Matthew,
I am not trying to succeed as a comedian. I am deadly serious when I refer to "dirtbag" lawyer Donald Nathan as a schmuck.
How did I come to that conclusion? Because I took him at his word, interacted with him at length, and discovered that he manipulates cabdrivers who are trying to honestly organize a bit differently than he imagines...for his own self-interest, not yours, not mine. He's simply not a very good lawyer, and not just here among us to give cabdrivers "free legal advice".
Read carefully some of the corresponding e-mails which I've posted in the middle of the thread that Peter Enger started as "mikes 'democratic' process".
"Avowed enemies"? Who exactly are you referring to, Matthew? Could you cite where and when I've described them as my "avowed enemies"?
I have little faith in the "Chicago 7's lawsuit" benefitting Chicago cabdrivers much, even less with Donald Nathan as its lawyer.
Mr. Kim's and Mr. Tang's difficulties with English lead to a lot of misunderstanding. I have a recent voice message from Steve Kim which I can't understand half of.
Is that "bigotry" on my part, their poor communication skills?
I answer almost every question put to me. I will chide and insult those who treat me the same way. I will respect and treat kindly those that treat me the same way.
Which of my "defenders" have said I speak "truth to power"?
Who are they and when did they say that?
"Truth to power" is the tired cliche put forth by the likes of the American Friends Service Commitee (AFSC) and its employee, Prateek Sampat.
I advocate using membership-based power to influence the legislative process and elected executives. Any group representing all Chicago cabdrivers in the judicial system should be a truly independent and democratic group.
The only thing keeping most of the people you describe as "victims" from being punched themselves is their advanced age and yes, my respect for free speech and everyone's wonderful right to express it here.
I seem to recall that the entire group of cabdrivers behind me clapped loudly and approvingly after my remarks to the Transportation Committee most recently. Were you there?
Sorry to bore you with facts which refute your ill-formed opinion.
Any questions, Matthew?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
First, let me state my credentials: I got back into driving -- after 10 years in other work -- last February.
Secondly, I am a funny guy. This is well known in certain circles, which is why, even back in grade school, I was sometimes asked by the teacher to "say something funny" -- as if the deed could be done on demand. This, anyway, is my "standing." All the rest is commentary.
The commentary though, is designed to make the point that Foulks is not just a failure as a comedian but obnoxiously rude.
Rude is not the same as witty, funny, brash; not the same as brassy; not the same as gutsy or thinking outside the box.
Rudeness means taking advantage of another person's sense of decorum or tradition or civility that keeps another person from striking back or, worse.
Foulks insults and makes jokes about his “victims” and his avowed enemies. He made jokes about their intelligence, mockingly comparing it to his own. Boy, that's funny.
Foulks has taken swipes at the Chicago 7’s lawsuit, at Kim’s and Tang’s language, and he takes numerous, unrelenting shots -- racist innuendo, plain and simple bigotry in your face -- at many others for purportedly being nothing more than schlongs, dongs, schmucks and more.
In response to questions and criticism, he chides and insults the people who posted them.
Why am I wasting my time with Foulks, I hear you ask. Because he is representative of what too often passes for “political courage,” not to mention wit, in this country. His defenders will tell you "he spoke truth to power."
This is a tired phrase, as we all know, but when it was fresh and meaningful it suggested repercussions, consequences -- maybe even death in some countries. When you spoke “truth to power” you took the distinct chance that power would smite you, toss you into a dungeon or even take away your job.
But in this country, anyone can insult anyone. Foulks just did it, and he will not suffer any consequence at all. He knew that going in. He also knew that Kim, Tang, Enger, Weiss, Nathan and others would have to sit there and take his lame and insulting jokes. Foulks himself plays off his reputation as a clown and his penchant for verbally mangling his victims. Self-mockery can be funny.
Mockery that is insulting is not. The sort of stuff that would get you punched in a bar can be posted here with impunity. This is why Foulks is more than rude. He is a bully.
On the face of it, when his “victims” feed him, Foulks has been funny from time to time. But on his own, he appeals to only a very small self-selected audience of one or two sympathizers.
In other discussion groups he is playing to a different crowd (drivers and owners to be sure, but not quite the same mindset), and he failed dismally in the funny person's most solemn obligation: to use absurdity or contrast or hyperbole to make people see things a little bit differently.
