Queens Surface Posted February 20, 2012 Share #26 Posted February 20, 2012 From what I heard from a few folks is that the DOT owns the buses.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted February 20, 2012 Share #27 Posted February 20, 2012 It doesnt take long to build a bus at all. A day and a half at most, and if the specs arent changed too much then they will likely be delivered at a rapid rate. Their may not even be a 30 day pilot trial. The buses may just come right in. Wow, that is impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 9, 2012 Share #28 Posted March 9, 2012 In a follow up email I asked about Veolia leasing buses from the , here's the reply I got: From Jack Khzouz:The buses and all the property and assets contained within are owned by the county. MTA does not have a stake in the arrangement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 10, 2012 Share #29 Posted March 10, 2012 Not going into an infinite loop again, legally the owns the busses, technically Nassau owns em', end of story. Carrying on... Surprising how they wrapped 1732... Really? After you go on and on about how the the owns the. used and can take them back this is your reply? After I ask you to please tell us how the can just take back a bus leased to the Veolia if Veolia didn't violate any terms of the lease, you refuse to answer the question. After you repeatedly told members the wraps were a mandate by the and Veolia couldn't damage property... Now Jack Khzouz says the has no stake in the situation and now post this, again, really? You still haven't provided us with any proof of anything you say. You seem to say whatever you want and when questioned about you go into childish "I don't want to talk about it mode." Even worse when someone who is pretty high up in the NICE organization, debunks what you say you, just want to move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 12, 2012 Share #30 Posted March 12, 2012 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 13, 2012 Share #31 Posted March 13, 2012 You still haven't posted anything besides what you've heard... And I'm still waiting for answer about your remark about taking the buses if they feel like it, if Veolia has entered into a lease agreement and didn't violate the lease? Why do you refuse to answer that question? Do you need further clarification? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 13, 2012 Share #32 Posted March 13, 2012 At the next meeting will you tell the Director of Marketing and Communications that he is not a good source for information? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Up Front Posted March 13, 2012 Share #33 Posted March 13, 2012 *capisce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 13, 2012 Share #34 Posted March 13, 2012 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Up Front Posted March 14, 2012 Share #35 Posted March 14, 2012 What? Do I need to get a Nassau/(MTA)/NICE/Orion lawyer on the line, pay him $$$ to get the same information you got from the Director of Marketing & Communications and the same thing I am posting in the paragraph below? As I said, the legally owns the busses, so they can legally under whatever thing they could go thru, can pull the busses out of Nassau County. I obviously don't have a law degree and never viewed specifics of the contract, however I have plenty of reliable sources, and thus being sources, cannot be named because they are not authorized to release certain information to the public, thus that is why the Director of Marketing & Communications is not releasing technical and legal information. I already got nicely asked to not release their name to the public so I have to do what I was nicely asked to do. I answered like any tech journalist/transit journalist that wants to get as insider as possible would say it. I can't stress it any more. Why would I do that? He is doing his job and releasing what he has power to do. He is just not a reliable source, just like the sh1tty media. So ENY, Vintage Soul, NTrizzy and Me all said it, just like how SecondAveSagas, Engadget and others would answer it. I respect your disagreement or your point of view, however, my case is logically possible, this is another reason why some LI Bus Orion V's are in Eastchester even though they are Nassau's property but are now the (MTA)'s because they retired under operations, see even Nassau's property can be taken care by the ! Giant ego booster post... can we just kill this already? The city is already getting its own order of 3G CNGs unless that's the order that was meant for MTA Bus. I can't remember anymore, at least here I can expect nothing but Orions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 14, 2012 Share #36 Posted March 14, 2012 As I said, the legally owns the busses, so they can legally under whatever thing they could go thru, can pull the busses out of Nassau County. Unless they violate terms of the lease they cannot just take back buses. If you lease a bus and go into business do you think the leaese holder would be able to take back your bus just because they want to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 14, 2012 Share #37 Posted March 14, 2012 As I said, the legally owns the busses, so they can legally under whatever thing they could go thru, can pull the busses out of Nassau County. I obviously don't have a law degree and never viewed specifics of the contract, however I have plenty of reliable sources, and thus being sources, cannot be named because they are not authorized to release certain information to the public, thus