The next CCO election is in November.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I wish I have a clue.... Try your CCO again in September?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I think the answer you are looking for is 99?
Your questions don't make much sense.
I think that makes them "nearly" nonsensical.
Try, try again.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The "nearly" truth to you is about your "nearly" 100 CCO members counted. How close? 2 or 99?
What is the "nearly" obligation or commitment to qualify every "nearly" counted members according to the Article of CCO?
"Nearly" CCO yet, Mr. President?
Are you sure about the date? How many more days?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The next CCO election is in November.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I wish I have a clue.... Try your CCO again in September?
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I think the answer you are looking for is 99?
Your questions don't make much sense.
I think that makes them "nearly" nonsensical.
Try, try again.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The "nearly" truth to you is about your "nearly" 100 CCO members counted. How close? 2 or 99?
What is the "nearly" obligation or commitment to qualify every "nearly" counted members according to the Article of CCO?
"Nearly" CCO yet, Mr. President?
Look here, Clueless, Enger's critic can say whatever he wants with complete impunity as far as I'm concerned. He can insult Enger, me or anyone else he likes and get away with it in this great country of ours. God bless America.
Chasing down a bum who shoots his mouth off in civil court is just not worth the effort in a society in which we treasure the right to say whatever we think. Apart from the time investment and the cost, the likelihood of collecting a judgment from a guy likie him is virtually zero. Why bother trying? We call the effort a "nugatory" one. It burns time and money and brings no satisfaction.
This guy is not much different from the low-life cruds who trashed John Kerry's war record on the Internet. We see the same kind of garbage starting now against Mr. Obama. Why is it odd to see a guy like this question Enger for whatever he may have done in the distant past? Who cares what may have been done. Stop indulging a bad man by responding to him the further. No doubt that's what Enger has decided to do.
In the 21st Century, this sort of misconduct and incivility is routine. It's dispicable. It's disgusting. Most decent people recognize it for what it is. And those who think it's cute are awful people and belong in bed with that bum anyway.
I've heard things said about Enger's critic from his days in Arlington Heights. The source I regard as being trustworthy as one of the Apostles, but I would never utter a whisper of it. It isn't something for public consumption. It isn't decent to expose such things to the light of day. There are just some things that common decency demand be kept quiet.
Stop indulging him. Every time you do, he gets off on it. I won't get more specific, but let your imagination run amok.
Let's stick to issues. Let's get to a fare increase. Let's roll back the penalties at 400 West. Let's restore meter and a half to Skokie from O'Hare and Burbank from Midway, let's start to address issues like driver safety more aggressively, let's address $5.00/gallon gasoline with more than hybrid taxis that lead to higher weekly leases.
Do I need to go on and on?
Donald Nathan
Mr. Nathan,
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are characterizing my legal use of my right to free speech as "getting away" with something?
When you say, "God Bless America", are you being ironic, then?
Forget about "collecting a judgment" from me, Mr. Nathan...you wouldn't ever have me found guilty of any offense you are suggesting.
Not because of your "niceness" or "disinterest"...because the law protects me from scumbag lawyers like you, doesn't it?
The basis for my questions to Peter Enger about his history with substance abuse isn't about his "distant past". Are you confirming that Peter Enger DOES have a substance abuse history, however "distant" as you suggest?
Peter Enger has decided not to answer most every question put to him, predictably. How can you hypocritcally accuse anyone of "ulterior motives" based simply on the natural suspicion Peter Enger creates with his unwillingness to confirm or deny his substance abuse history?
My "days in Arlington Heights"? Do tell, Mr. Nathan. You have my full permission to give us a simple clue as to what you claim to never want to even "whisper".
Let me indulge your despicable suggestion by asking you a simple question about your "source": do they have first-hand knowledge of these "things" or are you simply playing a second-grade-school-girl's game again?
My source about Peter Enger's substance abuse problem claims first-hand authority.
Yes, Mr. Nathan, let's "stick to the issues". Someone who has the substance abuse problem I can only presume is true by his refusal to deny my reliable source indeed brings the issue of whether or not the UTCC is a bona-fide "representative" organization of Chicago cabdrivers front and center.
It seems that you have your own personal motives for discouraging any investigation or questioning of its supporters and its self- or otherwise appointed "leadership".
Your ignorance, however innocent it may or may not be, reflects the underlying fact that any possible negative effects of the activities of this un-elected group don't really affect your livelihood, as you aren't a current Chicago cabdriver.
You will be exposed to Chicago cabdrivers soon enough, Mr. Nathan. There is no corresponding intimidation, threat, or blackmail, obvious or implied, as Mr. Enger usually has with his threats to "expose me" to cabdrivers IF I DON'T DO A, B, OR C.
Why don't you do a better job of advising the obviously passive-aggressive alcoholic-criminal Peter Enger about the law?
For all his "experience" with the Black Panther party that Peter Enger claims but never documents, his political skills seem rather crude to me. Maybe his stock-in-trade is kooky karaoke.
But then again, I've never heard a record of his "singing performances" either. He could be just as bad at that too, I suppose.
I'd tend to think that the song about the "Piano Has Been Drinking" would be a great one for Peter Enger to "sing".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Look here, Clueless, Enger's critic can say whatever he wants with complete impunity as far as I'm concerned. He can insult Enger, me or anyone else he likes and get away with it in this great country of ours. God bless America.
Chasing down a bum who shoots his mouth off in civil court is just not worth the effort in a society in which we treasure the right to say whatever we think. Apart from the time investment and the cost, the likelihood of collecting a judgment from a guy likie him is virtually zero. Why bother trying? We call the effort a "nugatory" one. It burns time and money and brings no satisfaction.
This guy is not much different from the low-life cruds who trashed John Kerry's war record on the Internet. We see the same kind of garbage starting now against Mr. Obama. Why is it odd to see a guy like this question Enger for whatever he may have done in the distant past? Who cares what may have been done. Stop indulging a bad man by responding to him the further. No doubt that's what Enger has decided to do.
In the 21st Century, this sort of misconduct and incivility is routine. It's dispicable. It's disgusting. Most decent people recognize it for what it is. And those who think it's cute are awful people and belong in bed with that bum anyway.
I've heard things said about Enger's critic from his days in Arlington Heights. The source I regard as being trustworthy as one of the Apostles, but I would never utter a whisper of it. It isn't something for public consumption. It isn't decent to expose such things to the light of day. There are just some things that common decency demand be kept quiet.
Stop indulging him. Every time you do, he gets off on it. I won't get more specific, but let your imagination run amok.
Let's stick to issues. Let's get to a fare increase. Let's roll back the penalties at 400 West. Let's restore meter and a half to Skokie from O'Hare and Burbank from Midway, let's start to address issues like driver safety more aggressively, let's address $5.00/gallon gasoline with more than hybrid taxis that lead to higher weekly leases.
Do I need to go on and on?
Donald Nathan
Opinion: What we have hear is failure to communicate.
I have seen, read and posted on numerous sites on as many subjects, but this site takes the cake for all around nut bag activity, mostly from one guy.
It seems there is one guy who tears all the others down, and when he gets hit back he cries foul.
He claims to be building some kind of cab driver union but all he does is try to eliminate the perceived opposition by spreading rumors, innuendo, implied "factoids" and accusations, without a gram of proof.
His claims ofbeing a the big union boss in the making have been properly challenged for the most part, but when he his cornered, a simple "**** you" puts an end to inconvenient questions and equally inconvenient truths.
His taunts and questions are so obviously intended to solicit answers that he can use to try to destroy others.
The moderator of this site seems to support and protect him and even aids him in bashing his opposition into the pavement.
When fairly challenged, he, too, just backs down and slips into the woodwork for cover until thing cool down.
The subject is dropped, forgotten. Notice that nine out of ten subject strings just stop.
There is no resolution, no logical end ,no coming together or agreement or compromise on anything.
When he is called upon to provide evidence, fact, eye witnesses to support his contentions, we get nothing.
Nothing but hot air.
He changes the subject or starts hammering on another perceived opponent.
I think he is wasting his with cab drivers. He slings the Bull so well, he should be in national politics.
At least there he could get away with all his nut bag talk.
I feel sorry for you guys.
If this is the "slice of life" as it is lived by Chicago cab drivers, I will walk or find other means of transport next time I am in town.
Anyone in his right mind would not risk getting this nut bag behind the wheel of cab.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are characterizing my legal use of my right to free speech as "getting away" with something?
When you say, "God Bless America", are you being ironic, then?
Forget about "collecting a judgment" from me, Mr. Nathan...you wouldn't ever have me found guilty of any offense you are suggesting.
Not because of your "niceness" or "disinterest"...because the law protects me from scumbag lawyers like you, doesn't it?
The basis for my questions to Peter Enger about his history with substance abuse isn't about his "distant past". Are you confirming that Peter Enger DOES have a substance abuse history, however "distant" as you suggest?
Peter Enger has decided not to answer most every question put to him, predictably. How can you hypocritcally accuse anyone of "ulterior motives" based simply on the natural suspicion Peter Enger creates with his unwillingness to confirm or deny his substance abuse history?
My "days in Arlington Heights"? Do tell, Mr. Nathan. You have my full permission to give us a simple clue as to what you claim to never want to even "whisper".
Let me indulge your despicable suggestion by asking you a simple question about your "source": do they have first-hand knowledge of these "things" or are you simply playing a second-grade-school-girl's game again?
My source about Peter Enger's substance abuse problem claims first-hand authority.
Yes, Mr. Nathan, let's "stick to the issues". Someone who has the substance abuse problem I can only presume is true by his refusal to deny my reliable source indeed brings the issue of whether or not the UTCC is a bona-fide "representative" organization of Chicago cabdrivers front and center.
It seems that you have your own personal motives for discouraging any investigation or questioning of its supporters and its self- or otherwise appointed "leadership".
Your ignorance, however innocent it may or may not be, reflects the underlying fact that any possible negative effects of the activities of this un-elected group don't really affect your livelihood, as you aren't a current Chicago cabdriver.
You will be exposed to Chicago cabdrivers soon enough, Mr. Nathan. There is no corresponding intimidation, threat, or blackmail, obvious or implied, as Mr. Enger usually has with his threats to "expose me" to cabdrivers IF I DON'T DO A, B, OR C.
Why don't you do a better job of advising the obviously passive-aggressive alcoholic-criminal Peter Enger about the law?
For all his "experience" with the Black Panther party that Peter Enger claims but never documents, his political skills seem rather crude to me. Maybe his stock-in-trade is kooky karaoke.
But then again, I've never heard a record of his "singing performances" either. He could be just as bad at that too, I suppose.
I'd tend to think that the song about the "Piano Has Been Drinking" would be a great one for Peter Enger to "sing".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Look here, Clueless, Enger's critic can say whatever he wants with complete impunity as far as I'm concerned. He can insult Enger, me or anyone else he likes and get away with it in this great country of ours. God bless America.
Chasing down a bum who shoots his mouth off in civil court is just not worth the effort in a society in which we treasure the right to say whatever we think. Apart from the time investment and the cost, the likelihood of collecting a judgment from a guy likie him is virtually zero. Why bother trying? We call the effort a "nugatory" one. It burns time and money and brings no satisfaction.
This guy is not much different from the low-life cruds who trashed John Kerry's war record on the Internet. We see the same kind of garbage starting now against Mr. Obama. Why is it odd to see a guy like this question Enger for whatever he may have done in the distant past? Who cares what may have been done. Stop indulging a bad man by responding to him the further. No doubt that's what Enger has decided to do.
In the 21st Century, this sort of misconduct and incivility is routine. It's dispicable. It's disgusting. Most decent people recognize it for what it is. And those who think it's cute are awful people and belong in bed with that bum anyway.
I've heard things said about Enger's critic from his days in Arlington Heights. The source I regard as being trustworthy as one of the Apostles, but I would never utter a whisper of it. It isn't something for public consumption. It isn't decent to expose such things to the light of day. There are just some things that common decency demand be kept quiet.