He squandered his chance to tell the Mayor, Chicago civic leaders and most of the important (and the self-important) things that would have been good for them and the general public to hear.
But he was, like much of the blogosphere itself, telling like-minded people what they already know and alienating all the others. In this sense, he is a man for our times.
He isn’t really funny, after all.
You may have disputed some of the statements, but you did not refute or disprove anything.
I have seen no evidence that refutes or disproves any of my statements.
On the other hand there exists on these pages much evidence of your bad-mouth and name-calling. These seem to be your only talents.
I am not aware of any cab driver who has been manipulated by any attorneys. Can you provide details and give particulars in such so that they could be fit to present to a court?
What is your criteria for establishing if a lawyer is "good" or "bad"?
Is your criteria the same as the Attorney Registration Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Illinois?
No one questioned your career path or in which given instance a reader should take you seriously or light-heartedly.
Perhaps it is that you just do not understand such concepts as rules of evidence, fair play or humor.
Do you not see how silly some of your statements are?
You often lead one to think that you are trying to be funny but you are really trying to make fun of people.
In looking back at previous submissions here, there was a time when calling names and bad mouthing was looked upon as low and dirty and considered not fitting.
However, you seem to persist in nothing else. You seem to be the exception to that rules of decency, good sense and good conduct.
DO you really believe that your opinions will have any impact on the seven plaintiffs, the attorneys, the Court or the City?
You use the word respect in the same sentence as punched. I do not believe you deserve or are are capable of either.
Many of your statements indicate similar conflicts.
You say that you will do unto others as they do unto you.
This "golden rule" is stated in just about every ancient writing about behavioral precepts including the New Testament, Talmud, Koran, and the Analects of Confucius.
“Do unto others ...” is so well known that it is often shortened, based on words of Jesus Christ: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”
We have already seen that you are an eception to many common rules of behavior. This is just another on a long list, I take it.
You seem to use a derivation of this golden rule of behavior as license for your bad mouthing and name calling.
Matthew, (who might be Wolf Weiss until proven otherwise),
I suggest you read the Donald Nathan e-mails carefully to understand how he has manipulated cabdrivers.
I have talents beyond whatever I write on these pages.
My criteria for determining the worth or character of a lawyer might not be the same as the ARDC.
I understand rules of evidence, fair play, and humor.
Some of my statements are silly, yes indeed.
When did I "make fun of people"?
I can meet almost any standard, yet I am quite comfortable operating as far below it as necessary or opportune.
My opinions will likely have almost no effect on the seven plaintiffs, the attorneys, or the Court. The City is another story entirely.
Don't want to respect me? Don't expect my respect then. Game on.
Do you have something else more valuable to contribute here other than your opinion of me, which I have almost no interest in changing until I at least know who you are?
Let's get to that, then.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
You may have disputed some of the statements, but you did not refute or disprove anything.
I have seen no evidence that refutes or disproves any of my statements.
On the other hand there exists on these pages much evidence of your bad-mouth and name-calling. These seem to be your only talents.
I am not aware of any cab driver who has been manipulated by any attorneys. Can you provide details and give particulars in such so that they could be fit to present to a court?
What is your criteria for establishing if a lawyer is "good" or "bad"?
Is your criteria the same as the Attorney Registration Disciplinary Committee of the Supreme Court of Illinois?
No one questioned your career path or in which given instance a reader should take you seriously or light-heartedly.
Perhaps it is that you just do not understand such concepts as rules of evidence, fair play or humor.
Do you not see how silly some of your statements are?
You often lead one to think that you are trying to be funny but you are really trying to make fun of people.
In looking back at previous submissions here, there was a time when calling names and bad mouthing was looked upon as low and dirty and considered not fitting.
However, you seem to persist in nothing else. You seem to be the exception to that rules of decency, good sense and good conduct.
DO you really believe that your opinions will have any impact on the seven plaintiffs, the attorneys, the Court or the City?
You use the word respect in the same sentence as punched. I do not believe you deserve or are are capable of either.
Many of your statements indicate similar conflicts.
You say that you will do unto others as they do unto you.
This "golden rule" is stated in just about every ancient writing about behavioral precepts including the New Testament, Talmud, Koran, and the Analects of Confucius.
“Do unto others ...” is so well known that it is often shortened, based on words of Jesus Christ: “All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.”
