Peter,
Are you entitled to violate the rules of this forum? You seem to think so. You see Peter, I don't allow people to repost items. You know that.
If you think that an item that has already been posted is that important, you may send me an email and explain why and I'll consider making that item "sticky." Is it beneath you to do that?
But instead, you break the rules so that when I delete your duplicate postings, you can paint me as a censor. That's the kind of thing that will get you blocked. That's also been publicized.
So, I've deleted another of your duplicate postings.
Furthermore, please don't post as "Secretary, UTCC" or anything like that. You lost that privilege when you made your threats. I had allowed you to brand your organization and to promote your meetings on this site without asking you for a thing. I was never even thanked for it. Instead you told lies and made threats.
You may post using your name and discuss issues that are important to you rather than post under some made-up title in a made-up organization and pretend that you are representing drivers.
If you would like to advertise, you'll pay for it.
George
Since I posted this, Peter Enger posted a duplicate posting again, which I just deleted. Due to his blatant contempt for the policies of this forum - policies which I follow myself - Peter has been temporarily banned from this forum.
George
George,
I hope that you will find the following comment by Mike Foulks is very offensive:
"Diane Santucci and Raja Khan obviously like each other enough to get and stay married".
Do they have anything to do with this felon?
The following house rules apply to the Chicago Dispatcher Discussion forum for Chicago's taxi drivers in order to maintain order within an open forum:
1) No flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage anyone's character.
2) Do not post material that violates copyright, privacy, patent, trademark or other intellectual property.
3) Please keep topics limited to the taxi trade.
4) Private information about any person, place or activity or information that cannot be verified in publicly accessible information is not permitted.
5) No commercial postings.
6) Do not collect email addresses from the forum (where available) for the purpose of spamming, mass email or advertising.
7) Moderator may remove any posting that points out the moderator's mistakes, errors and misinformation whether deliberate or accidental, from the forum without notice or explanation. We will try to resolve conflicts but we are not obligated to do so, it is easier just delete or bury undesired facts and hope nobody will notice.
8) Forum contributors use this service at their own risk and are subject to prevailing local, state and federal law, to Bravenet Terms of Service and to abusive attacks, flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage one's character by the moderator's friends and assignees.
ALL CONTRIBUTORS ARE WARNED TO PRACTICE CAUTION WHEN USING THIS FORUM TO ENGAGE IN ANY INTELLECTUAL OR SOCIO-CULTURALLY MEANINGFUL TOPIC. (IT WILL NOT HAPPEN HERE!)
9) The taxi trade is a respectable profession. Do not insult cabdrivers or their profession on this forum. Complaints against cyberstalkers, cabdrivers or cab companies should be directed to the appropriate regulating or law enforcement agency.
10) This forum is provided as a free service of the Chicago Dispatcher and therefor it is subject to our terms of service, prevailing local, state and federal law, Bravenet Terms of Service and to abusive attacks, flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage one's character by the moderator's friends and assignees.
"Clueless",
What rule did I break?
Please explain how you are "very" offended by:
"Diane Santucci and Raja Khan obviously like each other enough to get and stay married".
Isn't this true?
Weren't you aware of their marriage?
They are both WOLF-WEISS-CPTDA "Directors", too, according to the WOLF-WEISS-CPTDA website.
You really are "Clueless", aren't you?
Aren't you Yi Tang, another "Director" of the WOLF-WEISS CPTDA?
Isn't lawyer Donald Nathan also part of your group?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
George,
I hope that you will find the following comment by Mike Foulks is very offensive:
"Diane Santucci and Raja Khan obviously like each other enough to get and stay married".
Do they have anything to do with this felon?
The question is that "Is there anything we can learn from YOU?"
Have you spotted another "dysfunctional"?
Do these two or any others have anything to do with you, your conviction, or your extended family members?
May be you should read the "true" version of the court record to us once for all, in case we don't really know how.
The last resort of the guilty "What? Me? What did I do wrong?"
I have seen it hundreds of times on COPS and in real life, dumb criminals getting caught and having that dumbfounded look of obvious guilt all over them.
Mr. "Don Woods",
COPS is an entertaining and informative show. It is "reality TV" as it should be.
However, your quip about COPS doesn't answer my question I put to "Clueless":
What rule did I break?
How is pointing out that Raja Khan and Diane Santucci are, in fact, married, "very offensive" to "Clueless"?
Or didn't you know this either?
I'm sure that the casual reader of the "non-profit" CPTDA website wouldn't know this.
What do you think about the "integrity" of a "non-profit" which consists of a husband and wife, as opaquely as CPTDA does?
