Taxi Driver Online :: View topic

So does the site have anything to do with James Button then? I don't think it is very clear from the statement. :lol:

Your comment implies that I cast doubt on Mr Button's reputation - I did not.

Crazy thing is that we have this discussion every year.

But thank you to JD for clarifying the situation, although I must admit I did prefer the 'stringing them along' route.

Don't you think it would have been more appropriate to just ask us if Jim Button has anything to do with TDO?

I thought I did, I asked a one line question and it could have been answered simply with a one line answer.

YOU are the one who, for whatever reason, chose to write huge screeds in response to my simple question, which includes starting this new thread complete with multiple replies, and perhaps it's YOU who should be apologising to Mr Button for dragging this out in your normal quite tedious manner.

TornCasualty wrote:

If you bothered to use the search facility on here then you'd realise that the Button connection via WHOIS was posited a year or two ago and more recently a month or two ago, and the response from TDO was categorical.

Yet despite this an your only evidence being a coincidence regarding a surname (you haven't mentioned Jenson yet :lol:

) you continue with the claims and innuendo, and I'm quite sure that mr Iqbal and his other aliases are also barking up this wrong tree, and you'll note how he's taken twenty or so posts to say nothing and do little more than attempt to tease.

So it's not JD who's dragging it out, because as far as I'm concerned the matter was put to bed a couple of years ago. ](*,)

So unless you have any other evidence than a coincidence regarding a couple of people's names (neither of whom, incidentally, have anything to do with the content of the site) then perhaps you could apologise or at least keep your gob :-#

If nothing else ,the starting of this thread by JD and continued posting by him and TDO shows the "owners" seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia, otherwise why didn't they just let it lie :lol:

TornCasualty wrote:

Well in relation to you then lie is the correct word.

TBH I was out-voted and wanted to drag it out to make you look an even bigger pillock.

But it came to the stage that even I had to take pity on you. :-$

Author:	JD [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:26 am ]
Post subject:	TDO and the News.
TDO has always been the front runner when it comes to the latest news and views of the Taxi Trade. Others have tried to mimic our success but as history shows they have failed miserably. These latest news offerings brought to you today highlight the hard work we undertake in bringing TDO subscribers the latest news and views in relation to the Taxi Trade. We can guarantee that what we produce today, someone else will copy and present it as news in several weeks time, long after it has gone stale. I suppose being first with the news is one of the advantages of having the Internet? Recently there has been some conjecture about James Button who is a respected solicitor in the field of Taxi licensing for England and Wales. It has been suggested by the Fastblacks Scottish contingent that Mr Button has an interest in Taxi Driver online. I would like to lay this particular ghost to rest and state categorically that James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with TDO. I don't know who supplies the Fastblacks contingent with their information but the individual concerned must think that the Scots are pretty dim-witted for him to be able to sell them a line that has no foundation in reality. Mr Torncastle who to be honest is a person I don't much care for is one such person who falls into the category of dimwittedness. He offered up the name James Button as though he was privileged to ground breaking information that would reveal James Button as the owner of TDO. As you can see, the only evidence Mr Torncastle has is an innuendo based on either his own stupidity or that of a third party. When push comes to shove he distances himself from the accusation like a modern day Judas. His innuendo has no foundation in the real world except perhaps in his own little microcosm of make believe? Of course he won’t retract those comments because he doesn’t like to humble himself in front of TDO readers. However I hope I have humbled him enough to prove to everyone, that James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with this website and that Mr Torncastle is a very foolish man for ever believing that he did. I think it's fairly obvious by now that TDO is run by cab drivers for cab drivers and we don't mince our words when it comes to calling a spade a spade. So for the benefit of Mr Torncastle and the dummy that is pulling his strings, I'll say it once again James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with Taxi Driver Online. In the meantime, for all you sane folk out there who just want to read the news and debate the issues, the world moves on and nothing has changed. Regards JD

Author:	grandad [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:32 am ]
Post subject:
So does the site have anything to do with James Button then? I don't think it is very clear from the statement.