that is why the Director of Marketing & Communications is not releasing technical and legal information. I already got nicely asked to not release their name to the public so I have to do what I was nicely asked to do. I answered like any tech journalist/transit journalist that wants to get as insider as possible would say it. I can't stress it any more. Why would I do that? He is doing his job and releasing what he has power to do. He is just not a reliable source, just like the sh1tty media. So now it's a conspiracy? Why would the Director of Marketing and Communications be conspiring with the to keep information secret from the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 14, 2012 Share #38 Posted March 14, 2012 never viewed specifics of the contract, however I have plenty of reliable sources, and thus being sources, cannot be named because they are not authorized to release certain information to the public, thus that is why the Director of Marketing & Communications is not releasing technical and legal information. I already got nicely asked to not release their name to the public so I have to do what I was nicely asked to do. I answered like any tech journalist/transit journalist that wants to get as insider as possible would say it. I can't stress it any more. Why would I do that? He is doing his job and releasing what he has power to do. He is just not a reliable source, just like the sh1tty media. So ENY, Vintage Soul, NTrizzy and Me all said it, just like how SecondAveSagas, Engadget and others would answer it. I respect your disagreement or your point of view, however, my case is logically possible, this is another reason why some LI Bus Orion V's are in Eastchester even though they are Nassau's property but are now the (MTA)'s because they retired under operations, see even Nassau's property can be taken care by the ! Like I said before I am not on any side I just provided information. I just would like to know what the truth is one way or another. Just because someone at the says something doesn't mean it is accurate, even if people believe it. There have been many rumors about the entire Nassau/Veolia/(MTA) situation... For example many drivers heard and told me that in the month prior to Veolua taking over that the was you going to keep control of LI Bus, or that their would be a situation where both the and Veolua would run LI Bus for 6 months or something like that, that Veolia couldn't handle the takeover or make the deadline? Was any of that true? No, but people believed it. I also heard the world was gonna end last may... I'm still here. If you had information I asked you to share proof of what you heard. But you can't because it's a big secret. So we have the emails from Jack Khzouz and a big secret that we are supposed to believe over it. Why is the NICE Directer of Marketing and Communications not a reliable source? ...but we are supposed to take the words of your secret source as accurate information? Sorry to everyone for the multiple posts, cutting and pasting this into one thread woulda been too difficult and time consuming on my phone. It already took long enough to post using my phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 14, 2012 Share #39 Posted March 14, 2012 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 14, 2012 Share #40 Posted March 14, 2012 I already posted enough proof, either the next step is to swear to god or cost my source their job, so for the sake of his job, I'll swear to god everything is legit. Argument closed, because we are now not talking much about bus ownership, rather reliability of a PR person who gets told what he should and shouldn't say... I say, he is not reliable, you say, he is reliable, so we shall both respect one another's judgement and move on because my sources are related to the bus order, yours are the PR guys, wooden hammer down, settled. :lock: :lock: :lock: Ok that's the way it is because you say so. And we must trust what you say, obviously the Director if Marketing & Communications doesn't know what he is talking about. He obviously just got his position by being miss informed and being an unreliable source. Too bad he doesn't have secret sources like you do, or is it that he is conspiring with the to keep a big secret? Speaking of respecting others opinions, all I've seen you do is disrespect any that counter yours, scream no no no that your option on the only one that matters. Tell us we have to believe you and your secret sources, all why disrespecting a NICE staff member, who has answered all of our emails, and say he is an reliable source. Then you make these outlandish comments, refuse to answer questions about them when asked. All you do I'd come here and say your secret source trumps all, wooden hammer down (whatever that means) and hit the lock smiley 3 times because people question you. Really dude? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Up Front Posted March 15, 2012 Share #41 Posted March 15, 2012 Swearing to God? Oh, that's such a drastic and scary measure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 15, 2012 Share #42 Posted March 15, 2012 Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 15, 2012 Share #43 Posted March 15, 2012 I could see if this had something to do with the order, a bid, or some other competative nature of their business but this does not. I just spent the week taking vehicles back to the lease holder and to other facilities for the sake of my company I will not reveal the major company the lease was because I don't think they want me posting who they make their money from so a competitor can swoop in and under bid them. That's understandable but what you are proposing doesn't sound right. We know who the two players are NICE and the . What's so secretive that the general public can't know about? What you are talking about doesn't seem like top secret info. And the employees who drive the trucks I was dealing with all knew who the lease holder was, no secret, in fact the stickers of the two lease holders were on the door of the trucks. If what you propose is true I don't understand the secretive nature or that the goes overboard on what the public can't know (which is a problem imho) and I doubt Veolia would buy into the idea that this must be a secret. And I don't believe Jack Khzouz is lying to us to help keep the in keeping the public uninformed. This is all crazy talk... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 15, 2012 Share #44 Posted March 15, 2012 I have said enough, this thread is just going on loops. . The only going in loops is you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac5689 Posted March 16, 2012 Share #45 Posted March 16, 2012 can we just kill this already? I agree, this subject has been through the ringer already. Nobody agrees, nobody will probably ever agree so lets just let it sail into the night, never to be brought up again. Swearing to God? Oh, that's such a drastic and scary measure! When someone does that then you defiantly know that something has gone to far, and this has gone to far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 16, 2012 Share #46 Posted March 16, 2012 I agree, this subject has been through the ringer already. Nobody agrees, nobody will probably ever agree so lets just let it sail into the night, never to be brought up again. I don't care about people agreeing, I care about finding out the real answer, whatever it may be. And as I said before, it's terrible to drop topics and not talk about them because people don't agree. I could see if this was a different "agree to disagree" about an opinion, but that's not what this is. This is an unanswered question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mac5689 Posted March 17, 2012 Share #47 Posted March 17, 2012 I don't care about people agreeing, I care about finding out the real answer, whatever it may be. And as I said before, it's terrible to drop topics and not talk about them because people don't agree. I could see if this was a different "agree to disagree" about an opinion, but that's not what this is. This is an unanswered question. You have to admit though that you won't find the truth, no matter what it is, by the way it has gone down here. I believe in finding the truth as well but both sides are intrunched with their facts or their souces as being right, that the turth (no matter what it is) could very well never come out. I liken what has transpired to almost World War One, both sides are lobing stuff at the other. (in WWI it was Artilliary, here its their sources or other words) I have always tried to be Neutral, like the contry that one of my great-great-grandfathers Emigrated from, I admit that at the begining of this topic I wasn't very neutral but I changed my stance after seeing that its turned out to be a stalemate where there isn't a clear cut answer. If you don't like what I have to say thats fine, I really don't care. This matter has become moot to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 17, 2012 Share #48 Posted March 17, 2012 Fantastic, but I will never drop a subject because two sides don't agree. If you truly belie in that you truly don't don't believe in democracy, one of the things that make our Country great, think about it. I respect your opinion, but hope we will find an answer, whatever it may be. I think the public deserves to know. I don't agree with dropping subjects because others don't agree, blindly agreeing with others because they say their source is correct with no other proof (when we have countering sources who state another way). Or with saying a member of NICE is lying to us, helping to mislead us, or conspiring to help the conspire to mislead the public about whatever... Or that a person who holds a high position with NICE is not viable source. Or that if there is a lease that the can take back the buses on a whim, if they feel like it... I hope that you can respect when I hear crap like that I will call the person on the crap, expecting a logical explanation. To this day, this person has not posted anything but un logical posts (such as the being able to take back a leased bus on a whim) and when questioned about it, all they say is they're done talking about it, and hit the lock smiley. How can you respect that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeystoneRegional Posted March 21, 2012 Share #49 Posted March 21, 2012 Let's just say, there is no real answer, it's all up to your own opinion, you decide on 1760-1839, the rest is owned by Nassau Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burrstone Posted March 21, 2012 Share #50 Posted March 21, 2012 Let's just say, there is no real answer, it's all up to your own opinion, you decide on 1760-1839, the rest is owned by Nassau Co. But there is a real answer. Not knowing the real answer, choosing to write NICE employees off who answer the question as "unreliable" because they don't agree with what you heard, and not being able to prove what someone told you doesn't mean there is "no real answer." Maybe we should just say there is no answer you can prove or agree with... lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.