Were you aware that CPTDA is "directed" by a guy who is one-half of another married couple involved in a "non-profit"? (Wolf Weiss and Shannon Weiss, CRRC)
If you think that none of this is anybody's business, you're wrong; these groups qualify for tax-exemptions. That makes them everybody's business.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
The last resort of the guilty "What? Me? What did I do wrong?"
I have seen it hundreds of times on COPS and in real life, dumb criminals getting caught and having that dumbfounded look of obvious guilt all over them.
"#1 - No flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage another's character."
Also Local, State and Federal cyberstalking laws regarding "flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage another's character."
Chapter 7 - The Art of Flaming
Copyright © 1990-2006 Albion.com and Seth T. Ross, CISSP
http://www.albion.com/netiquette and http://www.sethross.com
Although flames often get out of hand, they have a purpose in the ecology of cyberspace. Many flames are aimed at teaching someone something (usually in overstated language) or stopping them from doing something (like offending other people). Flame messages often use more brute force than is strictly necessary, but that's half the fun.
Netiquette does ask that you consider the art of flaming before pulling out the flame-thrower. Any wannabe with an email account can ignite a firestorm of ill-conceived and boring flames. It takes diligence and creativity to pull off an artful flame. Who knows -- if your flame is good enough, you might even make it into the Hall of Flame (see "Flame newsgroups" on page 79).
Choose your flames well
If you must flame, don't flame gratuitously. Choose your target with care. In other words, hold back on flaming the newcomer to a discussion group who asks a dumb question. Or the prophet of doom who posts his "the end is near" message to the entire USENET newsgroup hierarchy. (Endnote #14) In addition, think twice before flaming the gurus on the net. This won't earn you popularity points and, most likely, the guru will have the last word. Remember that a poorly executed flame is worse than no flame at all.
Know your facts before you start flaming
Any time you flame you're going out on a limb. Check your facts. Check your spelling. Check your citations if you've quoted someone else. Check that you're sending it to the right group. Submit the flame to a sanity check, remembering that the net never forgets.
Use FLAME ON/FLAME OFF markers
It's good form to warn readers that you're about to let off steam. Just write "FLAME ON" at the beginning of a diatribe to let readers know what's coming. That way, they may still be offended, but at least they were warned. Additionally, the "FLAME ON" marker can indicate that you yourself don't take the diatribe entirely seriously. When you've finished flaming, write "FLAME OFF" and resume normal discourse.
Don't respond to flame-bait
Flame-bait is a public statement deliberately designed to provoke flames. Usually those who post flame-bait are looking for attention. You're best off not giving it.
Avoid needless escalation
One sure way to escalate a flame war is to expand the battleground. This can be accomplished by carbon copying the world on your flames or by cross-posting your flame to other discussion groups. There's nothing worse than an escalating flame war that barges into the middle of a civil discussion. Usually the innocent readers didn't witness the beginning of the war and thus don't have the context necessary to pick the winner. The skillful flamer keeps the heat in the proper place and avoids needless escalation.
Flame wars
The USENET news group rec.food.veg is famous for its flame wars. One favorite of mine was about whether vegans or omnivores were more subject to vitamin B-12 deficiencies. It got pretty ugly.
Flame wars can be amusing for the twisted among us to read. (I particularly enjoy reading the outrageous flames sent by readers complaining about the flame wars.) Nevertheless, it's generally considered rude to subject other readers in a discussion group to a protracted flame war, especially when it gets personal. Perhaps more important, prolonged participation in a flame war can get you a really bad reputation on a discussion group. Imagine losing the respect of hundreds -- even thousands -- of people you've never even met! If you want that kind of abuse, you might as well run for president; the pay is better if you win.
USENET participant Graham Wolff Christian points out that flame wars are almost ubiquitous. He writes
*Every* discussion list of which I have been a part--no matter what its subject--has fallen victim to such ills--a few have gone down in e-flames. The pattern is absolutely consistent. Writer A drops a light remark--always *tangential* to the main discussion. Writer B interprets the message in the worst possible light and fires off an outraged reply, in which writer A is called a racist, a classist, a fascist--whatever seems to apply. Writers C-L chime in, rather like the crowds in a DeMille film, muttering "Shame!" or "I agree!" or "A is right!" or "B is right!" Writer A replies saying, "Gosh, it was just a joke. I'm not a fascist. Lighten up." Writer B says, "This issue (the South, date rape, Nicaragua) is DEADLY SERIOUS. I won't lighten up. I won't." By the time things have cooled down, Writers A and B have left the list; or Writers N-DD have left the list; or the list has died. These are not *odd* occasions--they happen to *every list.*
In the worst-case scenario, a protracted flame war can destroy a discussion group. Inevitably, the least common denominator principle takes hold, and the group sinks to the level of the loudest and lowest flamers.