Stop indulging him. Every time you do, he gets off on it. I won't get more specific, but let your imagination run amok.
Let's stick to issues. Let's get to a fare increase. Let's roll back the penalties at 400 West. Let's restore meter and a half to Skokie from O'Hare and Burbank from Midway, let's start to address issues like driver safety more aggressively, let's address $5.00/gallon gasoline with more than hybrid taxis that lead to higher weekly leases.
Do I need to go on and on?
Donald Nathan
this walker guy seems to have made a proper conclusion. most of my any friends who read this never want to come back either. the ones who call him 'mr. president' you should hear what they say when he walk away. we are laughing so much. who is he president of, he say. they never have another member of CCO like mike says. he never challenge carrige company which abuse us and cheat us. i dont want to lose my job. there are too many of us we can't find another cab quikly.
hassan,
Am I supposed to read your mind?
How has the Carriage abused or mistreated you, exactly?
How would you like me to "challenge" them, exactly, especially since you haven't ever participated in the CCO, apparently?
What does your "laughter" accomplish? Keeping our individual power separate? Keep laughing if you would rather laugh at my willingness to be laughed at as I try to unite us than actually help me "challenge Carriage to keep them from abusing and cheating us".
Why don't you do a better "job" of that? It seems like you are afraid. I'm not. Tell me what your problem is and I'll do my best to try and fix it.
Just don't think that I'm your "President" to do as you wish or expect if you don't even participate in the organization I preside over.
You may e-mail privately at chinatownmike@yahoo.com if you prefer.
I also find it funny that you are criticizing me for responding to the nonsense that others post here anonymously while I use my own name to defend the truth, others, and myself.
Are you really such a sucker? Maybe you aren't that familiar with free speech and how others use it to abuse. Get a clue...or is "Brain Damage" and "Clueless" and "Big Fat Mouth" and other nameless people (who are all probably Wolf Weiss) YOUR "President"?
How do you vote for them, hassan?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
this walker guy seems to have made a proper conclusion. most of my any friends who read this never want to come back either. the ones who call him 'mr. president' you should hear what they say when he walk away. we are laughing so much. who is he president of, he say. they never have another member of CCO like mike says. he never challenge carrige company which abuse us and cheat us. i dont want to lose my job. there are too many of us we can't find another cab quikly.
Chicago Dispatcher
Date Posted: Sep 17, 07 - 7:33 AM
info@chicagodispatcher.com
Message: From the September 2007 issue of the Chicago Dispatcher
Perspective
You Can Be Right and Get Wrong But...
By John Henry Assabill
I have read all contributions on the STRIKE and I want to make my points as a cabdriver. If you look at my heading, “you can be right and get wrong.” You can be right and get wrong but no matter how hard you may try, every wrong is a wrong and every right is a right. Provided you do the right thing, if you are right, you are right and if you are wrong, you are wrong.
It is sad that in our industry, the majority believe in slogan shouting, placard carrying and confrontation. It is cheaper to mobilize people into confrontation than to follow protocol and do the right thing. What we lack in this industry is our ability to associate as a group. I have said it many times that “if the pie is too big to bake, break it into groups and have the group leaders form a council for our common aspirations.”
Let us look at it this way. The cab industry is like a mansion (a house). It has many rooms, bathrooms, halls, etc. Let us spend our energy to construct the mansion so that it can shelter us all. We can cook, dine, use the bathrooms and sleep inside after a hard days work. If this is done, we will have the keys into the main house and can open and lock it whenever we want. Remember, we will pay our property taxes and utility bills. By so doing, we build equity and credit for ourselves. Where necessary, we build a “fence” around it. What will be the end result - RESPECT! There will be no landlord, federal, state or city to disturb us because we have done all the RIGHT things. This is the American dream!
Look, fellow chauffeur carriers, as long as we remain fragmented, nothing too serious will come to us. The only benefactors will be the affiliations. Who thinks freedom is free? There is a price tag for everything in this world.
As we speak, all forms of weekly leases are going up. The gas prices are going up for everybody, not just cab drivers. The problems must be magnified and you will see that it is bigger than you and I. Be that as it may, we have to pick and choose our fight carefully. Concentrate on matters that have direct effect on our business and the rest will fall in place simultaneously. If you will overwork yourself into paying $600 a week to someone, why not empower your will to buy into it and pay it to yourself?
Powerful interests are busy buying all medallions. Have you pondered the effect it will have on you? Monopoly! It will be - this is what I want for a lease, take it or leave it. You may turn around and go the other way only to meet the same condition. Then what, my brother? You will work like a slave till you break down. Many of you are working harder than before but end up breaking even or taking a loss. Many of you are getting sick of diabetes and/or kidney defects. Why? I am writing and have to break down in tears. My heart is very heavy. The real issues are not what we see. Why?
You spend too much time thinking and talking negatively about things that are not so important. Many spend too much time talking negatively about the City and Commissioner, which we think they are the problem. No, my brother, we are the problem. Responsibility is a “two-way” traffic. While we think they are responsible for our problems, have we taken a good look at ourselves that we have acted responsibly? Take a look at the roads we drive on daily. If the other on-coming vehicle does not obey all the traffic signs what happens? Look at our number, we can associate and use our number to buy into health insurance by paying just $1 each every month. This is just one (1) item our number can do for us. We want to unionize. The union people came and all they were first thinking was how to collect their dues from you drivers. As long as we do not have an “employer” who will write a paycheck and deduct the union dues at source, we will never unionize. Those self-proclaimed leaders of the industry have to tell you what is going on if at all they know or have bothered to know. I may not know it all but beg to differ with respect to all.
We transcend national, cultural and diverse groups. All politics is local. Therefore, those who can lead from the groups should try to associate. Take away any form of confrontation out of the vocabulary and the literature of the association but use the cab business as its cornerstone. Think what is and will be good for its members. In that, they speak the same language, eat the same food, and dance to the same tune and then register with the Secretary of State to associate. Thereafter, the leaders will come together as a council and put up a national fight for a common aspiration.
I will end as emotionally as I started by saying, fellow friends in the cab industry, let's do the right thing no matter how hard it may look, no matter how long it may take, every right is a right.
Thank you.
-John Henry Assabill
CL# 71647
mike f.
you work for carriage. if you don['t know how they cheat drivers, what kind of president are you? or even more, what kind of MAN are you, if you don't know what is going on around. just talk to the drivers, you stupid! if they dont' tell you, then it means they don't trust you. i don't trust you too. and i don't want to make trouble right now. maybe if we have a movement or a fighting organizsation then i will join. you have nothing. if you do you will find out abuses and expose them and fight the carrige. i think you too are afraid to lose your job. how much do YOU pay for lease?
hassan,
I don't "work" for anybody, especially Carriage. I am a self-employed cabdriver.
I talk to cabdrivers every day. I am trying to converse with you. You are claiming that "Carriage cheats cabdrivers". I am not denying that; I am simply asking you to be specific.
You may write me privately in an e-mail if you are "scared of losing your job". If you don't "trust me", that's your problem, not mine.
I pay about $330 per week for the night shift. I have paid up to about $92 for a 24-hr daily lease when my day-driver takes a lot of days off.
Your problem, "hassan", seems to be that you are afraid to be one of the first to stand up to what's wrong, but your other problem is you want to be one of the first to criticize those of us who actually are standing up.
I have a lot more than "nothing", hassan. I got it from starting with respecting the truth, having faith in God, and finding the courage to do something about it.
I suggest you start as well. You don't have to join the CCO, hassan. But, you do need to join together with some other cabdrivers if you ever want to feel the effects of the power of a group.
If you do, let me and other group leaders know who your leader is.
In the meantime, start specifying exactly how "Carriage cheats drivers", publicly or privately. I'll be waiting for your message.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
mike f.
you work for carriage. if you don['t know how they cheat drivers, what kind of president are you? or even more, what kind of MAN are you, if you don't know what is going on around. just talk to the drivers, you stupid! if they dont' tell you, then it means they don't trust you. i don't trust you too. and i don't want to make trouble right now. maybe if we have a movement or a fighting organizsation then i will join. you have nothing. if you do you will find out abuses and expose them and fight the carrige. i think you too are afraid to lose your job. how much do YOU pay for lease?
"Walker",
I agree with some of your opinion that there is indeed a "failure to communicate" at times on this site.
It is because of deliberate, anonymous postings which obviously are intended to sabotage this site with their nonsense.
"Nut bag activity mostly from one guy"? That guy would be named Wolfgang J. Weiss, a Chicago cabdriver who self-appointed himself a leadership position of the Chicago Professianl Taxi Drivers Association, "CPTDA", which hasn't done anything apparent to help me or any other Chicago cabdriver.
Wolf Weiss has posted under many, many, many different aliases. When he is coherent and not negative, Wolf can actually contribute a lot. Unfortunately, that is a too-rare event.
I have never "claimed to be building some kind of cabdriver union".
I do a lot more than "try to eliminate the perceived oppositon" by any means you are misperceiving.
I can prove most everything I claim. The silence of some is ****ing enough evidence. Many won't make the mistake of deliberately lying about something they know to be true...they know I will not cease to prove them to be the liars that they are.
That is why you won't see Prateek Sampat and Peter Enger discuss anything here. They won't answer questions in other recorded forums, either.
I have never claimed to be "a/the big union boss".
What "inconvenient truth" or "inconvenient questions" are you referring to?
I have never met a question I didn't like to answer. The more "controversial", the better.
If the truth "destroys" others, so be it. I don't think lying about anything is good general policy. The propagandists feel differently, I'm sure.
Who is my "opposition" exactly and how has George Lutfallah "bashed them into the pavement"?
I never "slip into the woodwork". I stand tall and let the mud fly.
Nine of out ten subject strings are started with nonsense from Wolf Weiss or one of his aliases. The tenth is usually diverted by Wolf or one of his aliases with insults or lies.
What "evidence" or "eye-witnesses" to prove which "contentions" are you referring to?
When you ask for exactly nothing, that's exactly what you'll usually get.
Thank you for suggesting that I should be in national politics; I already have. I have no plans or interest in running for any office besides the one I currently hold.
I assert that I am one of the better cabdrivers in this city. I have no interest in transporting someone with such a dim or shallow view of us, anyhow.
Feel free to walk, if it makes you feel better.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Opinion: What we have hear is failure to communicate.
I have seen, read and posted on numerous sites on as many subjects, but this site takes the cake for all around nut bag activity, mostly from one guy.
It seems there is one guy who tears all the others down, and when he gets hit back he cries foul.
He claims to be building some kind of cab driver union but all he does is try to eliminate the perceived opposition by spreading rumors, innuendo, implied "factoids" and accusations, without a gram of proof.
His claims ofbeing a the big union boss in the making have been properly challenged for the most part, but when he his cornered, a simple "**** you" puts an end to inconvenient questions and equally inconvenient truths.
His taunts and questions are so obviously intended to solicit answers that he can use to try to destroy others.
The moderator of this site seems to support and protect him and even aids him in bashing his opposition into the pavement.
When fairly challenged, he, too, just backs down and slips into the woodwork for cover until thing cool down.
The subject is dropped, forgotten. Notice that nine out of ten subject strings just stop.
There is no resolution, no logical end ,no coming together or agreement or compromise on anything.
When he is called upon to provide evidence, fact, eye witnesses to support his contentions, we get nothing.
Nothing but hot air.
He changes the subject or starts hammering on another perceived opponent.
I think he is wasting his with cab drivers. He slings the Bull so well, he should be in national politics.
At least there he could get away with all his nut bag talk.
I feel sorry for you guys.
If this is the "slice of life" as it is lived by Chicago cab drivers, I will walk or find other means of transport next time I am in town.
