Slip of the tongue, Pankaj Kapoor?
I mean, "Big Fat Mouth"?
"Us" as in you and Peter Enger, the "we" and "us" of the UTCC?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Us as in Chicago Taxi Drivers.
Not a slip. Just a clarification that I am not a UTCC member but a fellow driver that knows Peter Enger. If I were a judge you would still be in county. I agree with Nathans opinion Mike, you are dangerous.
Sounds like he's following Prateek Sampat's example.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
A fellow that wants to help us declines to share with us. He's making a great start.
While I did post this, I will also say that George Lutfallah has been known to realize he has made a mistake. Perhaps George will indeed join forces with other groups to make things better for us. George has been called out in the past for help. While the current belief then was that he was afraid of city hall, he might still surprise us all.
I for one want to make sure that George knows that I now understand why his publication has a overflow of advertisements and is now weekly with less real content. Newspapers do not grow on trees contrary to popular belief. He needs this ad revenue to continue. We as drivers have never contributed one red cent to his paper.
I for one am going to cut George a break and see if his content can match the advertising before throwing another stone his way. My only request of George is that I wish he would work with all of us out here trying to make a living and not shut a person or group out. George can end up a hero here if he wants to. On the other hand, Mr. D. Foulks you have been demasked. Do you need more of the truth?
But "Big Fat Mouth" hides behind a mask still! The only "truth" we need is your name..
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
While I did post this, I will also say that George Lutfallah has been known to realize he has made a mistake. Perhaps George will indeed join forces with other groups to make things better for us. George has been called out in the past for help. While the current belief then was that he was afraid of city hall, he might still surprise us all.
I for one want to make sure that George knows that I now understand why his publication has a overflow of advertisements and is now weekly with less real content. Newspapers do not grow on trees contrary to popular belief. He needs this ad revenue to continue. We as drivers have never contributed one red cent to his paper.
I for one am going to cut George a break and see if his content can match the advertising before throwing another stone his way. My only request of George is that I wish he would work with all of us out here trying to make a living and not shut a person or group out. George can end up a hero here if he wants to. On the other hand, Mr. D. Foulks you have been demasked. Do you need more of the truth?
Peter,
I didn't accept or decline anything.
You called me and told me that you were writing a story for your newsletter about the meeting at the Chicago Dispatcher office regarding unionizing.
My quote to you was and is, "If you wanted to know what happened in the meeting you should have come to the meeting and asked questions, rather than sit across the street in your broken down van like a creep taking pictures of us."
This was my quote to you. As I said, you may use this quote for your story.
George
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
he declined to be interviewed
george,
i won't be using that quote. it is a meaningless statement which does not further any dialogue or useful discourse. i asked you a yes or no question. will you consent to be interviewed concerning the meeting with the lawyer Geoghagan. you declined even to answer. rhetorically, it is called begging the question, but your answer had the effect of declining even to answer.
george, firstly, i was not invited to the meeting by you. you were the one who called the meeting. even melissa callahan was not invited, as she called me the night before to find out if i'd heard about it.
secondly, we in the UTCC make decisions by committee, and we had decided it would be fruitless to attend, as we had found out that you had already hired Geoghagan, so ostensibly he could only do your bidding as far as answering question. that is the nature of the client-lawyer relationship. you hire them. they do what you hire them to do.
thirdly, as i mentioned to you i had been busy that night and couldn't attend anyway. you scoffed at this statement. the fact is i do volunteer work for a women's shelter, and that night i had a small moving job to do for one of the women. no lie.
you can call it 'like a creep' all you want, but what i did was no different than what jonathan bullington has done at the last 3 events of ours he's 'covered': hang around, take pictures, don't talk to anybody, then leave and either write a story or not. at least i've had the decency to seek out some of the attendees to ask their impression of this event, unlike jonathan.
by the way, he is your employee also, so i am only led to assume he must do your bidding also. i have been surprised at his behavior, as other journalists i've spoken to who have been at the same events have told me the normal journalistic protocol would be to interview the actors or bystanders to get quotes about what they're doing.
my question to you is: since you decline to be interviewed about your ideas and plans for a union for us drivers, and you don't seem interested in addressing the questions i've posted here, would you consent to my doing an interview with your lawyer? he's informed us he can't talk to any drivers without your consent, as you're his client.
peter, editor, UTCC Voice
ps. semantically and according to the rules of logic, it's not 'lying' to NOT say something that happened.
George, Peter ask you the interview and whatever reason you do not say yes to have an interview. The meaning is 'No'. Am I wrong?
Let me strait ask you one thing. When we UTCC have a rally for safety placard in front of DCS, your Jonathan Bullington came there. Do you know what he did? Ofcause you know very well what he did.
But to clarify what he did, I will tell you in here. Jonathan Bullington came to our rally and press confrence.And he take a picture like a creep as he did before the rally of Mr Chen case.
And then, he did not interview with any body of taxi driver at that place.
It was very strange to me, and other drivers.
(When I saw picture for your ghost meeting, I aware Jonathan Bullington have a skill for picture as large number of people in the meeting can change a few people attendee, but a few people attendee can not change to large number. What a great his picture skill!)
What Jonathan Bullington make a news for our rally in your news paper? You know it what you order to Jonathan Bullington.You try to broke our effort for the safety issue of all taxi driver with writing of Commissioner's interview.
You may ask me what's the wrong of that news in your paper.
Here is the answered question with my kindness.So you should make a answer to understand what did you wrong.
1. Do you and Jonathan Bullington know what is the law for safety placard?
2. If you and Jonathan Bullington know it, why you did not ask to commissioner like " Law is clear" and her comment do not proper. But you and Jonathan Bullinton didn't do it. Because you do not want to see anything about UTCC's successful action, even that was right work for Taxi driver of IL.
3. If you and Jonathan Bullington do not know about the safety placard by law, then you should not make a news with improper information, even it was through interview from commisioner. Because you and Jonathan Bullington should not do such kinds of news without knowlegde for safety placard which is mandatory to bring in public vehecle by law.
The both way you did is wrong and guilty to every taxi driver. Because you do not infrom them what is the truth and fact.
As I said you have a gun which fire to all of taxi driver, but your target is wrong. Without knowledge for the fact, I told you that kinds of action is very harmful to taxi driver who try to live with current difficult situation.
To return the subject peter's interview for you, it is simple you do not have a interview with peter.So Peter gave you a chance to protect yourself, but anyhow you reject it. That is what you wrote in here.
But I believe Peter will make sure the story very fair to everybody, not like you did to UTCC. Peter fail to have a interview with you, but he will have an interview with person who attended in your meeting.So His sincere action is better than Jonathan Bullinton and you. One more thing; Peter gave you one more chance to clarify the meeting of yours by yourself in this forum again. How he is so nice person(you and jonathan bullinton did not interview and make a news as you want to twist a fact, but Peter do not like you)? Am I right,isn't it? So you can make an answer in this forum. Everybody will see your answer at once.
Steve Kim
"George, Peter ask you the interview and whatever reason you do not say yes to have an interview. The meaning is 'No'. Am I wrong?"
Steve, please answer the following question with a yes or no answer:
Have you ever been caught ripping off passengers?
Yes or no? If you don't say yes, your answer is 'No'. Am I wrong?
George
who is george who is using language like i warned you not to lie. this is aggressive talk. police give warnings. or bullies. is george acting like a police or bully?
"pauli" "johal" "mr. hernandez" and "hassan" seem to be the same person...Peter Enger?
Please see the new thread posted above..........
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
who is george who is using language like i warned you not to lie. this is aggressive talk. police give warnings. or bullies. is george acting like a police or bully?
Who cares?
