Good job, Yi! You're the second 'Loser'!

Your 'Re: Not me, not you, but WE?' post wo SO very helpful.

By the way, the CCO doesn't have a 'Justice Department', but thanks for trying to belittle us by trying to imply that we should have this power but don't.

Grow up or go away.

What's the name of the 'Cabdriver-Organziation' you have either started, joined, or support?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Everybody...

Now is the time for Donald Nathan, Yi Tang, and Wolfgang Weiss to start postings exclusively about the 'real issues'.

Can they do it without making references to Mike Foulks or the Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)?

We shall all see...

PLEASE, EVERYBODY! Do NOT reply to this post. It's time for others to have a head-start on discussing the issues without my presence for a few days.

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised upon my return and that I can join in without being personally attacked for my opinions or my ability to sort the Truth from the Lies.

Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Weiss, the floor is yours...you may now attempt to get some respect by posting about the 'real' issues without reference to me or the CCO.

The first one to 'fail' or 'lose' owes me lunch. 48 hours gentleman. Go to it...

-Mike Foulks

Oops!

Another 'Tang-ism'...

It SHOULD read...'Your 'Re: Not me, not you, but WE?' post WAS so very helpful.

Sarcasm can be SO exciting!

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Good job, Yi! You're the second 'Loser'!

Your 'Re: Not me, not you, but WE?' post wo SO very helpful.

By the way, the CCO doesn't have a 'Justice Department', but thanks for trying to belittle us by trying to imply that we should have this power but don't.

Grow up or go away.

What's the name of the 'Cabdriver-Organziation' you have either started, joined, or support?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Everybody...

Now is the time for Donald Nathan, Yi Tang, and Wolfgang Weiss to start postings exclusively about the 'real issues'.

Can they do it without making references to Mike Foulks or the Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)?

We shall all see...

PLEASE, EVERYBODY! Do NOT reply to this post. It's time for others to have a head-start on discussing the issues without my presence for a few days.

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised upon my return and that I can join in without being personally attacked for my opinions or my ability to sort the Truth from the Lies.

Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Weiss, the floor is yours...you may now attempt to get some respect by posting about the 'real' issues without reference to me or the CCO.

The first one to 'fail' or 'lose' owes me lunch. 48 hours gentleman. Go to it...

-Mike Foulks

"Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

"Please e-mail me the specifics of how you came to your conclusions. I will keep this information confidential within reasonable limits. Just propose how."

Which department, Mike?

Mr. Tang,

I don't quite understand either of your questions...

'Don't you still remember, Mike?' and 'Which department', Mike?'...

Could you please clarify them with some elaboration?

You may e-mail me privately if you prefer.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

"Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

"Please e-mail me the specifics of how you came to your conclusions. I will keep this information confidential within reasonable limits. Just propose how."

Which department, Mike?

Mike,

I trusted your exeptional memory, but now I have to refresh it.

When George asked about "This Site" a few days ago, remeber what you suggested?

"Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

Is it still OK to get anything free for the CCO on someone's expense, according to your ARTICLE III-5?

When you learned Mr. Hacker and Mr. Literary Analyst's your work at exposing who is behind the most useless and counter-productive postings, were you the one "SCHMUCKS of the Year", saying

"Please e-mail me the specifics of how you came to your conclusions. I will keep this information confidential within reasonable limits. Just propose how."

When you saw my posting of "Not me, not you, but WE", you denied that there was no "Justice
Department" within CCO, so I asked you which department it was then, and which department it is now to handle this matter.

I wonder who I must choose to trust this time, Troll or Mike? But

I do feel good to be the 2nd loser on your list.

Thanks!

Mr. Tang,

I remember all of the posting you cited. You have an active imagination, because I never stated that 'departments' of any kind exist within the organizational structure of CCO.

You SHOULD know this, because you have a copy of the CCO Articles of Organization.

Article III-5, which refrains anyone from collecting any money or gifts 'for the CCO', doesn't apply whatsoever here. Why do you mention it? Your English here is torturous. I can't make heads or tails of what you mean, exactly. Again, please clarify.

I asked Mr. Hacker and Mr. Literary Analyst to e-mail the specifics to ME, not some 'department' or 'justice' committee you imagine.

