Mr. Nathan,
Let me address your comments first:
You wrote: "Why did you blow off the chance to make your opinions heard today, Foulks?"
I don't need Prateek Sampat of the American Friends Service Committee to invite me to any meeting to "have a chance to make (my) opinions heard".
You wrote: "You were certainly invited to come to the "Unity Forum" and would have been welcomed."
First, my name was certainly spelled incorrectly. How respectful, considerate, and welcoming.
Second, nobody asked me if 2 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon was a good time for me to meet.
Third, I was previously invited, disinvited, and then the subject of an intentional lie by Prateek Sampat and Peter Enger the last time I was "welcomed into" a "productive" meeting involving you, them, and others at the same restaurant.
Did you think I was going sacrifice my regular sleeping schedule considering that history?
You wrote: "Your buddy Greg McGee was there".
Why are you characterizing Mr. McGee as my "buddy"? Is he one of the attendees of recent UTCC meetings you characterized as one of my "henchmen"? What are the names of the Chicago cabdrivers you suppose are my "henchmen", Mr. Nathan?
You wrote: "(Mr. McGee) expressed his opinions and was well received on the whole. You would have been too."
What were those opinions, Mr. Nathan? Had I expressed different opinions, would you still presume that I would be "well-received"?
You wrote: "They gave me a chance to pop off."
What does that mean? What or how did you "pop off", Mr. Nathan?
You wrote: "I think it was a productive meeting overall."
How so?
You wrote: "When you boycott these meetings, you undermine the efforts of the taxi industry in Chicago and undercut organizing efforts in general."
Mr. Nathan, not attending a meeting with the likes of you and some others isn't a "boycott".
Explain how not attending a meeting called by Prateek Sampat can be construed as "undermining the efforts of the taxi industry" or "undercutting organizing efforts in general".
Mr. Nathan, are you working for Chicago cabdrivers exclusively or the "taxi industry" in general?
Aren't you a "director" of the CPTDA? Why weren't you listed as such on the invitation, as Wolf Weiss and Yi Tang were?
You wrote: "For the same reason, I think it a pity that George Lutfallah failed to show up."
Again, can you explain how not attending a meeting called by and attended by people who aren't Chicago cabdrivers, but in fact, people who have "undermined" and "undercut" Chicago cabdrivers who organize, is "undermining" or "undercutting" by George Lutfallah?
You wrote: "No one from the Dispatcher was present - a pity."
Was anyone else from the Chicago Dispatcher besides George Lutfallah invited?
You wrote: "George's attorney friend would certainly have been a welcome resource person"
Are you referring to Thomas Geoghegan? If so, why are you characterizing him as Mr. Lutfallah's "friend"?
I wouldn't refer to a lawyer of Mr. Geoghegan's prominence and caliber as a "resource person". I find it fascinating that you do.
You wrote: "Maybe next time you'll think better of it and you'll come to one of these meetings when invited."
Mr. Nathan, let me be clear. George Lutfallah rejected Prateek Sampat and you quite a while ago. After having similar experiences with both of you, I did the same.
There will be no "next time" when I might "think better", Mr. Nathan. I couldn't care less about being invited or not invited to any "unity" or "organizing" meeting involving Prateek Sampat, Yi Tang, or you. I simply won't attend.
You wrote: "They really are worth the while."
How so?
Now, Mr. Nathan, let me sum up:
Once again, your choice of words when characterizing people and describing what they do (and, in this case, not doing something) only confirms my decision made long ago to not associate with you whatsoever and quit suggesting to others that you might be a good "resource person".
You presume that all who were invited by Prateek Sampat of the American Friends Service Committee to a "Unity Forum" need to unite. I will not unite with anyone except Chicago cabdrivers.
Your unexplained insistence that "Chicago Metro" cabdrivers need to unite and your bothersome behavior prevent you from ever being welcomed by me as an individual cabdriver or as the President of the Chicago Cabdriver Organization (CCO).
I suggest that you spend your limited time addressing others who care about what you have to say or do and quit commenting about how George Lutfallah and I, (and anyone else), won't attend any meetings with the likes of you, Prateek Sampat, Yi Tang, or any other people who aren't current Chicago cabdrivers and spread misinformation damaging to the efforts and interests of those who are.
Simply put:
THERE WILL BE NO UNITY WITH DONALD NATHAN, PRATEEK SAMPAT, OR YI TANG.
THEY AREN'T CURRENT CHICAGO CABDRIVERS. THEY AREN'T NECESSARY. THEY'VE HURT US MORE THAN THEY'VE HELPED.
THERE WILL BE MORE UNITY AMONGST CHICAGO CABDRIVERS WITHOUT THEM.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Why did you blow off the chance to make your opinions heard today, Foulks? You were certainly invited to come to the "Unity Forum" and would have been welcomed. Your buddy Greg McGee was there, expressed his opinions and was well received on the whole. You would have been too. They gave me a chance to pop off. I think it was a productive meeting overall.
When you boycott these meetings, you undermine the efforts of the taxi industry in Chicago and undercut organizing efforts in general.
For the same reason, I think it a pity that George Lutfallah failed to show up. No one from the Dispatcher was present - a pity. George's attorney friend would certainly have been a welcome resource person, and it would have been an appropriate place and time to meet him.
Too bad.
Maybe next time you'll think better of it and you'll come to one of these meetings when invited. They really are worth the while.
Donald Nathan
A mispelling of a name was your best reason not to attend. You need another 24 months.