"Don Woods", how did I violate rule #1?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
"#1 - No flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage another's character."
Also Local, State and Federal cyberstalking laws regarding "flaming, threats, personal insults, obscenity, libel, slander or remarks that damage another's character."
mike do you have a brain? don't you know when you do something? if you don't know it, who does?
i said knock it off.
go to your cco1 website to see how you violate rule #1
like below:
Date Posted: Dec 1, 07 - 6:49 PM
if you accuse me of 'taking' anything from anybody, you'll be hearing 'Mr. Foulks' over and over again in a courtroom and you'll be saying it out of fear or respect before I finish with you in the street.
By the way, you're 3/8ths schmuck.
Name: Mike Foulks
Date Posted: Dec 5, 07 - 1:51 AM
Keep on suggesting that I hate any particular group at your own risk. I am not above breaking your bones, no matter your age.
I hope my answer to your question is painfully obvious...like a foot in your ass.
Mike Foulks
Date Posted: May 9, 08 - 10:05 PM
Come get some, Wolf-howl, if you can keep your fangs off of Tang and Nathan's schlongs.
Do you want to see my wee-wee?
Do I have to kick you in your ass for you to figure that I am not a "figment"?
Mr. Flaimin' Foulks' reference to the CPTDA and the CRRC stating "these groups qualify for tax-exemptions" and his statement "That makes them everybody's business" are both incorrect.
Here is the general breakdown on not-for profit and non-profit or tax exempt status:
A not-for-profit corporate status (a sate charter) does not automatically provide federal or state tax exemptions.
A not-for-profit corporation must file and be granted a non-profit or tax-exempt status, which if granted provides discounts on postage, charitable donation tax write-offs for people who give such organizations money, exemption from local sales tax and other tax-exemptions and commercial discounts.
Not all not-for-profit corporations obtain a non-profit or tax exempt status, often referred to as a "501-3-c", which is reference to the provisions in the federal tax code.
A not-for-profit pays all taxes - employer-employee taxes on surplus income (profits in commercial enterprises) and is subject to all local and state taxes, just like a commercial enterprise.
In addition, not-for-profit employees and independent contractors must pay all applicable taxes, either on personal income or profits from their independent business.
The subtle difference between a for profit commercial enterprise corporation and a not-for profit corporation is that the latter is in business just to perform its stated functions and services, not make a profit and grow and expand like for-profit businesses do.
Neither of these groups are "501-3-c" status, thus the are neither tax exempt, nor non-profit nor charitable organizations. Thus, they are not necessarily anybody's business, especially not meddlers like Flamin' Mike Foulks.
Jack Spear
"Jack Spear",
Have you looked at the CPTDA website?
It says: "To engage in civic, educational and patriotic activities within the meaning of and compliance to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code."
If the CPTDA isn't actually a 501(c)(3), would this constitute a deceptive practice?
If the CPTDA and the CRRC do not qualify for tax-exemptions, are they non-profits in the conventional sense as described by state and federal law?
If the CPTDA and the CRRC aren't non-profits, why do their websites suggest or claim so?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Mr. Flaimin' Foulks' reference to the CPTDA and the CRRC stating "these groups qualify for tax-exemptions" and his statement "That makes them everybody's business" are both incorrect.
Here is the general breakdown on not-for profit and non-profit or tax exempt status:
A not-for-profit corporate status (a sate charter) does not automatically provide federal or state tax exemptions.
A not-for-profit corporation must file and be granted a non-profit or tax-exempt status, which if granted provides discounts on postage, charitable donation tax write-offs for people who give such organizations money, exemption from local sales tax and other tax-exemptions and commercial discounts.
Not all not-for-profit corporations obtain a non-profit or tax exempt status, often referred to as a "501-3-c", which is reference to the provisions in the federal tax code.
A not-for-profit pays all taxes - employer-employee taxes on surplus income (profits in commercial enterprises) and is subject to all local and state taxes, just like a commercial enterprise.
In addition, not-for-profit employees and independent contractors must pay all applicable taxes, either on personal income or profits from their independent business.
The subtle difference between a for profit commercial enterprise corporation and a not-for profit corporation is that the latter is in business just to perform its stated functions and services, not make a profit and grow and expand like for-profit businesses do.
