I do.
I really do.
Now, before I delve into this latest parking-garage-lurking specimen, I feel I need to answer a van question that I hear all the time (well, that's not technically true...actually I've never heard this question asked. Ever). But it's a good question nevertheless.
Question: Is a "sick van" the same thing as a "creepy van"?
Answer: No. As a point of logic, ALL creepy vans are, in fact, sick vans. BUT, not all sick vans are creepy vans.
For example, let's consider the 1990 Mazda MPV minivan:
But I don't think anyone would call it creepy.
Or, probably a better example: I submit to you the ultimate non-creepy sick van, the Nissan Vanette:

But again, it's not what you'd call creepy. This van could probably lurk slowly past a playground full of kids without upsetting anyone. It's too goofy to be creepy. And it's too goofy not to be sick.
If that makes sense.
On the other extreme, consider Jame Gumb.

Throughout the first 3 minutes of the clip, you get pretty good glimpses of it. And at the 2:37 mark, you can see it doing what it was born to do--lurking creepily through a parking lot with a victim in tow.
Weird paint job, no windows, weird dude driving. Now this is a classic creepy van. It's also a sick van.
Remember:
(1.) ALL creepy vans are sick vans.
(2.) Not all sick vans are creepy vans.
I'd draw a Venn diagram for you, but I think you get it.
Which brings us to this:


Yes.
Why?
Because it's creepy as all hell.
There's only two types of people who need a van like this: (1.) the wheelchair-bound handicapped and their caregivers, and (2.) serial rapists.
And I'm not seeing a handicapped parking tag on this.
Special thanks to Ali for the picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment