Uber

can someone explain the functional difference between a taxi ride and a rideshare (as is being used here)?
because it seems to me they're the same thing. unless i've been mistaking the definition of the word 'share' all my life.

Dravokivich

makeorbrake wrote: »

And yet ride sharing flourishes in other markets. Go figure.

Why do you keep calling it ride sharing?

Deleted User wrote: »

On a side note, you are surely aware that once Uber burns through the last of its funds its fubar. It'll have to do one or a combination of the following

1. raise prices to normal local rates

2. slash the percentages paid to drivers

If their model isn't sustainable, then why the concern from taxi drivers and others? Get some popcorn and sit back and watch it implode then.

Deleted User wrote: »

3. Hope they can crack autonomous driving in all their markets asap. This will allow them to drop all drivers at which point they become a fleet owner
While #3 is most definitely on the way at some point, there's no way it'll be here before the funds run dry.

Autonomous driving - they're already doing in a part of the 'states. Autonomous driving is not far away for certain markets. However, the approach in Ireland proves that we will be among the last to implement - always the straggler. I guess the next issue they have to tackle is taxi drivers jumping out in front of autonomous vehicles, right? Other than that, it's ready to go.
I guess we can bring in a regulation here that the autonomous entity isn't 'professionally trained' to the point where it can talk ****e at will to passengers...and keep it out of the market on that basis.

magicbastarder wrote: »

can someone explain the functional difference between a taxi ride and a rideshare (as is being used here)?
because it seems to me they're the same thing. unless i've been mistaking the definition of the word 'share' all my life.

If they're the same, how is there even a discussion. How has the sharing economy become a thing worldwide?

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why do you keep calling it ride sharing?

As opposed to what, then?

Dravokivich

makeorbrake wrote: »

As opposed to what, then?

It's just a very vague and odd phrase to describe the action of carrying a passenger. The intent behind the action is also for profit, so to what degree is the ride being shared? Such as with carpooling, where one would generally expect to contribute a portion of the cost. Uber isn't sold as a service to relate carpooling and routes with drivers and passengers.

Dravokivich wrote: »

Uber isn't sold as a service to relate carpooling and routes with drivers and passengers.

We could get into that on this discussion but there's no point in teasing it out - as the naysayers here won't tolerate any form of ride sharing service that isn't snuffed out by being lumped in with an unworkable regulation (that is inappropriate for ride sharing).

Pointless getting into it until such time there's an acceptance that it should be enabled. That won't happen as even 'pure' ride sharing with eat their lunch. I'm fine with that - they and the 'race to the bottom' protectionist brigade are not.

Markcheese

I don't think uber is a taxi company, they are the equivalent of a cab office, directing vehicles to collect fares, those vehicles (and drivers) have to have psv licenses to operate..Yes they're not directly based in Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter... But its no more revolutionary than East cork cabs on the main street in Midleton..

Does it deserve its own special place,? devoid of regs..? Just because its a tech company..

Whats to stop any other cab company routing their bookings through an online app, (my taxi..)
And then saying the law doesn't apply to me..
Because I've an app..

Markcheese wrote: »

I don't think uber is a taxi company,

Apparently, you disagree with the ECJ ruling (which - more or less indicates the same). You can expect a scolding shortly on that as the law is the law and it's not to be questioned..ever.

Markcheese wrote: »

Whats to stop any other cab company routing their bookings through an online app, (my taxi..)
And then saying the law doesn't apply to me..
Because I've an app..

I think you're missing the point as regards the extent to the innovation. Sure, the app based approach is an innovation - and yes, that aspect of it can and is being applied in the taxi context.

However, the major potential is for the enablement and empowerment of people to use their existing cars and simply ride share when they're going from point A to point B. The app facilitates that - it's a necessary part of it. IF regulated correctly, it makes for a far greater use of the existing car stock. It lessens the cost of transportation for the driver - and it lessens the cost for the passenger.

Dravokivich

makeorbrake wrote: »

We could get into that on this discussion but there's no point in teasing it out - as the naysayers here won't tolerate any form of ride sharing service that isn't snuffed out by being lumped in with an unworkable regulation (that is inappropriate for ride sharing).