Anyone in his right mind would not risk getting this nut bag behind the wheel of cab.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are characterizing my legal use of my right to free speech as "getting away" with something?
When you say, "God Bless America", are you being ironic, then?
Forget about "collecting a judgment" from me, Mr. Nathan...you wouldn't ever have me found guilty of any offense you are suggesting.
Not because of your "niceness" or "disinterest"...because the law protects me from scumbag lawyers like you, doesn't it?
The basis for my questions to Peter Enger about his history with substance abuse isn't about his "distant past". Are you confirming that Peter Enger DOES have a substance abuse history, however "distant" as you suggest?
Peter Enger has decided not to answer most every question put to him, predictably. How can you hypocritcally accuse anyone of "ulterior motives" based simply on the natural suspicion Peter Enger creates with his unwillingness to confirm or deny his substance abuse history?
My "days in Arlington Heights"? Do tell, Mr. Nathan. You have my full permission to give us a simple clue as to what you claim to never want to even "whisper".
Let me indulge your despicable suggestion by asking you a simple question about your "source": do they have first-hand knowledge of these "things" or are you simply playing a second-grade-school-girl's game again?
My source about Peter Enger's substance abuse problem claims first-hand authority.
Yes, Mr. Nathan, let's "stick to the issues". Someone who has the substance abuse problem I can only presume is true by his refusal to deny my reliable source indeed brings the issue of whether or not the UTCC is a bona-fide "representative" organization of Chicago cabdrivers front and center.
It seems that you have your own personal motives for discouraging any investigation or questioning of its supporters and its self- or otherwise appointed "leadership".
Your ignorance, however innocent it may or may not be, reflects the underlying fact that any possible negative effects of the activities of this un-elected group don't really affect your livelihood, as you aren't a current Chicago cabdriver.
You will be exposed to Chicago cabdrivers soon enough, Mr. Nathan. There is no corresponding intimidation, threat, or blackmail, obvious or implied, as Mr. Enger usually has with his threats to "expose me" to cabdrivers IF I DON'T DO A, B, OR C.
Why don't you do a better job of advising the obviously passive-aggressive alcoholic-criminal Peter Enger about the law?
For all his "experience" with the Black Panther party that Peter Enger claims but never documents, his political skills seem rather crude to me. Maybe his stock-in-trade is kooky karaoke.
But then again, I've never heard a record of his "singing performances" either. He could be just as bad at that too, I suppose.
I'd tend to think that the song about the "Piano Has Been Drinking" would be a great one for Peter Enger to "sing".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Look here, Clueless, Enger's critic can say whatever he wants with complete impunity as far as I'm concerned. He can insult Enger, me or anyone else he likes and get away with it in this great country of ours. God bless America.
Chasing down a bum who shoots his mouth off in civil court is just not worth the effort in a society in which we treasure the right to say whatever we think. Apart from the time investment and the cost, the likelihood of collecting a judgment from a guy likie him is virtually zero. Why bother trying? We call the effort a "nugatory" one. It burns time and money and brings no satisfaction.
This guy is not much different from the low-life cruds who trashed John Kerry's war record on the Internet. We see the same kind of garbage starting now against Mr. Obama. Why is it odd to see a guy like this question Enger for whatever he may have done in the distant past? Who cares what may have been done. Stop indulging a bad man by responding to him the further. No doubt that's what Enger has decided to do.
In the 21st Century, this sort of misconduct and incivility is routine. It's dispicable. It's disgusting. Most decent people recognize it for what it is. And those who think it's cute are awful people and belong in bed with that bum anyway.
I've heard things said about Enger's critic from his days in Arlington Heights. The source I regard as being trustworthy as one of the Apostles, but I would never utter a whisper of it. It isn't something for public consumption. It isn't decent to expose such things to the light of day. There are just some things that common decency demand be kept quiet.
Stop indulging him. Every time you do, he gets off on it. I won't get more specific, but let your imagination run amok.
Let's stick to issues. Let's get to a fare increase. Let's roll back the penalties at 400 West. Let's restore meter and a half to Skokie from O'Hare and Burbank from Midway, let's start to address issues like driver safety more aggressively, let's address $5.00/gallon gasoline with more than hybrid taxis that lead to higher weekly leases.
Do I need to go on and on?
Donald Nathan
I deny theses ridiculous allegations as pure and unmitigated mud slinging school boy antics.
Pure fluff, foolishness, clown play and buffoonery. (What else is new?)
Comments on Getting One's Mind Right:
It seems that when some people get cornered by simple truths and reality, they resort to name calling, bad mouthing, false statements, denial and ultimately, if none of those ring true, they stoop to accusations that Wolfgang J. Weiss is the culprit behind all these "adverse" postings, which in some people's opinion amounts to "sabotage".
This is entirely understandable. Fluff, foolishness and buffoonery are self-defeating in the first place - especially when confronted by cold hard facts and undeniable truth formulated into rational and logical argument.
To coin a phrase: Will the real saboteurs (if any) please stand up!
A note on the concept of "tacit acceptance" and its application:
Contrary to popular opinion herein, when one does not respond to comments posted herein, it does not prove anything except that the person chooses to refrain from commenting, making a claim or counter-claim.
For example, no one, to my knowledge, has ever accused a certain person of being guilty of any alleged anything because he did not respond to the allegations made -- except one certain person who has this false argument over and over.
Will the real guilty parties and all their anagram-generated characters) please stand up!
For example, one can claim a certain person is chicken turds or has chicken turds for brains, but simply claiming this does not prove it so.
If the certain accused person does not respond, deny, dispute or refute he is chicken turd free, it does not prove he is guilty of being chicken turds or having chicken turds for brains.
However, simply stating that "I am not made out of chicken turds" does not prove anything one way or the other either.
Perhaps the only earnest and honest way to prove the chicken turd content of the certain person is to do an autopsy.
As one of the contributors - who has been accused of being me - might say, "Get a scalpel!"
Don't get me wrong, I get a sense of enjoyment if not some satisfaction from this mistaken identity - if only I were as creative and imaginative as my accusers seem to hold me to be, I believe I would be a wealthy wordsmith, not a barely-above-the-poverty-line and struggling cabbie!