Neither of these groups are "501-3-c" status, thus the are neither tax exempt, nor non-profit nor charitable organizations. Thus, they are not necessarily anybody's business, especially not meddlers like Flamin' Mike Foulks.
Jack Spear
Ola!
I g n o r a m u s.
Hee-haw he-haw heehaw!!!
You Long Eared Father of Fools.
Any d*mbf*ck knows you include that language in your not-for-profit corp articles in case you decide to go tax-exempt between the time you incororate and doomsday, because may want to provide services and operate as tax exempt or non-profit org. This language is legally required to be considered and approved by IRS.
Is says to do so in any good "How to incoprorate" self help book in the books store.
Oh yah, you are Donkey Breath, you don't read books, you eat them.
Flamin' Mad Mike Flakey Foulks is a d*mbsh*t full of b&llsh*t as usual.
What does CCO mean?
Cockroach Crap Oder?
Only people who think in Donkey can't figure out what "To engage in civic, educational and patriotic activities within the meaning of and compliance to section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, or the corresponding section of any future federal tax code"
means.
Shouldn't you name your not-for-real organization LEO, Long Eared Organs?
I have noticed many husband-and-wife teams both in private enterprise and not-for-profit organizations.
It seems to be spreading everywhere.
There is something going on, like married couples are taking over the world, business by business.
Before you know it, there will be husband-and-wife taxi owner teams, husband/wife charitable organizations, tax exempt organizations run by life-partner teams.
"Big Fat Mouth",
Was Michael L. Jackson a "life partner" of the non-profit he co-founded?
It seems that the "Hearts Foundation" had financial "questions", regardless.
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=7321
May Haroon Paryani rest forever in peace once Mr. Jackson enters his permanent residence in Hell.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I have noticed many husband-and-wife teams both in private enterprise and not-for-profit organizations.
It seems to be spreading everywhere.
There is something going on, like married couples are taking over the world, business by business.
Before you know it, there will be husband-and-wife taxi owner teams, husband/wife charitable organizations, tax exempt organizations run by life-partner teams.
It is good to know where he is now. I doubt he has ever confessed, or may be he is still appealing for his convictions. Who knows? There may be also a federal file somewhere classified.
http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/inms.asp
R55799 - JACKSON, MICHAEL
Parent Institution: Shawnee Correctional Center
Inmate Status: IN CUSTODY
Location: SHAWNEE
Discharge Reason:
VITALS
Date of Birth: 10-19-1967
Weight: 177 lbs.
Hair: Blonde or Strawberry
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 10 in.
Race: White
Eyes: Blue
MARKS, SCARS, & TATTOOS
ADMISSION / RELEASE / DISCHARGE INFO
Custody Date: 09/22/2006
Projected Parole Date: 04/03/2012
Paroled Date: --
Tentative Discharge Date:
Discharge From Parole: 04/03/2014
SENTENCING INFORMATION
MITTIMUS: 05CR0605401
CLASS: 1
COUNT: 1
OFFENSE: 2ND DEGREE MURDER
CUSTODY DATE: 01/27/2005
SENTENCE: 15 YEARS 0 MONTHS 0 DAYS
COUNTY: COOK
SENTENCE DISCHARGED?: NO
"Clueless", you truly are "Clueless".
Michael L. Jackson confessed to killing Paryani. He testified in his own defense in court.
He was appealing his conviction and sentence, I believe.
With good behavior, he will be a free man a less than 8 years after brutally murdering Mr. Paryani.
Why do you ask about bank robbers and sex offenders?
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It is good to know where he is now. I doubt he has ever confessed, or may be he is still appealing for his convictions. Who knows? There may be also a federal file somewhere classified.
http://www.idoc.state.il.us/subsections/search/inms.asp
R55799 - JACKSON, MICHAEL
Parent Institution: Shawnee Correctional Center
Inmate Status: IN CUSTODY
Location: SHAWNEE
Discharge Reason:
VITALS
Date of Birth: 10-19-1967
Weight: 177 lbs.
Hair: Blonde or Strawberry
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 10 in.
Race: White
Eyes: Blue
MARKS, SCARS, & TATTOOS
ADMISSION / RELEASE / DISCHARGE INFO
Custody Date: 09/22/2006
Projected Parole Date: 04/03/2012
Paroled Date: --
Tentative Discharge Date:
Discharge From Parole: 04/03/2014
SENTENCING INFORMATION
MITTIMUS: 05CR0605401
CLASS: 1
COUNT: 1
OFFENSE: 2ND DEGREE MURDER
CUSTODY DATE: 01/27/2005
SENTENCE: 15 YEARS 0 MONTHS 0 DAYS
COUNTY: COOK
SENTENCE DISCHARGED?: NO
The only good thing here is that this ***** SOB has aids. Perhaps he won't make it to the parole hearing. Does anyone remember what happened to Jeffrey Dahmer at trial?