Author:	JD [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:48 am ]
Post subject:
grandad wrote: So does the site have anything to do with James Button then? I don't think it is very clear from the statement. Isn't this passage clear enough for you Grandad? I would like to lay this particular ghost to rest and state categorically that James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with TDO. Regards JD

Author:	TornCasualty [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:04 am ]
Post subject:
Recently there has been some conjecture about James Button who is a respected solicitor in the field of Taxi licensing for England and Wales. It has been suggested by the Fastblacks Scottish contingent that Mr Button has an interest in Taxi Driver online. I would like to lay this particular ghost to rest and state categorically that James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with TDO. Your comment implies that I cast doubt on Mr Button's reputation - I did not. I don't know who supplies the Fastblacks contingent with their information but the individual concerned must think that the Scots are pretty dim-witted for him to be able to sell them a line that has no foundation in reality. Fastblacks contingent? - Me and me alone asked a one line question. Your response seems grossly out of proportion. Mr Torncastle who to be honest is a person I don't much care for is one such person who falls into the category of dimwittedness. You've been listening to too many of Jasbar's lies He offered up the name James Button as though he was privileged to ground breaking information that would reveal James Button as the owner of TDO. I did a simple whois - I then searched your site on the name produced it came up with a thread advertising Jim Button's book, and the rest is history. As you can see, the only evidence Mr Torncastle has is an innuendo based on either his own stupidity or that of a third party. I refer to my previous comment When push comes to shove he distances himself from the accusation like a modern day Judas. I accused no-one - It is YOU JD who has created this perceived accusation - I accused no one. I asked a question His innuendo has no foundation in the real world except perhaps in his own little microcosm of make believe? So why the registrant with the same surname. Of course he won’t retract those comments because he doesn’t like to humble himself in front of TDO readers. However I hope I have humbled him enough to prove to everyone, that James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with this website and that Mr Torncastle is a very foolish man for ever believing that he did. Humbled?? I asked a question nothing more - the voracity of your response is disproprortionate to the simplicity of my question. I think it's fairly obvious by now that TDO is run by cab drivers for cab drivers and we don't mince our words when it comes to calling a spade a spade. So for the benefit of Mr Torncastle and the dummy that is pulling his strings, I'll say it once again James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with Taxi Driver Online. No one's pulling my strings - but I seemed to have managed to pull your chain JD - enough to provoke the kind of reaction you provided

Author:	JD [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:34 am ]
Post subject:
TornCasualty wrote: Your comment implies that I cast doubt on Mr Button's reputation - I did not. My comment implies no such thing. What my comment does do, is make it quite clear that James Button has nothing whatsoever to do with this website. It was you who implied he did have something to do with this website when you stated the following. So where does Jim Button fit in with this website then No one connected with this website has ever stated that James Button has or has had any part in this website. So why do you assume that he has or indeed does? You say you looked up the registration details of TDO and of course you being a man of sound mind came to the Conclusion that a registrant with the name Button must belong to licensing solicitor James Button? Is that why you implied he had something to do with this site? Don't you think it would have been more appropriate to just ask us if Jim Button has anything to do with TDO? It would seam you preferred to take the Childish approach and put your own spin on your unfounded allegation. Perhaps you should apologise to both TDO and Mr Button for alleging he had an involvement in this site? JD

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

TDO and the News. http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6661	Page 1 of 4

Author:	grandad [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:51 am ]
Post subject:

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:08 am ]
Post subject:
Crazy thing is that we have this discussion every year. But thank you to JD for clarifying the situation, although I must admit I did prefer the 'stringing them along' route.

Author:	JD [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: Crazy thing is that we have this discussion every year. I know its a kind of sport for you stringing these clowns along but their stupidity has its limits. To keep them dangling on the end of a string and only giving it a yank whenever you feel the need for a little light entertainment was tantamount to cruelty to animals. Therefore I thought it best to bury the issue once and for all. Quote: But thank you to JD for clarifying the situation, although I must admit I did prefer the 'stringing them along' route. You are exposing the playful side of your nature once again but I'm glad you think I may have clarified the situation? lol Time will tell. Regards JD

Author:	TornCasualty [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:
. Quote: Don't you think it would have been more appropriate to just ask us if Jim Button has anything to do with TDO? I thought I did, I asked a one line question and it could have been answered simply with a one line answer. YOU are the one who, for whatever reason, chose to write huge screeds in response to my simple question, which includes starting this new thread complete with multiple replies, and perhaps it's YOU who should be apologising to Mr Button for dragging this out in your normal quite tedious manner.