To recap and underscore the point: Silence is not and cannot be construed by any stretch of the imagination to mean that a person agrees or disagrees with a given statement or that any claim, contention or allegation is true or correct by virtue of the accused's silence on a given matter.
Silence, to some here, seems to mean a tacit agreement or acceptance of a given statement, but the concept of "tacit acceptance" does not really apply in this or any conversational situation.
Nor is silence or "failure to communicate" a basis for the concept expressed as "Deny it or you are automatically guilty."
Such taunts are very much an attempt to manipulate a response - taunts and insults very much like school boys engage in during recess to goad their play adversaries into some action.
When adults engage in such school yard behavior it is embarrassing, to say the least. When adults who persist in such behavior and seemingly cannot tell the difference, it may be a sign of behavior problems. When adults engage in this behavior and do understand what it is they are doing, it is manipulation.
So when does this "tacit acceptance" thing apply?
One example: If a bill collector contacts an alleged debtor regarding an alleged debt and demands payment, but the alleged debtor does not reply, pay or deny the alleged debt.
The bill collector can assume "tacit acceptance" by virtue of the alleged debtor's silence regarding the alleged debt or amount allegedly due.
This is established in Federal law called the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and, under the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" the creditor or the bill collector can post adverse credit information along with a notation that the alleged debtor agrees that the alleged debt is in fact due and payable.
Not answering means the alleged debtor is guilty. But if one properly disputes the alleged debt, no further collection action can be taken.
The collector or creditor still has freedom of choice.
The collection agent can go away forever, try to "sell" the alleged debt account to another bill collector, or bring the matter to court and prove there is a real debt.
It is enough that an adult still has to take some of the children on this forum to the potty.
One can only hope that those guilty ones need to recognize their own dirty little bottom and learn to wipe by you.
A final word from the Weiss: Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.
--wjw--
Last sentnce typo:
"One can only hope that those guilty ones need to recognize their own dirty little bottom and learn to wipe by you."
It should read:
One can only hope that those guilty ones LEARN to recognize their own dirty little BOTTOMS and learn to wipe by yourselves.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I deny theses ridiculous allegations as pure and unmitigated mud slinging school boy antics.
Pure fluff, foolishness, clown play and buffoonery. (What else is new?)
Comments on Getting One's Mind Right:
It seems that when some people get cornered by simple truths and reality, they resort to name calling, bad mouthing, false statements, denial and ultimately, if none of those ring true, they stoop to accusations that Wolfgang J. Weiss is the culprit behind all these "adverse" postings, which in some people's opinion amounts to "sabotage".
This is entirely understandable. Fluff, foolishness and buffoonery are self-defeating in the first place - especially when confronted by cold hard facts and undeniable truth formulated into rational and logical argument.
To coin a phrase: Will the real saboteurs (if any) please stand up!
A note on the concept of "tacit acceptance" and its application:
Contrary to popular opinion herein, when one does not respond to comments posted herein, it does not prove anything except that the person chooses to refrain from commenting, making a claim or counter-claim.
For example, no one, to my knowledge, has ever accused a certain person of being guilty of any alleged anything because he did not respond to the allegations made -- except one certain person who has this false argument over and over.
Will the real guilty parties and all their anagram-generated characters) please stand up!
For example, one can claim a certain person is chicken turds or has chicken turds for brains, but simply claiming this does not prove it so.
If the certain accused person does not respond, deny, dispute or refute he is chicken turd free, it does not prove he is guilty of being chicken turds or having chicken turds for brains.
However, simply stating that "I am not made out of chicken turds" does not prove anything one way or the other either.
Perhaps the only earnest and honest way to prove the chicken turd content of the certain person is to do an autopsy.
As one of the contributors - who has been accused of being me - might say, "Get a scalpel!"
Don't get me wrong, I get a sense of enjoyment if not some satisfaction from this mistaken identity - if only I were as creative and imaginative as my accusers seem to hold me to be, I believe I would be a wealthy wordsmith, not a barely-above-the-poverty-line and struggling cabbie!
To recap and underscore the point: Silence is not and cannot be construed by any stretch of the imagination to mean that a person agrees or disagrees with a given statement or that any claim, contention or allegation is true or correct by virtue of the accused's silence on a given matter.
Silence, to some here, seems to mean a tacit agreement or acceptance of a given statement, but the concept of "tacit acceptance" does not really apply in this or any conversational situation.
Nor is silence or "failure to communicate" a basis for the concept expressed as "Deny it or you are automatically guilty."
Such taunts are very much an attempt to manipulate a response - taunts and insults very much like school boys engage in during recess to goad their play adversaries into some action.
When adults engage in such school yard behavior it is embarrassing, to say the least. When adults who persist in such behavior and seemingly cannot tell the difference, it may be a sign of behavior problems. When adults engage in this behavior and do understand what it is they are doing, it is manipulation.
So when does this "tacit acceptance" thing apply?
One example: If a bill collector contacts an alleged debtor regarding an alleged debt and demands payment, but the alleged debtor does not reply, pay or deny the alleged debt.
The bill collector can assume "tacit acceptance" by virtue of the alleged debtor's silence regarding the alleged debt or amount allegedly due.
This is established in Federal law called the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and, under the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" the creditor or the bill collector can post adverse credit information along with a notation that the alleged debtor agrees that the alleged debt is in fact due and payable.
Not answering means the alleged debtor is guilty. But if one properly disputes the alleged debt, no further collection action can be taken.
The collector or creditor still has freedom of choice.
The collection agent can go away forever, try to "sell" the alleged debt account to another bill collector, or bring the matter to court and prove there is a real debt.
It is enough that an adult still has to take some of the children on this forum to the potty.
One can only hope that those guilty ones need to recognize their own dirty little bottom and learn to wipe by you.
A final word from the Weiss: Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.
--wjw--
Wrong:
Will the real guilty parties and all their anagram-generated characters please stand UP!