The Mosaic law contains a parallel commandment: “Whatever is hurtful to you, do not do to any other person.”
We have already seen that you are an eception to many common rules of behavior. This is just another on a long list, I take it.
You seem to use a derivation of this golden rule of behavior as license for your bad mouthing and name calling.
My given name (in my birth country, Hungary) is Mateus, pronounced mah tay oos. I have been in the USA most of my life in great cities like Seattle, Boston and Memphis. I did not drive a taxi in those cities, only in Chicago.
My education and training is in world classical and world contemporary music. I am a bad musician, but a good composer, in my own ears at least.
I am proud to say that many of my customers tell me I am a great cab driver. Someday I will be or I hope to be like Philip Glass, a New York cab driver who is a great composer.
That is all I will say about myself in a publicly accessible discussion forum. I have no desire to advertise myself or to meet you privately Mr. Foulks -- Heaven forbid!
I have read every word of the emails you posted several times over, but I do not see the same things you seem to see in the things you seem to see in the emails.
I do not know if you have a perception problem or reading difficulty of some kind, but it seems like you select certain words or phrases and say they mean something or are evidence for an opinion you are stating.
For example, it seems that the only person who feels manipulated is yourself. At least no one else has come forward about this matter.
Who has been manipulated? Who has been fooled by whom? Yes, all of us! But by the our city government, not by the man you are pointing your finger at.
And you offer other peoples' emails, some of which clearly state they are for personal communication and not for distribution as evidence.
I read these emails several times, but I did not find an expressed or implied release (to distribute the emails) in any of them.
I do not mean to sound like my lawyer, but we do not know if that release or other consent was communicated by the sender to the receiver of the private emails through some other form of communication.
We do know that there is no expressed or implied release or approval in the mere act of copying and pasting an email into another email or by attaching the email to a new email, or by forwarding that email, or by printing that email and forwarding it to another person.
Just because one has control over or is in possession of certain information such as in an email, in fact does not provide authority to release that information without prior consent by the individuals to whom the email belongs.
I hope this makes sense to you. I do not know how else I can say it, basically you broke confidence, you broke trust.
You may have broken the law. Being monetary judgment proof would seem to be a benefit not a curse or condemnation in such a situation, no?
I am only a cab driver. I drive people from place to place, I do not judge them. You should try this also.
Mateus,
Many of my customers tell me I am a great cabdriver, also. A few even claim I am the best cabdriver they have ever had.
It's okay to like Philip Glass, but be yourself. You are already the composer Mateus. Be as great as you wish.
If you don't ever want to meet me privately, Mateus, that is your perogative. I don't see any compelling reason to seek you out either. Nothing wrong with that.
I have no "perception problem" or "reading difficulty".
Why don't you let Donald Nathan and Yi Tang answer the questions posed to them and back up what they say with proof through their entire e-mails around the times and events in question?
"The only person who feels manipulated" isn't just me, Mateus. Donald Nathan and Yi Tang aren't the only manipulators, either.
How has our City government "fooled us", Mateus?
I didn't break anyone's confidence or trust by posting these e-mails. The request was to Yi Tang, who didn't honor Donald Nathan's skull-duggerous desire for secrecy. Yi Tang broke Donald Nathan's trust, quite possibly by accident.
This has allowed me to introduce it and others as evidence of Donald Nathan's disposition and duplicity.
No laws have been broken. I am not "judgment proof" as Mr. Nathan suggests; he's simply manipulating you into believing the only reason he isn't suing me for defamation is that he couldn't collect.
He's isn't suing because he simply doesn't have a case.
You aren't "only a cabdriver", Mateus. You are a composer.
I am not only a cabdriver, I am also an elected leader of Cabdriver-Representatives, as well as the General Leader of my own group.
I have, and will continue to, investigate and judge any and all who come into our community, as well as any other relevant persons or parties.
Donald Nathan is a scheming, manipulative, self-interested lawyer who is nearly joined at the hip with Yi Tang. Make no mistake about that.
There are more e-mails to come, Mateus. Keep reading carefully.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
My given name (in my birth country, Hungary) is Mateus, pronounced mah tay oos. I have been in the USA most of my life in great cities like Seattle, Boston and Memphis. I did not drive a taxi in those cities, only in Chicago.