Pointless getting into it until such time there's an acceptance that it should be enabled. That won't happen as even 'pure' ride sharing with eat their lunch. I'm fine with that - they and the 'race to the bottom' protectionist brigade are not.

But that isn't what's happening here. Carpooling is something that comes up, although rarely, but not a type of action that gets dismissed. The issue with uber's descriptor of ride sharing, is that its describing and providing an opportunity for a taxi service in everything but name. The drivers going out collecting a "ride share," are unlikely to have a destination of their own in mind. They are patrolling an area waiting for a job to be presented. The people who've been supportive of uber here, dont seem to differentiate the service offered by uber, the same way you are.

Dravokivich wrote: »

But that isn't what's happening here. Carpooling is something that comes up, although rarely, but not a type of action that gets dismissed. The issue with uber's descriptor of ride sharing, is that its describing and providing an opportunity for a taxi service in everything but name. The drivers going out collecting a "ride share," are unlikely to have a destination of their own in mind. They are patrolling an area waiting for a job to be presented. The people who've been supportive of uber here, dont seem to differentiate the service offered by uber, the same way you are.

If you get all of the recent participants on this thread to agree that ride sharing in the format you describe is fine - and they're fine with that and it doesn't need to be snuffed out as per current regulation, then there's some point to having that discussion.

Ridesharing could be regulated to discern the difference in what you describe but I guarantee you most of the naysayers here will have none of it (because in its pure format - ride sharing will still eat their lunch).

LuckyLloyd

makeorbrake wrote: »

You have your opinion - and that's fine. If you think it's intelligent to blindly accept someone else making decisions and ALWAYS getting it right, then maybe you're better off being oblivious.

Ridesharing and uber are interpreted differently in different markets. What's more, consumers have shown that they WANT the service - and that to me is the bottom line.

Sorry, to be clear: it doesn't matter what "opinion" you or I might have when the highest court in the land has made a clear interpretation on the matter. It is legal fact that Uber are a transport company providing taxi services. What other markets may say or do is irrelevant - the ECJ are going to support any regulator in a member state defining Uber as a taxi service. Victory to the taxi lobby or no, it is highly unlikely that the position will change in Ireland anytime soon.

I await actual innovation in the transport market with widespread use of driverless cars. But let me tell ya: if you think a few taxi lobbies and humble regulators are frustrating opponents of "innovation", wait until your company faces the insurance lobbies. Ye better lawyer up.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Sorry, to be clear: it doesn't matter what "opinion" you or I might have when the highest court in the land has made a clear interpretation on the matter. It is legal fact that Uber are a transport company providing taxi services. What other markets may say or do is irrelevant - the ECJ are going to support any regulator in a member state defining Uber as a taxi service. Victory to the taxi lobby or no, it is highly unlikely that the position will change in Ireland anytime soon.

You are posting the very same thing again. Perhaps your opinion isn't important to you - but mine is to me. I'm capable of free thought. I'm also capable of figuring out that decisions (in law, regulation or anywhere else) can be blinded by prejudice or political...or just plain wrong. If you want everyone to follow like blind sheep, then that's the route of national socialism.

Regulation and law with regard to ridesharing varies globally - they didn't all reach the same decision....ergo...someone is wrong somewhere.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

But let me tell ya: if you think a few taxi lobbies and humble regulators are frustrating opponents of "innovation", wait until your company faces the insurance lobbies. Ye better lawyer up.

Who is "your" company"?
And as regards issues with the insurance industry in Ireland - well, this thread is symptomatic of that. All about self interest. I'm under no illusions about the nature of that industry in ireland - but that doesn't in any way make me feel warm and fuzzy about the taxi industry, regulators or your precious ECJ ruling.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If they're the same, how is there even a discussion. How has the sharing economy become a thing worldwide?

what others examples akin to 'ridesharing' are there in the sharing economy?

airbnb certainly isn't one. the car equivalent of airbnb would not be that you'd be paying someone to drive you somewhere, the equivalent would be hiring their car off them when they don't need it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

what others examples akin to 'ridesharing' are there in the sharing economy?

airbnb certainly isn't one. the car equivalent of airbnb would not be that you'd be paying someone to drive you somewhere, the equivalent would be hiring their car off them when they don't need it.

