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.