My education and training is in world classical and world contemporary music. I am a bad musician, but a good composer, in my own ears at least.
I am proud to say that many of my customers tell me I am a great cab driver. Someday I will be or I hope to be like Philip Glass, a New York cab driver who is a great composer.
That is all I will say about myself in a publicly accessible discussion forum. I have no desire to advertise myself or to meet you privately Mr. Foulks -- Heaven forbid!
I have read every word of the emails you posted several times over, but I do not see the same things you seem to see in the things you seem to see in the emails.
I do not know if you have a perception problem or reading difficulty of some kind, but it seems like you select certain words or phrases and say they mean something or are evidence for an opinion you are stating.
For example, it seems that the only person who feels manipulated is yourself. At least no one else has come forward about this matter.
Who has been manipulated? Who has been fooled by whom? Yes, all of us! But by the our city government, not by the man you are pointing your finger at.
And you offer other peoples' emails, some of which clearly state they are for personal communication and not for distribution as evidence.
I read these emails several times, but I did not find an expressed or implied release (to distribute the emails) in any of them.
I do not mean to sound like my lawyer, but we do not know if that release or other consent was communicated by the sender to the receiver of the private emails through some other form of communication.
We do know that there is no expressed or implied release or approval in the mere act of copying and pasting an email into another email or by attaching the email to a new email, or by forwarding that email, or by printing that email and forwarding it to another person.
Just because one has control over or is in possession of certain information such as in an email, in fact does not provide authority to release that information without prior consent by the individuals to whom the email belongs.
I hope this makes sense to you. I do not know how else I can say it, basically you broke confidence, you broke trust.
You may have broken the law. Being monetary judgment proof would seem to be a benefit not a curse or condemnation in such a situation, no?
I am only a cab driver. I drive people from place to place, I do not judge them. You should try this also.
My legal name is "Matthew" now. My parents "Anglicized" our names legally many years ago, when they became citizens. I was very young then, but I remember going to court with them for becoming citizens and for changing our names to American versions.
We came to the USA during the short-lived Hungarian Revolution against the Stalinist government of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies.
My first experience of "fireworks" was when my father blew up a Russian tank with an American-made hand grenade. I remember the sounds of pieces of the tank crashing into the wall we were hiding behind and flying overhead when the tank and the ammunition and the occupants inside blew up.
I did not know if I should feel proud or afraid or anything until my father said we were now murderers in their eyes.
Anyway, do not believe all your customers; perhaps some of them tell you a big lie to make up for a small tip.
I have no problem with letting anyone answer questions, if they answer them honestly and truthfully.
It seems as if you are trying to conduct some sort of a trial. You have assumed the role of a prosecuting inquisitor and a judge. But of course we are not in a fact-finding forum, such as a court.
I believe your suspects are capable of deciding if a question that is posed is valid or not in much the same way that your customers can decide to pay you a compliment and a tip for your good service or withhold for lack of service.
I also believe they (your suspects) would answer any valid question that is relevant and appropriate.
I believe we were discussing your evidence and your proofs, not their defense of your allegations and contentions.
Who feels manipulated? Does anyone else feel manipulated? Who are they?
The answers have to be based on much more than a just a feeling. One can feel cheated, mistreated, robbed and beaten -- without having suffered a blow or lost any property to theft, or been ill-used or tricked -- for the purposes of another's personal or professional fulfillment or gain.
What evidence (not old emails) does there exist that clearly supports, proves or shows an act or acts of manipulation?
As to motive, why would anyone want to manipulate cab drivers other than to get them to go to the correct destination in the shortest, fastest legally possible way?
It seems that if you do not have a perception or a reading problem, and there is a purpose in your answers, then your answers and comments seem to be an attempt to change the subject. In some cases your answers seem to be designed to show disrespect; or to ridicule and establish a basis for calling them names and making statements that imply something unseemly about them.
Your statements are not evidence. Your feelings do not necessarily amount to a single fact. Perhaps if one could see your halo, your heavenly aura, one might see things your way.
Not being able to see things the way you do, understandably, your Bush email analogy does not apply as a valid argument in defense of your actions.
There is nothing that you have offered that would mitigate your decision to go against the stated ban on distributing the email or its contents.
Accusations are not evidence.