Peer to Peer lending.

Crowdfunding

Co-working

The market for personal data - which is in its infancy and going to be huge.

House sharing

Not an exhaustive list by any stretch of the imagination.

i think you're struggling with the definition of the word 'sharing' still.
someone paying someone else to drive them somewhere is not 'sharing a ride'. it's a taxi by any way you want to dance around the definition.
car pooling is ride sharing, and that's a *very* different proposition to what uber offer.

i just entered into a beer sharing arrangement with the offie across the road. they have shared their beer with me for €8, but i get to drink it all.
this is fantastically disruptive. i must tell my tech bros about it.

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think you're struggling with the definition of the word 'sharing' still.
someone paying someone else to drive them somewhere is not 'sharing a ride'. it's a taxi by any way you want to dance around the definition.
car pooling is ride sharing, and that's a *very* different proposition to what uber offer.

I'm not struggling at all.

Airbnb or Uber. What's the difference? Also post no. 581. All asked and answered.

(and by the way, those examples - check out any literature on the sharing economy - they'll all pop up).

makeorbrake wrote: »

Airbnb or Uber. What's the difference?

as mentioned, the airbnb equivalent of uber is hiring your car to someone when you don't need it. that's not a complex concept.
the uber equivalent of airbnb is an actual bed and breakfast.

anyway, over and out. it's clear we'll have to beg to differ on what simple words mean.

magicbastarder wrote: »

as mentioned, the airbnb equivalent of uber is hiring your car to someone when you don't need it.

Actually, that's another feature of the sharing economy that you just touched on - thanks for bringing it up. Car Sharing....with the likes of Zipcar, etc. However, to your previous point (and the attitudes expressed in this thread feeding into that), between the workings of the insurance industry and a failure in IRL to facilitate the rapid uptake of new technology and innovation, IRL will be left behind on that front too.

But car sharing, thank you - points on the board. :-D

makeorbrake wrote: »

No, I'm not. They're still a technology company. They're based in silicon valley just in case that escaped your attention.

You're shifting the goalposts yet again. You claimed that 'they're a technology company because they operate an app'. So is every company that operates an app a technology company? Or is this like the 'name the four companies' question that you keep avoiding?

makeorbrake wrote: »

For one reason, right? Because his opinion doesn't match up with yours.

Funnily enough, No. It's not because his opinion doesn't match mine. It's because his opinion is totally unrealistic. It would never happen. It would never be politically acceptable. It would not be legal under the current statutory powers of the regulator. It would not be reasonable for the reasons spook pointed out. It has never happened in any country in the world, and it's not going to happen here.

makeorbrake wrote: »

And I am seeing a trend here also. Three of you now being deliberately obtuse about something that in the greater context of the discussion makes no earthly difference.

The difference is whether you're being honest and accurate or whether you're spoofing. Would you like to name the four companies and prove us wrong? Would you like to confirm whether any company that operates an app is a tech company?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Why should your champagne socialism come into a discussion like this? A 'race to the bottom' my hole. Irish taxi's have been notorious for years - and not for these 'standards' you speak of. Consumers are being deprived of an innovative approach - as are the driving public (in terms of the ability to offer it) to appease taxi drivers.
As regards your living wage - if ride sharing has that impact, its quite simple. Go do something else. That's what the rest of us have to do in other industries when they get disrupted.

Says the libertarian fan-boy rushing to destroy an industry in the name of the 'free market'. Fortunately, the regulators manage to see the big picture that you're missing. The 'go do something else' will destroy an important service industry, one that provides an important service for the tourist sector and other sectors. Open your eyes and see the big picture.

makeorbrake wrote: »

This is like the Goebbels Ministry of Information. Ask irish people if they can participate in ride sharing here - as a driver or as a customer. The answer is no.

