all up and take care of the mess.</p>
<p>Then, next weekend get drunk and puke on their stuff.</p>
<p>I remember my first blackout…oh wait.</p>
<p>Hopefully the idiot drives right off the freeway next time he gets on the road intoxicated.</p>
<p>Vanagandr: When it comes to the law, you really have to pick and choose your battles wisely. If you threaten legal action every time you get slighted, your overall college experience is going to suck hardcore. When problematic situations arise, there may be multiple ways to resolve it – but you should always opt for the solution that results in the best overall outcome with minimal stress. There are simply too many downsides to taking someone to small claims over something this (relatively) tame. Yeah, it’s puke. Yeah, it’s disgusting. Yeah, property is involved. But there are much less invasive (and effective) ways to deal with all this, and I think the OP is doing the right thing so far.</p>
<p>I’m more concerned over this guy possibly killing himself/others if he is blacking out this hard such that he forgets that he even DROVE all the way to Des Moines. That’s some pretty absurd and scary **** right there.</p>
<p>I have yet to threaten legal action because I avoid such situations by living off campus without any buffoonish room-mates and the simians with whom they tend to associate.</p>
<p>It is like a fender-bender: if he does not pay for the damage, seek reimbursement via legal means i.e. report the incident to the police and to the insurance company. What is so onerous about that? One has been wronged, so seek damages if one is not a doormat.</p>
<p>Also, what is this about stress? Have you ever traded currencies? That is stressful, dealing with morons is not.</p>
<p>P.S. who uses ‘hardcore’? Are you trying to sound ‘hip’ or something?</p>
<p>It sounds like you just don’t like people in general, which explains why you may be so quick to bleed people legally if given the option. I’m frankly not surprised that you live off-campus without any “buffoonish” roommates (as if all roommates are inherently buffoonish, primal, and savage creatures).</p>
<p>Besides, that argument about the fender-bender is a silly strawman. This is a drunk guy puking in a dorm room. They are hardly comparable situations.</p>
<p>P.S. Attacking my word choice is just poor form/attitude, especially when I was relatively balanced/personable in my post to you. There’s nothing wrong with an occasional dose of colloquialism/jargon from time to time. </p>
<p>And yes, I have traded currencies. You’re still missing the point of what I mean about “stress.” I am saying that if given two possible approaches to a problem, you should always opt for the actions that are “easier” and less cumbersome for everyone involved – including oneself.</p>
<p>I’d say there’s a 87% chance that Vanagandr is ■■■■■■■■.</p>
<p>I don’t think he is.</p>
<p>A review of some of Vanagandr’s posts suggests a sad, isolated, angry person who dislikes interpersonal interaction. I have to wonder if it is just a mood issue, or possibly either a personality issue or Aspergers. If so, I will have more sympathy. If not, then maybe ■■■■■ is correct.</p>
<p>** addendum: These are just observations based on posts/post content. Not wishing to get into a confrontation or debate about or with a poster.</p>
<p>He is clearly a ■■■■■. Anyone body with rational sense would know that taking an issue as small as this and discussing it with a lawyer will cost you way more than what little pittance you can get from a small claims court. The only type of litigation that will result with any compensation is going to a day time court show (Judge Judy). He is clearly ■■■■■■■■ people here in believing he is sincere.</p>
<p>I happen to have filed a small-claims suit against a former landlord to recover a deposit. That is usually the only way to get attention if they decline to be rational. </p>
<p>legend - pursuing the ‘easist’ solution makes one a doormat, as the easiest solution is usually the one that is less effective. If you look on the Consumerist, they advocate small claims lawsuits as shock tactics. I recall Plato said ‘that which is difficult is noble’, there are many times when one must turn the thumbscrews.</p>
<p>Additionally, my example does not fit the criteria of a straw-man i.e. a misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. I stated that the situation can be likened unto a fender-bender (given the use of the word ‘like’) on account that the procedure for recouping one’s loss is similar. </p>
<p>As to jym’s ad-hominem and diagnosis in absentia, this detritus is so attached to me that he decided to follow me over to the engineering section for ■■■■■■■■ purposes. I just so happen to have a different view of human nature and human action than he. If he did not seek a confrontation, he should have kept his impudent hands off the keyboard.</p>
<p>In post #129 he claims never to have filed legal action, yet just a few posts later says he filed a small claims action. Can’t keep the story straight. As for other threads, I have 2 sons in engineering. When I was providing useful information in another thread (salary survey info) this poster was salivating for more info. </p>
<p>I do tend to read other posts of posters who are being difficult, in order to get a feel for them. This poster mentioned in other threads being an older student atttending a commuter school, being depressed, hating to work with people and living at home with a chessboard. Anyone can read these posts, along with descriptions of career interests in fields that provide high paying opportunities right out of school. </p>
<p>I was giving him the benefit of the doubt re: the possible explanations for his angry, confrontational tone all over cc. So if he isnt depressed, has a personality disorder or is an aspie, maybe the posters are right- ■■■■■.</p>
<p>It’ll make good story in future, trust me. It’s still early, try to brush it off and talk to him about not letting something like this happen again.</p>
<p>Who knows, in a couple of years, you two may be on a cruise to the Caribbean, having drinks, and that conversation might surface…</p>
<p>“Hey, dude… remember that one time back in college?”</p>
<p>Vanagandr: Again, filing a small-claims suit against a landlord or against someone at fault for a fender-bender is COMPLETELY different from filing a suit against someone who puked in your dorm room. It is a strawman argument because you’re misrepresenting the opposing position by refuting it using an example the opposition isn’t arguing against to begin with. None of us are saying it’s overkill to bring a small-claims suit to light in a landlord dispute or a fender-bender situation – we’re saying it’s overkill for this particular situation, and if you’re going to use an analogy, it needs to be of appropriate magnitude and context.</p>
<p>Pursuing the “easiest” solution is, again, not what I am saying. I am saying one should choose the easiest solution that accomplishes the desired end goal. In this case, the end goal should be to, ideally, get the roommate to clean up after himself and pay for any damages he may have caused. You can do this without resorting to small-claims court with a lot less hassle and damage to social standing/reputation/relationships/etc.</p>
<p>Just because you <em>can</em> use a flamethrower to toast your Hot Pockets in the morning doesn’t mean that you <em>should.</em> With the goal in mind, choose the solution that works best. Why complicate things and cause damage when it can be avoided?</p>
<p>jym626: He probably meant that he’s never filed a claim involving a school-related slight, even though that was not the point of the initial comment directed to him: “When it comes to the law, you really have to pick and choose your battles wisely. If you threaten legal action every time you get slighted, your overall college experience is going to suck hardcore.”</p>
<p>I love your flamethrower (blowtorch) analogy, legendofmax. It speaks to the overkill we have all been mentioning. The hostile/aggressive tone of the posts and the adjectives used to describe posters, the roommate, the US, etc is disturbing.</p>
<p>Jym - I said ‘threaten’, not ‘file’. The purpose of a shock tactic is to shock; I simply filed, the landlord found out via certified mail.</p>
<p>That said, the rest of you can try your wimp tactics in such a similar event so I can laugh when you come up empty-handed. In this case, such tactics are called for because people who puke all over property and skip town are seldom reasonable, upstanding gentlemen. I reiterate: one does not argue with a cockroach, one squashes it.</p>