One can not rely on another person’s possible error or allegedly accidental or even unintended distribution to mitigate your conscious decision to distribute further -- in light of the stated ban.
It is unfortunate that you ask the question how the City manipulates cab drivers.
A person in your position should know and fully understand with whom he is dealing, how to effectively deal with them and what tools one has at one’s disposal.
Our tools are simply words. Words only work when you have credibility. Credibility is established through respect. Respect arises out of sincere respect for others.
A hand grenade worked for my father during a bloody, real death in your face revolution.
It seems that the credibility of a hand grenade and the respect it arouses is all you have established here.
Do the "math" Matthew.
Simple Mike-eqauls-right equations:
Mike's opinions are always to be considered fact.
His analogies are always to be considered truth.
SCWatts,
That's just your opinion, SCWatts, and that's the only fact of the matter.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Do the "math" Matthew.
Simple Mike-eqauls-right equations:
Mike's opinions are always to be considered fact.
His analogies are always to be considered truth.
matthew,
unfortunately, mike foulks won'[t understand your well thought out email or the arguments it contains. he does have a learning disorder-his brain doesn't quite work right, and he doesn't knwo what a promise is, what ethics are. he is a typical american
Whitwit,
I undersood Matthew's well thought out e-mail and the arguments it contains.
What you (and a few others) can't seem to comprehend that the request from Donald Nathan not to recirculate his e-mail was made to Yi Tang, not me.
Yi Tang forwarded the "secret" e-mail to a lot of people, including me, because his English or understanding of what Donald Nathan meant was poor.
Why aren't you criticizing Yi Tang for forwarding the e-mail in the first place? HYPOCRITE.
I'm not a "typical American".
What "promise" did I break? What "ethics" did I violate?
Donald Nathan was manipulating George Lutfallah and the truth and others' perceptions. Not because he was trying to "help" Chicago cabdrivers.
Because Donald Nathan is trying to help Donald Nathan. Yi Tang is his doofus partner.
What has Donald Nathan or Yi Tang ever done for you, Whitwit?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
matthew,
unfortunately, mike foulks won'[t understand your well thought out email or the arguments it contains. he does have a learning disorder-his brain doesn't quite work right, and he doesn't knwo what a promise is, what ethics are. he is a typical american
begging to blame others for his own misconduct
how convenient
he begs to know what he did wrong
he thinks he allowed to take advantage of an error or base his misconduct on so someone else's actions
he is begging to be recognized as stupid
he is a typical beggar, always right, never wrong
that is why he begs
Matthew,
I am also tipped well by my customers. I don't understand how anyone is so doubtful of my capability to speak my mind here, however crudely, and also treat my customers as well as any other cabdriver, if not better.
I am not "mentally ill" or "emotionally unstable". I am quite in control of my speech and actions. Sorry to disappoint my self-interested critics who often suffer from my blows and have (hopefully?) suggested otherwise.
I am not conducting a "trial". I am presenting Donald Nathan's (and others) OWN WORDS from e-mails to help anybody who cares to understand what they have done and have attempted to do.
I am asking them important questions. They don't answer. Your "belief" is false.
Many have felt and suffered the manipulations of Donald Nathan and others. The "truth" is the worst victim of Donald Nathan's manipulative personality.
I ask again, what "little trick" didn't achieve its "planned purpose", Yi Tang or Donald Nathan?
I have no halo, sir.
Donald Nathan asked Yi Tang not to distribute his e-mail for sinister reason. Read it again.
There is no legal "ban" on me or Yi Tang from redistributing Donald Nathan's e-mail.
Yi Tang was too stupid to heed Donald Nathan's wishes; I was smart enough to see Donald Nathan as scheming and duplicitous, not as an unselfish lawyer here to "give back" to cabdrivers.
It is unfortunate that you suggest that I don't think that the City manipulates cabdrivers.
You're acting stupidly; I asked you in order for you to specify how YOU think the City manipulates cabdrivers.
You brought it up and you still haven't answered the question.
Your contemptous disrespect isn't as subtle as you might think, Matthew.
At least I'll tell you what I think, "unmitigated" as it is.
You'er a fool if you think Donald Nathan is a friend to cabdrivers and that I'm an enemy of them or you.
I have much more than "hand grenades" to deal with the likes of Yi Tang, Donald Nathan, or the City of Chicago.