This is the classic 'fake news' technique. If you want facts, you don't 'ask the people'. With all due respect, the people don't know their arses from their elbows. The answer you get is the public perception of an issue, not the facts of the issue. The facts remain, Uber and other ride-sharers are welcome to provide services in Ireland, provided they meet the same standards for drivers and vehicles. That's the facts.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Applying taxi regulation to ride sharing stifles innovation.

This proves the point beautifully that there really is no innovation from Uber or similar ride sharing models. My uncle did 'ride sharing' in the 70s. He took the family car out, bolted the roof sign on, checked in with base by radio and collected his customers. He worked whatever hours he wanted.
There's nothing new in Uber, except an attempt to bypass regulations.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Where i'm living right now, everyone that I know uses ride sharing applications. If it wasn't innovative, then it simply wouldn't have become a thing. And of course, it cant be innovative if its stymied - like it is in the irish context.

Of course everyone uses it if it's cheap - cheap because it bypasses the standards and regulations required of taxi drivers. Should we do the same for doctors? Let's put unqualified, untested doctors out there in the name of the libertarian dream and 'give the consumers what they want' regardless of the risk involved or the long term impact?

makeorbrake wrote: »

And you're entitled to your opinion. Mine is that ride sharing is deserving of being enabled through forward thinking, progressive regulation.

Fortunately, the regulators here are far more forward thinking and progressive than you will ever be.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Sure, can be provided for when it gets the dedicated regulation that it deserves.

It already has the regulation that it deservces - the same standards of driver and vehicle as taxi services.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You have your opinion - and that's fine. If you think it's intelligent to blindly accept someone else making decisions and ALWAYS getting it right, then maybe you're better off being oblivious.

It's kinda quaint how you assume that anyone who has a different opinion to you is 'blindly accepting' of others, when that's exactly what you're doing yourself. You really don't know much about transport policy. I don't know much about transport policy myself, but I know enough to know what I don't know. You don't know what you don't know. You can't see beyond the end of your nose past the price paid to understand the long term impacts.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There's more of a protectionist/socialist leaning in Europe - and that's why Europe and European countries remain behind the curve in technological innovation by comparison with the U.S. and Asia.

Yeah, terrible how Europe provides those basic minimum standards like data protection, healthcare and simple human rights compared to those more 'innovative' societies.

makeorbrake wrote: »

If their model isn't sustainable, then why the concern from taxi drivers and others? Get some popcorn and sit back and watch it implode then.

Because regulators and policy makers don't play with people's lives. This isn't a game for your entertainment. This is real life. It's important stuff.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ridesharing could be regulated to discern the difference in what you describe but I guarantee you most of the naysayers here will have none of it (because in its pure format - ride sharing will still eat their lunch).

Please do give some details of how ridesharing could be regulated to discern the difference in drivers making journeys that they would have made anyway vs journeys that they wouldn't have made unless they were being paid as taxi drivers. I do home this isn't another one of your 'four companies' empty claims. Bonus points if you can point to any one country that has done this kind of regulation.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You are posting the very same thing again. Perhaps your opinion isn't important to you - but mine is to me. I'm capable of free thought. I'm also capable of figuring out that decisions (in law, regulation or anywhere else) can be blinded by prejudice or political...or just plain wrong. If you want everyone to follow like blind sheep, then that's the route of national socialism.

This just might wreck your head a bit, but is possible that you really don't know as much about transport policy as you think you do.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You're shifting the goalposts yet again. You claimed that 'they're a technology company because they operate an app'. So is every company that operates an app a technology company? Or is this like the 'name the four companies' question that you keep avoiding?

And you're yet again being disingenuous and obtuse. I didn't shift any goalposts. You could create RenkoApp for a few quid - as a dumb app. That's not comparable to the Uber app - what it does and what it facilitates (and no, facilitate doesn't mean sub-contract or anything similar. It just means facilitate).
The 4 companies nonsense - asked and answered multiple times. It's of no consequence as we (the original poster who brought up the topic - and i) agreed that it was of no consequence. What you're engaging in here (like a few before you) is deliberately obtuse and not in line with a genuine will to discuss the subject.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Funnily enough, No. It's not because his opinion doesn't match mine. It's because his opinion is totally unrealistic. It would never happen. It would never be politically acceptable. It would not be legal under the current statutory powers of the regulator. It would not be reasonable for the reasons spook pointed out. It has never happened in any country in the world, and it's not going to happen here.