It seems pretty clear. So is your inability to post anything worthwhile that can't contain some negativism directed my way.

If you choose to trust an unknown 'Troll' as opposed to me or any other individual who is, at the very least, known...then you are the #1 FOOL on Cabmarket.com.

Again, Congratulations.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Mike,

I trusted your exeptional memory, but now I have to refresh it.

When George asked about "This Site" a few days ago, remeber what you suggested?

"Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

Is it still OK to get anything free for the CCO on someone's expense, according to your ARTICLE III-5?

When you learned Mr. Hacker and Mr. Literary Analyst's your work at exposing who is behind the most useless and counter-productive postings, were you the one "SCHMUCKS of the Year", saying

"Please e-mail me the specifics of how you came to your conclusions. I will keep this information confidential within reasonable limits. Just propose how."

When you saw my posting of "Not me, not you, but WE", you denied that there was no "Justice
Department" within CCO, so I asked you which department it was then, and which department it is now to handle this matter.

I wonder who I must choose to trust this time, Troll or Mike? But

I do feel good to be the 2nd loser on your list.

Thanks!

Let me repeat your words once again: "Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

If you can't make heads or tails of what you mean, exactly. Again, please read it again.

When I said "Please send any proof about Mr. Weiss' bad behavior to President Mike Foulks of the CCO for justice" in "Not me, not you, but WE?", I should use the word "truth" instead of "justice". Sorry about it.

You know nothing but the truth, right?

Have you seen any word saying about one or any of your departments in my post of "Not me, not you, but WE?"?

An active imagination? I like it.

Thanks again!

Yi, you asked me 'Which department, then?'!

You should have already known that the CCO has no 'departments'. I gave you a copy of the Articles of Organization, which seem to be a bit beyond your comprehension.

I know what I mean in my posts, Yi. I write them. Maybe you should slow down and consider the fact that you seem to me as if you are reading things that simply aren't there.

What I also know, Yi, is that Wolf seems to be a very deceiptful person. He is also refusing to answer my direct questions about the infamous 'flyer'. I like proof in my pudding.

What do YOU 'imagine' the 'truth' to be about this 'flyer', Yi?

Please, try to be more clear in your future posts. Your English is not that bad. Stop playing linguistic games here.

I don't know why you are so concerned about the CCO. You can not become a Registered-Member, and its activities don't affect you personally. Why do you care about the CCO so much?

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Let me repeat your words once again: "Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

If you can't make heads or tails of what you mean, exactly. Again, please read it again.

When I said "Please send any proof about Mr. Weiss' bad behavior to President Mike Foulks of the CCO for justice" in "Not me, not you, but WE?", I should use the word "truth" instead of "justice". Sorry about it.

You know nothing but the truth, right?

Have you seen any word saying about one or any of your departments in my post of "Not me, not you, but WE?"?

An active imagination? I like it.

Thanks again!

It is all about this site, which has nothing to do with you or CCO.

"Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

Have more funs, and there is nothing wrong to have funs on George's expenses.

Mr. Tang,

Thanks for continuously posting the same quote from me over and over. I stand behind it.

You wrote 'Have more funs, and there is nothing wrong to have funs on George's expenses.'

How rude of you. Do you really have no shame in this attitude? Do you really wish you could bankrupt Mr. Lutfallah, as if that could be possible, by your incessant, almost completely useless postings here on Cabmarket.com?

Why don't you take some time and compose a serious message which spells out your obvious anger and frustration towards Mr. Lutfallah so that the rest of us might actually LEARN something whether or not we actually agree with your opinion.

Why do you post here at all, anyway? Is it to stifle the serious discussions that other cabdrivers attempt to have here because they aren't part of your 'camp'? Please, dear God, don't try to point the finger at Mr. Lutfallah again and claim that he was trying to do anything like that at Kabob Corner.

Mr. Nathan played a big role in inciting Mr. Lutfallah with his childish behavior. If it was ME instead of Mr. Lutfallah he inappropriately poked at or defamed, I would have kicked his ass long before Mr. Nathan had the 'courage' to show his face in public. Enough said about this...I'm asking about YOU, YI!