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 3:22 pm ]
Post subject:
TornCasualty wrote: I thought I did, I asked a one line question and it could have been answered simply with a one line answer. Now Mr TC we both know that there was more to this than that, and it's nice to see that a site such as fasties puts up a picture of a leading licensing lawyer. But it is/was a case of fasties adding two and two together and getting hundreds.

Author:	TDO [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:40 pm ]
Post subject:
TornCasualty wrote: YOU are the one who, for whatever reason, chose to write huge screeds in response to my simple question, which includes starting this new thread complete with multiple replies, and perhaps it's YOU who should be apologising to Mr Button for dragging this out in your normal quite tedious manner. If you bothered to use the search facility on here then you'd realise that the Button connection via WHOIS was posited a year or two ago and more recently a month or two ago, and the response from TDO was categorical. Yet despite this an your only evidence being a coincidence regarding a surname (you haven't mentioned Jenson yet ) you continue with the claims and innuendo, and I'm quite sure that mr Iqbal and his other aliases are also barking up this wrong tree, and you'll note how he's taken twenty or so posts to say nothing and do little more than attempt to tease. So it's not JD who's dragging it out, because as far as I'm concerned the matter was put to bed a couple of years ago. So unless you have any other evidence than a coincidence regarding a couple of people's names (neither of whom, incidentally, have anything to do with the content of the site) then perhaps you could apologise or at least keep your gob

Author:	gusmac [ Wed Aug 08, 2007 4:51 pm ]
Post subject:
TDO wrote: TornCasualty wrote: YOU are the one who, for whatever reason, chose to write huge screeds in response to my simple question, which includes starting this new thread complete with multiple replies, and perhaps it's YOU who should be apologising to Mr Button for dragging this out in your normal quite tedious manner. If you bothered to use the search facility on here then you'd realise that the Button connection via WHOIS was posited a year or two ago and more recently a month or two ago, and the response from TDO was categorical. Yet despite this an your only evidence being a coincidence regarding a surname (you haven't mentioned Jenson yet ) you continue with the claims and innuendo, and I'm quite sure that mr Iqbal and his other aliases are also barking up this wrong tree, and you'll note how he's taken twenty or so posts to say nothing and do little more than attempt to tease. So it's not JD who's dragging it out, because as far as I'm concerned the matter was put to bed a couple of years ago. So unless you have any other evidence than a coincidence regarding a couple of people's names (neither of whom, incidentally, have anything to do with the content of the site) then perhaps you could apologise or at least keep your gob Well said

Author:	TornCasualty [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:52 pm ]
Post subject:
If nothing else ,the starting of this thread by JD and continued posting by him and TDO shows the "owners" seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia, otherwise why didn't they just let it lie

Author:	Sussex [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:55 pm ]
Post subject:
TornCasualty wrote: If nothing else ,the starting of this thread by JD and continued posting by him and TDO shows the "owners" seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia, otherwise why didn't they just let it lie Well in relation to you then lie is the correct word. TBH I was out-voted and wanted to drag it out to make you look an even bigger pillock. But it came to the stage that even I had to take pity on you.

Page 1 of 4	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	TornCasualty [ Thu Aug 09, 2007 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:
Sussex wrote: TornCasualty wrote: If nothing else ,the starting of this thread by JD and continued posting by him and TDO shows the "owners" seem to be suffering from some kind of paranoia, otherwise why didn't they just let it lie Well in relation to you then lie is the correct word. TBH I was out-voted and wanted to drag it out to make you look an even bigger pillock. But it came to the stage that even I had to take pity on you. 1066 - the defeat of the English by the French - the fact that you celebrate it says it all