He called you out. The point he made is that one inequitable regulation is wrong (when it doesn't work in the favour of taxi drivers) and the other inequitable regulation is fine (when it works in the favour of taxi drivers). That's the point he made - and he's quite right to correct you on it.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The difference is whether you're being honest and accurate or whether you're spoofing. Would you like to name the four companies and prove us wrong? Would you like to confirm whether any company that operates an app is a tech company?

The difference is that you (and others) are being deliberately obtuse. You can't let your point of view stand. Rather than thrash it out honestly, you're trying to play the man - not the ball. It's been done to death - upon its first mention, it was clarified that it's irrelevant to the discussion. You (and others) can go again and again on this - and my answer will be the same (and rightly so).
On the tech company / app thing, asked and answered (see above and see other posts).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Says the libertarian fan-boy rushing to destroy an industry in the name of the 'free market'. Fortunately, the regulators manage to see the big picture that you're missing. The 'go do something else' will destroy an important service industry, one that provides an important service for the tourist sector and other sectors. Open your eyes and see the big picture.

There's a lot of hurt there, right? Ordinarily, I'd empathise but the interaction on this thread (together with the pitiful reputation of the taxi 'industry' and lobby in ireland) mean I'm all out. You need to compete like everyone else. If you will be sorely missed, then taxi's wont disappear. Supply and demand sees to that (if its left to it of course!).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This is the classic 'fake news' technique. If you want facts, you don't 'ask the people'. With all due respect, the people don't know their arses from their elbows. The answer you get is the public perception of an issue, not the facts of the issue. The facts remain, Uber and other ride-sharers are welcome to provide services in Ireland, provided they meet the same standards for drivers and vehicles. That's the facts.

This is PURE GOLD...and a trumpism thrown in for good measure. Priceless. So people don't know what they want? They need to be protected from themselves. Any you are the guy to do it? How wonderful. I mean, I'm in all kinds of misery here - using InDriver every day of the week - saving a fortune, getting better service. If only I had the irish taxi industry to save me!
Consumers purchase the goods and services that add value for them. Ridesharing adds more value than irish taxi's ever will.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This proves the point beautifully that there really is no innovation from Uber or similar ride sharing models. My uncle did 'ride sharing' in the 70s. He took the family car out, bolted the roof sign on, checked in with base by radio and collected his customers. He worked whatever hours he wanted.
There's nothing new in Uber, except an attempt to bypass regulations.

Keep trotting out the same codswallop. The whole world have come to know ridesharing (even if they are prevented from accessing it in some markets). There's a reason for that. Stick "uber" and "innovation" into a google search and you'll get 140 million results. I guess all those that associated the two words are mistaken, right?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Of course everyone uses it if it's cheap - cheap because it bypasses the standards and regulations required of taxi drivers. Should we do the same for doctors? Let's put unqualified, untested doctors out there in the name of the libertarian dream and 'give the consumers what they want' regardless of the risk involved or the long term impact?

This is hilarious! Joe Maxi now is on a par in what he does with a doctor. The long term impact should be better value for consumers, no whinging taxi drivers and a far more efficient use of the existing car fleet.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Fortunately, the regulators here are far more forward thinking and progressive than you will ever be.

The regulator is pandering to the taxi lobby for an easy life - so that they can go enjoy their fat public sector salaries without any headaches (as in work). Rich of you to go complementing the progressive nature of irish regulators when they're a laughing stock across all sectors - and the taxi lobby itself has been fighting with the regulator for years (yet on this occasion, the regulator is yer only man).

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It already has the regulation that it deservces - the same standards of driver and vehicle as taxi services..