Yes, you're right, he never was brought to trial/justice. Another inmate was paid to murder him. This assassin already was serving two life sentences. I'll bet this three time murderer is still alive in a prison in Wisconsin watching a flat screen and lounging around like a king. We need to import this guy to Shawnee and show him Michael L. Jackoffs picture.
This case really gets me upset. It is a clear example of the general public and the judge in this case looking at us as second class citizens. Less than six years? This is unacceptable! Jacksons dead body belongs in a hazardous waste dump. Nothing less. Does anyone reading think he would have gotten a death sentence in the State of Texas justice system? What if My Pyrani wasn't a taxi driver, but a well known doctor?
The word blocked out was qu ee r and yes I happen to know this guy was a ho mo too. Word from more than a few of the "boys town' irregulars that rode in my taxi in the days / weeks after it happened.
During his temporary ban from this forum, Peter Enger continued to violate the reasonable policies of this forum. He was warned that if he continued to violate these policies that his ban could be permanent. He continued to violate our policies. Thus he's been banned from this forum indefinately. If Mr. Enger wishes to have his suspension overturned, he may appeal by sending me an email.
George Lutfallah
Chicago Dispatcher
knock it off george
Dear Mr, Lutfallag,
Did you remove and/or bury your own re-posted articles, which contain numerous, errors, omissions and wrong info, because of this rule, or because of the rules that say when you screw and get caught, you hide or destroy the evidence?
It isn't a question of not being able to follow, but rather a question of not willing to follow the rules.
For examples of this behavior, which seems to be the norm in cyberspace - which would be deemed abnormal behavior in the reality-strewn world - see any and/or all of Master of Flamers posts.
Sincerely,
MOLR
We all know George's last name is LUTFALLAH, I hit the "g" key intead of the "h" key and didn't catch it before hitting "post." Really. Geo., no offense intended.
molr - the misspeller
you always allow to re post before. now you don't allow it?
don't mike foulks repost any poost all the time?
and mike foulks post before as 'president'. do you delete his post?
why don't you like UTCC? they are doing good things for cabdrivers. you say before you want to unity with cabdrives and all members are cabdrivers. i don't understand you george.
"jimmy",
I don't "re-post all the time". I only "re-post" my reply to someone else's re-post!
Donald Nathan was "re-posting" a lot. I think this is why the new rule was created.
It is annoying to have anyone copy and paste the exact same message in multiple places. All it does is force people who want to reply to do the same thing.
Posting any particular message in one spot should suiffice.
If you want to make anything a "sticky", all you have to do is ask Mr. Lutfallah to take it under consideration.
Mr. Lutfallah and/or Mr. Bullington has attended both CCO elections. All of the ballots are open for their inspection.
Neither has any doubt that I am the legitmately elected "President" of the CCO.
The are both quite aware that during both terms, all other electees failed to attend CCO meetings eventually, resulting in their removal.
All of the members of the UTCC shouldn't be held accountable for Peter Enger's obstinate disobedience of the rules and rightful requests that Mr. Lutfallah makes here.
Truth is, Peter Enger is only speaking for himself when he posts with "Secretary of the UTCC". There isn't any record that anybody elected Peter Enger to anything.
The "Chairman" of the UTCC doesn't even want to be the "Chairman". My advice would be for him is to renounce his "title" as it is clear that he is simply a figurehead who has no respected authority over Prateek Sampat, Peter Enger, or Steve Kim.
Additionally, the CCO isn't a commercial venture; it doesn't collect money according to it by-laws (which Mr. Lutfallah and Mr. Bullington also are quite aware of as I have provided them with copies).
The UTCC discriminated against me and other cabdrivers by not allowing us to attend their meetings and stating its intention and designs to COLLECT MONEY.
As Mr. Lutfallah has clearly stated, if Mr. Enger feels that he can promote his position in the commercial social-club "UTCC" at will, he is wrong.
He should pay for advertising if he wants his organization's name always at the top of the screen.
-Mike Foulks
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
you always allow to re post before. now you don't allow it?
don't mike foulks repost any poost all the time?
and mike foulks post before as 'president'. do you delete his post?
why don't you like UTCC? they are doing good things for cabdrivers. you say before you want to unity with cabdrives and all members are cabdrivers. i don't understand you george.
do you call him 'mr. lutfallah' when you're in bed together?