Right
Will the real guilty parties and all their anagram-generated characters) please stand BY!
--w--
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I deny theses ridiculous allegations as pure and unmitigated mud slinging school boy antics.
Pure fluff, foolishness, clown play and buffoonery. (What else is new?)
Comments on Getting One's Mind Right:
It seems that when some people get cornered by simple truths and reality, they resort to name calling, bad mouthing, false statements, denial and ultimately, if none of those ring true, they stoop to accusations that Wolfgang J. Weiss is the culprit behind all these "adverse" postings, which in some people's opinion amounts to "sabotage".
This is entirely understandable. Fluff, foolishness and buffoonery are self-defeating in the first place - especially when confronted by cold hard facts and undeniable truth formulated into rational and logical argument.
To coin a phrase: Will the real saboteurs (if any) please stand up!
A note on the concept of "tacit acceptance" and its application:
Contrary to popular opinion herein, when one does not respond to comments posted herein, it does not prove anything except that the person chooses to refrain from commenting, making a claim or counter-claim.
For example, no one, to my knowledge, has ever accused a certain person of being guilty of any alleged anything because he did not respond to the allegations made -- except one certain person who has this false argument over and over.
Will the real guilty parties and all their anagram-generated characters) please stand up!
For example, one can claim a certain person is chicken turds or has chicken turds for brains, but simply claiming this does not prove it so.
If the certain accused person does not respond, deny, dispute or refute he is chicken turd free, it does not prove he is guilty of being chicken turds or having chicken turds for brains.
However, simply stating that "I am not made out of chicken turds" does not prove anything one way or the other either.
Perhaps the only earnest and honest way to prove the chicken turd content of the certain person is to do an autopsy.
As one of the contributors - who has been accused of being me - might say, "Get a scalpel!"
Don't get me wrong, I get a sense of enjoyment if not some satisfaction from this mistaken identity - if only I were as creative and imaginative as my accusers seem to hold me to be, I believe I would be a wealthy wordsmith, not a barely-above-the-poverty-line and struggling cabbie!
To recap and underscore the point: Silence is not and cannot be construed by any stretch of the imagination to mean that a person agrees or disagrees with a given statement or that any claim, contention or allegation is true or correct by virtue of the accused's silence on a given matter.
Silence, to some here, seems to mean a tacit agreement or acceptance of a given statement, but the concept of "tacit acceptance" does not really apply in this or any conversational situation.
Nor is silence or "failure to communicate" a basis for the concept expressed as "Deny it or you are automatically guilty."
Such taunts are very much an attempt to manipulate a response - taunts and insults very much like school boys engage in during recess to goad their play adversaries into some action.
When adults engage in such school yard behavior it is embarrassing, to say the least. When adults who persist in such behavior and seemingly cannot tell the difference, it may be a sign of behavior problems. When adults engage in this behavior and do understand what it is they are doing, it is manipulation.
So when does this "tacit acceptance" thing apply?
One example: If a bill collector contacts an alleged debtor regarding an alleged debt and demands payment, but the alleged debtor does not reply, pay or deny the alleged debt.
The bill collector can assume "tacit acceptance" by virtue of the alleged debtor's silence regarding the alleged debt or amount allegedly due.
This is established in Federal law called the "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and, under the "Fair Credit Reporting Act" the creditor or the bill collector can post adverse credit information along with a notation that the alleged debtor agrees that the alleged debt is in fact due and payable.
Not answering means the alleged debtor is guilty. But if one properly disputes the alleged debt, no further collection action can be taken.
The collector or creditor still has freedom of choice.
The collection agent can go away forever, try to "sell" the alleged debt account to another bill collector, or bring the matter to court and prove there is a real debt.
It is enough that an adult still has to take some of the children on this forum to the potty.
One can only hope that those guilty ones need to recognize their own dirty little bottom and learn to wipe by you.
A final word from the Weiss: Silence is golden, but duct tape is silver.
--wjw--
"Long-Eared One",
Well, Long Ears, it is not because of accidental postings, like oops, I slipped and posted this.....
It is always about something or some one else, it's never about you or your foolishness!
Hey, your buddy the mayor wants to build a super train. When it's finished, be under it.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"Walker",
I agree with some of your opinion that there is indeed a "failure to communicate" at times on this site.
It is because of deliberate, anonymous postings which obviously are intended to sabotage this site with their nonsense.
"Nut bag activity mostly from one guy"? That guy would be named Wolfgang J. Weiss, a Chicago cabdriver who self-appointed himself a leadership position of the Chicago Professianl Taxi Drivers Association, "CPTDA", which hasn't done anything apparent to help me or any other Chicago cabdriver.
Wolf Weiss has posted under many, many, many different aliases. When he is coherent and not negative, Wolf can actually contribute a lot. Unfortunately, that is a too-rare event.
I have never "claimed to be building some kind of cabdriver union".
I do a lot more than "try to eliminate the perceived oppositon" by any means you are misperceiving.
I can prove most everything I claim. The silence of some is ****ing enough evidence. Many won't make the mistake of deliberately lying about something they know to be true...they know I will not cease to prove them to be the liars that they are.
That is why you won't see Prateek Sampat and Peter Enger discuss anything here. They won't answer questions in other recorded forums, either.
I have never claimed to be "a/the big union boss".
What "inconvenient truth" or "inconvenient questions" are you referring to?
I have never met a question I didn't like to answer. The more "controversial", the better.
If the truth "destroys" others, so be it. I don't think lying about anything is good general policy. The propagandists feel differently, I'm sure.
Who is my "opposition" exactly and how has George Lutfallah "bashed them into the pavement"?
I never "slip into the woodwork". I stand tall and let the mud fly.
Nine of out ten subject strings are started with nonsense from Wolf Weiss or one of his aliases. The tenth is usually diverted by Wolf or one of his aliases with insults or lies.
What "evidence" or "eye-witnesses" to prove which "contentions" are you referring to?
When you ask for exactly nothing, that's exactly what you'll usually get.