Ridesharing and taxi-ing are two completely different things. It deserves its own regulation.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's kinda quaint how you assume that anyone who has a different opinion to you is 'blindly accepting' of others, when that's exactly what you're doing yourself. You really don't know much about transport policy. I don't know much about transport policy myself, but I know enough to know what I don't know. You don't know what you don't know. You can't see beyond the end of your nose past the price paid to understand the long term impacts.

'You know enough to know what you know'? Thanks for sharing.

Laws and regulations have been wayward many times. Laws and regulations are interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Go figure how that all comes to pass.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yeah, terrible how Europe provides those basic minimum standards like data protection, healthcare and simple human rights compared to those more 'innovative' societies.

Well, this is an eye opener! Is there a political newsletter you'd recommend?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Because regulators and policy makers don't play with people's lives. This isn't a game for your entertainment. This is real life. It's important stuff.

People's lives? Interesting. I'll bite. Please do enlighten us as to how a taxi driver does more to protect my life than someone that accesses a ride sharing service?

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Please do give some details of how ridesharing could be regulated to discern the difference in drivers making journeys that they would have made anyway vs journeys that they wouldn't have made unless they were being paid as taxi drivers. I do home this isn't another one of your 'four companies' empty claims. Bonus points if you can point to any one country that has done this kind of regulation.

When you and the rest of your compadres here accept that ridesharing should have its own regulation, then I'll gladly engage with that.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

This just might wreck your head a bit, but is possible that you really don't know as much about transport policy as you think you do.

Shall I borrow your phrase? "I know what I know". :rolleyes: More obtuseness. As a consumer, my depth of knowledge of 'transport policy' doesn't disqualify me from a discussion of this nature'. Furthermore, some taxi driving boffin here who claims to know the ins and outs of the various legal instruments that govern transportation and specifically public transportation doesn't automatically become the overlord of the discussion. And I know that's where you're headed with that nonsense.

The ECJ have already made the only decision that matters. Uber is a transport company, same as the rest and as such needs to operate to the same rules and regulations as the rest.

You can say what you like, and evidently you will....over and over and over, but nothing you can say will change the fact as laid out in my first paragraph.

Are we done now?

Deleted User wrote: »

The ECJ have already made the only decision that matters. Uber is a transport company, same as the rest and as such needs to operate to the same rules and regulations as the rest.

You can say what you like, and evidently you will....over and over and over, but nothing you can say will change the fact as laid out in my first paragraph.

Are we done now?

Are we done now? I am asking you the same thing. I'm aware that the ECJ has made that decision. I'm not saying that they have not. I'm also aware - as will others - that rulings, laws, regulations can be good and can be bad. We should also be aware that such an interpretation may have been made by the
ECJ but hasn't in other jurisdictions. To my point that there isn't a decision made anywhere that's not political.

So - as regards are we done? Definitely. If you want to regurgitate that again, then I'll respond to it. Up to you.

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

The 4 companies nonsense - asked and answered multiple times. It's of no consequence as we (the original poster who brought up the topic - and i) agreed that it was of no consequence. What you're engaging in here (like a few before you) is deliberately obtuse and not in line with a genuine will to discuss the subject.

I was determined not to bother interacting in respect to your "Snake Oil Salesman" style of posting but I will put in here, just so you can understand it in plain English.

I do not believe it matters if Uber or Hailo/MyTaxi were first in the field, however, it does matter if a lie about 4 companies is used in an argument and then my reasoning of the timings of TWO companies is used too further that apparent lie.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Are we done now? I am asking you the same thing. I'm aware that the ECJ has made that decision. I'm not saying that they have not. I'm also aware - as will others - that rulings, laws, regulations can be good and can be bad. We should also be aware that such an interpretation my have been made by the
ECJ but hasn't in other jurisdictions. To my point that there isn't a decision made anywhere that's not political.

So - as regards are we done? Definitely. If you want to regurgitate that again, then I'll respond to it. Up to you.

Ok, politics Forum is that way --->

Conspiracy forum is this way --->

Might I suggest that if you wish to discuss the courts political motivations you head to one of those.