You can believe it or not; it makes no real difference to me or the facts.
-Mike Foulks
P.S. You should be proud of your father. He was bravely doing what he thought was right for himself, you, and all of Hungary, I'm sure. It's unfortunate that this might have included killing Soviets. This isn't an easy world to always know what "right" is.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
My legal name is "Matthew" now. My parents "Anglicized" our names legally many years ago, when they became citizens. I was very young then, but I remember going to court with them for becoming citizens and for changing our names to American versions.
We came to the USA during the short-lived Hungarian Revolution against the Stalinist government of Hungary and its Soviet-imposed policies.
My first experience of "fireworks" was when my father blew up a Russian tank with an American-made hand grenade. I remember the sounds of pieces of the tank crashing into the wall we were hiding behind and flying overhead when the tank and the ammunition and the occupants inside blew up.
I did not know if I should feel proud or afraid or anything until my father said we were now murderers in their eyes.
Anyway, do not believe all your customers; perhaps some of them tell you a big lie to make up for a small tip.
I have no problem with letting anyone answer questions, if they answer them honestly and truthfully.
It seems as if you are trying to conduct some sort of a trial. You have assumed the role of a prosecuting inquisitor and a judge. But of course we are not in a fact-finding forum, such as a court.
I believe your suspects are capable of deciding if a question that is posed is valid or not in much the same way that your customers can decide to pay you a compliment and a tip for your good service or withhold for lack of service.
I also believe they (your suspects) would answer any valid question that is relevant and appropriate.
I believe we were discussing your evidence and your proofs, not their defense of your allegations and contentions.
Who feels manipulated? Does anyone else feel manipulated? Who are they?
The answers have to be based on much more than a just a feeling. One can feel cheated, mistreated, robbed and beaten -- without having suffered a blow or lost any property to theft, or been ill-used or tricked -- for the purposes of another's personal or professional fulfillment or gain.
What evidence (not old emails) does there exist that clearly supports, proves or shows an act or acts of manipulation?
As to motive, why would anyone want to manipulate cab drivers other than to get them to go to the correct destination in the shortest, fastest legally possible way?
It seems that if you do not have a perception or a reading problem, and there is a purpose in your answers, then your answers and comments seem to be an attempt to change the subject. In some cases your answers seem to be designed to show disrespect; or to ridicule and establish a basis for calling them names and making statements that imply something unseemly about them.
Your statements are not evidence. Your feelings do not necessarily amount to a single fact. Perhaps if one could see your halo, your heavenly aura, one might see things your way.
Not being able to see things the way you do, understandably, your Bush email analogy does not apply as a valid argument in defense of your actions.
There is nothing that you have offered that would mitigate your decision to go against the stated ban on distributing the email or its contents.
Accusations are not evidence.
One can not rely on another person’s possible error or allegedly accidental or even unintended distribution to mitigate your conscious decision to distribute further -- in light of the stated ban.
It is unfortunate that you ask the question how the City manipulates cab drivers.
A person in your position should know and fully understand with whom he is dealing, how to effectively deal with them and what tools one has at one’s disposal.
Our tools are simply words. Words only work when you have credibility. Credibility is established through respect. Respect arises out of sincere respect for others.
A hand grenade worked for my father during a bloody, real death in your face revolution.
It seems that the credibility of a hand grenade and the respect it arouses is all you have established here.
Mike
My torturous English is better than Your torturous fact, torturous truth, torturous vision.
Yes, I left my message to your phone. The message was " you can meet me at any time, any place. This is my response for your claim as "you never call me".(Once again, This one sentence as " you never call me" was torturous fact by you.( Refer to my response on "Vote?")
Can we meet together for serious meeting? If you Really Really ready, any time call me. If you not ready yet, I can wait for you. I hope you would understand the meaning of 'ready'.
Steve.
My mistake. Previous message was written by Steve.
Mike
My torturous English is better than Your torturous fact, torturous truth, torturous vision.
Yes, I left my message to your phone. The message was " you can meet me at any time, any place. This is my response for your claim as "you never call me".(Once again, This one sentence as " you never call me" was torturous fact by you.( Refer to my response on "Vote?")
Can we meet together for serious meeting? If you Really Really ready, any time call me. If you not ready yet, I can wait for you. I hope you would understand the meaning of 'ready'.
Steve.