Thank you for suggesting that I should be in national politics; I already have. I have no plans or interest in running for any office besides the one I currently hold.
I assert that I am one of the better cabdrivers in this city. I have no interest in transporting someone with such a dim or shallow view of us, anyhow.
Feel free to walk, if it makes you feel better.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Opinion: What we have hear is failure to communicate.
I have seen, read and posted on numerous sites on as many subjects, but this site takes the cake for all around nut bag activity, mostly from one guy.
It seems there is one guy who tears all the others down, and when he gets hit back he cries foul.
He claims to be building some kind of cab driver union but all he does is try to eliminate the perceived opposition by spreading rumors, innuendo, implied "factoids" and accusations, without a gram of proof.
His claims ofbeing a the big union boss in the making have been properly challenged for the most part, but when he his cornered, a simple "**** you" puts an end to inconvenient questions and equally inconvenient truths.
His taunts and questions are so obviously intended to solicit answers that he can use to try to destroy others.
The moderator of this site seems to support and protect him and even aids him in bashing his opposition into the pavement.
When fairly challenged, he, too, just backs down and slips into the woodwork for cover until thing cool down.
The subject is dropped, forgotten. Notice that nine out of ten subject strings just stop.
There is no resolution, no logical end ,no coming together or agreement or compromise on anything.
When he is called upon to provide evidence, fact, eye witnesses to support his contentions, we get nothing.
Nothing but hot air.
He changes the subject or starts hammering on another perceived opponent.
I think he is wasting his with cab drivers. He slings the Bull so well, he should be in national politics.
At least there he could get away with all his nut bag talk.
I feel sorry for you guys.
If this is the "slice of life" as it is lived by Chicago cab drivers, I will walk or find other means of transport next time I am in town.
Anyone in his right mind would not risk getting this nut bag behind the wheel of cab.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Nathan,
You should be ashamed of yourself.
You are characterizing my legal use of my right to free speech as "getting away" with something?
When you say, "God Bless America", are you being ironic, then?
Forget about "collecting a judgment" from me, Mr. Nathan...you wouldn't ever have me found guilty of any offense you are suggesting.
Not because of your "niceness" or "disinterest"...because the law protects me from scumbag lawyers like you, doesn't it?
The basis for my questions to Peter Enger about his history with substance abuse isn't about his "distant past". Are you confirming that Peter Enger DOES have a substance abuse history, however "distant" as you suggest?
Peter Enger has decided not to answer most every question put to him, predictably. How can you hypocritcally accuse anyone of "ulterior motives" based simply on the natural suspicion Peter Enger creates with his unwillingness to confirm or deny his substance abuse history?
My "days in Arlington Heights"? Do tell, Mr. Nathan. You have my full permission to give us a simple clue as to what you claim to never want to even "whisper".
Let me indulge your despicable suggestion by asking you a simple question about your "source": do they have first-hand knowledge of these "things" or are you simply playing a second-grade-school-girl's game again?
My source about Peter Enger's substance abuse problem claims first-hand authority.
Yes, Mr. Nathan, let's "stick to the issues". Someone who has the substance abuse problem I can only presume is true by his refusal to deny my reliable source indeed brings the issue of whether or not the UTCC is a bona-fide "representative" organization of Chicago cabdrivers front and center.
It seems that you have your own personal motives for discouraging any investigation or questioning of its supporters and its self- or otherwise appointed "leadership".
Your ignorance, however innocent it may or may not be, reflects the underlying fact that any possible negative effects of the activities of this un-elected group don't really affect your livelihood, as you aren't a current Chicago cabdriver.
You will be exposed to Chicago cabdrivers soon enough, Mr. Nathan. There is no corresponding intimidation, threat, or blackmail, obvious or implied, as Mr. Enger usually has with his threats to "expose me" to cabdrivers IF I DON'T DO A, B, OR C.
Why don't you do a better job of advising the obviously passive-aggressive alcoholic-criminal Peter Enger about the law?
For all his "experience" with the Black Panther party that Peter Enger claims but never documents, his political skills seem rather crude to me. Maybe his stock-in-trade is kooky karaoke.
But then again, I've never heard a record of his "singing performances" either. He could be just as bad at that too, I suppose.
I'd tend to think that the song about the "Piano Has Been Drinking" would be a great one for Peter Enger to "sing".
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Look here, Clueless, Enger's critic can say whatever he wants with complete impunity as far as I'm concerned. He can insult Enger, me or anyone else he likes and get away with it in this great country of ours. God bless America.
Chasing down a bum who shoots his mouth off in civil court is just not worth the effort in a society in which we treasure the right to say whatever we think. Apart from the time investment and the cost, the likelihood of collecting a judgment from a guy likie him is virtually zero. Why bother trying? We call the effort a "nugatory" one. It burns time and money and brings no satisfaction.
This guy is not much different from the low-life cruds who trashed John Kerry's war record on the Internet. We see the same kind of garbage starting now against Mr. Obama. Why is it odd to see a guy like this question Enger for whatever he may have done in the distant past? Who cares what may have been done. Stop indulging a bad man by responding to him the further. No doubt that's what Enger has decided to do.
In the 21st Century, this sort of misconduct and incivility is routine. It's dispicable. It's disgusting. Most decent people recognize it for what it is. And those who think it's cute are awful people and belong in bed with that bum anyway.
I've heard things said about Enger's critic from his days in Arlington Heights. The source I regard as being trustworthy as one of the Apostles, but I would never utter a whisper of it. It isn't something for public consumption. It isn't decent to expose such things to the light of day. There are just some things that common decency demand be kept quiet.
Stop indulging him. Every time you do, he gets off on it. I won't get more specific, but let your imagination run amok.
Let's stick to issues. Let's get to a fare increase. Let's roll back the penalties at 400 West. Let's restore meter and a half to Skokie from O'Hare and Burbank from Midway, let's start to address issues like driver safety more aggressively, let's address $5.00/gallon gasoline with more than hybrid taxis that lead to higher weekly leases.
Do I need to go on and on?
Donald Nathan