I still don't understand why someone like you, who is no longer a Chicago cabdriver, is so interested in 'organizing Chicago cabdrivers'. Why don't YOU TELL US WHY instead of leaving it to the rest of us to speculate, and then be 'scolded' for not being able to read your mind.

You're not that much better than Wolf here. You're more useful to me when you send private e-mails, on the occasions that they are closely taxi-related.

I'm not trying to 'push you away'. I'm trying to keep you 'on point'.

Let me clarify, yet once again, that Mr. George Lutfallah and I have no formal relationship WHATSOEVER, other than we both holding chauffeur's license from the City of Chicago.

He has the Chicago Dispatcher newspaper and Cabmarket.com and whatever else he's entitled to have, I'm sure.

I founded and was elected the first President of the Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO). This is cabdriver 'news'. Mr. Lutfallah is in the cabdriver 'news' business. The rest of us seem to 'get it'.

Please quit trying to insinuate that there is some sinister connection between me (or the CCO) and Mr. Lutfallah. There is not, certainly no more than any 'sinister connection' between Mr. Lutfallah and cab medallion owners based simply on the 'evidence' that he accepts advertising revenues from them.

Prateek Sampat of the AFSC uses this 'gimmick' to get attention by claiming 'sinister connections' between cab owners and the City, but offers no 'proof'. Most of us are smart enough to see the error in this kind of judgement.

I can only understand your behavior if it seems you are trying to get into the 'taxi-driver organizing' BUSINESS. Is that what you expect to do, Mr. Tang? Collect money from cabdrivers? Have you done so already, Mr. Tang?

Do you see the CCO as a 'competitor', Mr. Tang? Don't worry if you do...the CCO is not here to collect money from cabdrivers...you are free to collect as much money as you can...why are you and others so concerned about this fact, or the lack of specific 'departments' in the CCO?

Why is your friend Mr. Nathan so concerned about my declination of his 'free legal help'?

What do you think about Mr. Prateek Sampat and the AFSC's TWO Project? What was it EXACTLY about the 'Snakes in the Morning' article that you object to?

It seems to me that the biggest obstacles to organizing cabdrivers is not these 'bogeymen' some of you like to talk about, but we never see. The biggest detractor from my organizing efforts have been other 'organizers'.

I am not 'stopping' my organization effort. I am not 'stopping' anyone else's either. I will confidently let the cabdrivers decide who they support.

-Mike Foulks, President, Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

It is all about this site, which has nothing to do with you or CCO.

"Honestly, I have had some fun in this 'Cabdrivers (and Outsiders) Gone Wild' environment, but I don't want to continue it at the expense of more serious and less personal discussions."

Have more funs, and there is nothing wrong to have funs on George's expenses.

Are You a Respectful Person?

(Take this self-evaluation and find out.)

True OR False:

1. I treat other people the way I want to be treated.

2. I am considerate of other people.

3. I treat people with civility, courtesy, and dignity.

4. I accept personal differences.

5. I work to solve problems without violence.

6. I never intentionally ridicule, embarrass, or hurt other people.

I think I am/am not a respectful person because: ______________________

If you scored less than 5 True, you are a b i g a s s h o l e!

Well, done, Mr. Nathan!

How 'observant' of you!

Your 'Re: Let me try this Machine-Gun Style...' post was right-on, but pointless, considering I was directly replying to a personal critique, hence my frequent use of 'I..'.

Yi, yi, yi. Don, Wolf, Yi.

Moe, Larry, and Curly.

YOU are THE STOOGE, Mr. Nathan.

-Mike Foulks

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

Everybody...

Now is the time for Donald Nathan, Yi Tang, and Wolfgang Weiss to start postings exclusively about the 'real issues'.

Can they do it without making references to Mike Foulks or the Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO)?

We shall all see...

PLEASE, EVERYBODY! Do NOT reply to this post. It's time for others to have a head-start on discussing the issues without my presence for a few days.

I hope I'm pleasantly surprised upon my return and that I can join in without being personally attacked for my opinions or my ability to sort the Truth from the Lies.

Mr. Nathan, Mr. Tang, Mr. Weiss, the floor is yours...you may now attempt to get some respect by posting about the 'real' issues without reference to me or the CCO.

The first one to 'fail' or 'lose' owes me lunch. 48 hours gentleman. Go to it...

-Mike Foulks