As for Uber operating here, I think we've exhausted all aspects of the arguments outside of the political machinations you so wish to discuss which are better suited to another forum imho

Spook_ie wrote: »

I was determined not to bother interacting in respect to your "Snake Oil Salesman" style of posting but I will put in here, just so you can understand it in plain English.

Firstly, I'm not selling you anything - so when you scramble for some disparaging moniker, you can do a bit better than that.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I do not believe it matters if Uber or Hailo/MyTaxi were first in the field, however, it does matter if a lie about 4 companies is used in an argument and then my reasoning of the timings of TWO companies is used too further that apparent lie.

Which proves to me that with that you and your compadres are very much playing the man and not the ball. It's quite disgusting really. Not that there's any rock to be turned over here, anything I've written here can be scrutinised and critiqued - and that it has been (and the motivation behind it!). Otherwise, I'd suggest you all check out the forum charter. Stick to the discussion.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok, politics Forum is that way --->
Conspiracy forum is this way --->
Might I suggest that if you wish to discuss the courts political motivations you head to one of those.

You can be as tongue in cheek and unhelpful to the overall discussion as you wish. Have at it. Since you started, I'll indulge myself. So you're holding up signposts now? Perhaps that could be your next career (but make sure you are trained 'professionally'.

Deleted User wrote: »

As for Uber operating here, I think we've exhausted all aspects of the arguments outside of the political machinations you so wish to discuss which are better suited to another forum imho

As above - and otherwise, the politics in reality was seaping out of your compadres posts, not mine.

makeorbrake wrote: »

You can be as tongue in cheek and unhelpful to the overall discussion as you wish. Have at it. Since you started, I'll indulge myself. So you're holding up signposts now?

Not being tongue in cheek at all. You are repeatedly straying off the general topics this forum is for. I was merely trying to help you.

To that end I'll flag my own post up for mod review asking for some sort of guidance on the matter as the last few pages have been a virtual ring-a-rosy with you being offered logical arguments, factual information, sources which contradict your assertions, all of which you ignore in the effort to claim some mass conspiracies are affoot.

Like I said above, not the norm for this forum so I pointed that out.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not being tongue in cheek at all. You are repeatedly straying off the general topics this forum is for. I was merely trying to help you.

I've not strayed off topic - quite the opposite (and this is the first such claim from you). With your name this and that routine, its been you and your cohorts who've been trying to drag the discussion down a cul de sac.

Deleted User wrote: »

To that end I'll flag my own post up for mod review asking for some sort of guidance on the matter

I actively encourage it.

Deleted User wrote: »

As the last few pages have been a virtual ring-a-rosy with you being offered logical arguments, factual information, sources which contradict your assertions

How very, very dare I

Imagine holding an opposing viewpoint.

Deleted User wrote: »

Like I said above, not the norm for this forum so I pointed that out.

What, you mean you're used to bullying someone into submission and bumping them off the thread? Sorry, my friend. As a forum for discussion, this sub-forum is open to all comers (within the rules of the forum of course).

Spook_ie

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not selling you anything - so when you scramble for some disparaging moniker, you can do a bit better than that.

I would disagree and say you are trying to sell false claims to me as being true, so you being compared to an old time snake oil salesman seems very apt. Many claims and no substance to them.

Which proves to me that with that you and your compadres are very much playing the man and not the ball. It's quite disgusting really. Not that there's any rock to be turned over here, anything I've written here can be scrutinised and critiqued - and that it has been (and the motivation behind it!). Otherwise, I'd suggest you all check out the forum charter. Stick to the discussion.

Would love to stick with the discussion and play the ball, however, it would seem that you tried to kick the matchball out of play and substitute it with a ball from a different game.

<snipped>.

Spook_ie wrote: »

I would disagree and say you are trying to sell false claims to me as being true, so you being compared to an old time snake oil salesman seems very apt. Many claims and no substance to them.

That's just pure vitriole right there. You have to resort to name calling. Sad really.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Would love to stick with the discussion and play the ball,

Yet, you clearly didn't across multiple posts.