
Taxi protest in Paris turns to guerrilla warfare as Uber car attacked on freeway - liam_boogar
http://www.rudebaguette.com/2014/01/13/taxi-protest-paris-turns-guerrilla-warfare-uber-car-attacked-freeway/
======
tikhonj
For reference, the 15-minute law mentioned in the article is a restriction
that companies like Uber have to force their customers to wait at least 15
minutes before getting a ride. Given that the average black car gets to a
customer in 7 minutes, this is a _serious_ handicap. [1]

This sort of law feels really backwards. It degrades the service of companies
like Uber _and_ imposes negative externalities on society--more cars
pointlessly idling and waiting around, more traffic congestion and so on. The
idea behind a market is to _improve_ quality; trying to "improve" the market
by arbitrarily degrading the quality of some competitors is exactly counter-
productive.

Given that the taxis have gotten this absurdly protectionist restriction in
place, it's even harder to empathize with their protest. Actually getting
violent is even worse.

Of course, it's also important to remember that this is likely an extreme
action by a single individual and does not represent taxi drivers as a group.
In fact, there is no immediate link between the attack and taxis, although it
seems extremely likely. That said, even ignoring the violence, I do not really
sympathize with the taxi protests here.

[1]: [http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/28/uber-lecab-and-others-
now-h...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/28/uber-lecab-and-others-now-have-to-
wait-15-minutes-before-picking-you-up-in-france/)

~~~
ig1
How would you feel if you paid quarter of a million euros for your taxi
licence (maybe by mortgaging your property or going heavily into debt) only to
be undercut by illegal taxi drivers who didn't bother to get licensed and
didn't follow regulations ?

Obviously it's not an excuse for violence, but it's important to remember
there are always multiple sides to any argument.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Because the system is broken and people are heavily invested in the current
system and it being broken...

What? What's the logical conclusion to that sentence in your mind?

Should we keep on running the war on drugs because there are so many people
who make a living off of it? Should we maintain copyright law the way it is
today because companies have invested so heavily in it? Should we maintain
software patent law the way it is because some folks have spent billions
acquiring patent portfolios?

~~~
EliAndrewC
There are a lot of middle-ground options, such as "buying back" taxi
medallions before opening the floodgates and letting anyone run a taxi. This
is obviously a tricky approach for a lot of reasons, but certainly there's a
middle ground between "taxi medallions forever" and "all taxi medallions are
worthless overnight".

~~~
InclinedPlane
Having a competing service like uber is actually precisely that middle ground,
since taxi medallions are not worthless overnight.

------
snitko
Let me tell you how things are in Russia. We don't have any taxi driver
unions, I don't think we have any licensing for taxi drivers, but if we do,
it's probably not expensive.

In Russia it works this way: you go out on the street, raise your hand and you
get your car in like 1 minute (even at 4am in the morning it doesn't take very
long time, provided you are downtown, did that many times) - basically some
guy who wants an extra buck will stop and get you anywhere. Some make a living
that way. You negotiate the price, it's usually rather cheap even in large
cities compared to what you'd be charged for the same ride in Europe or the
US. You don't have to tip the driver, since the price is negotiated
beforehand. Now we also have a lot of competing official taxi companies. They
all are relatively cheap and they mostly get their clients through internet or
phone and the use case for those is when you need to go to the airport or have
a pre-arranged trip.

We also have jitney transportation which is only slightly more expensive, but
much faster than public transportation. Drivers are mostly from central asian
republics or southern republics - demographics russians are rather hostile to
- yet I haven't met more friendly drivers in the whole world. And, in my
personal view, people are rather receptive to that and are quite polite with
them too. It's pure competition and free market and it works to the benefit of
all.

You can criticize Russia all you want, but in some areas the free market here
exists relatively untouched (probably thanks to bribes, but still, it's better
than regulation).

~~~
rdl
Would light regulation hurt this? Just requiring that all taxi drivers display
an ID number, and with some inexpensive process to become a new taxi driver
(verifying you're not already banned, that you have a valid license, and if
required in Russia, insurance).

The problem with taxi regulation is when "safety" is used as a pretext to
reduce supply. I pay a premium in general to get a taxi which is somewhat less
likely to be driven by a criminal, and I imagine
female/small/weak/foreign/etc. people would pay more of a premium for this. If
the regulation is just for the purposes of identification and safety, it
wouldn't have a huge cost for the taxi driver ($50 or so and a few hours), and
would probably justify an increase in rates to make up for that.

I could easily imagine a private licensing system coexisting with an
unlicensed market.

~~~
snitko
Why would you need an ID from a taxi driver? If you're scared a taxi driver's
gonna rob or rape you (a common concern among ladies) you remember or
photograph his plate number (or ask your friend to do so). An official
government paper wouldn't make it any more safer. It would only add problems
for drivers since they would have to acquire those licences, it would increase
corruption and decrease supply, which would in turn raise prices. If you care
about safety, call a licenced taxi company - your choice, isn't it?

Update: I misread you. "licensing system coexisting with an unlicensed market"
is definitely the state of things in Russia currently. I think that's a good
way to go. Except maybe that since licensing is not required, then safety may
be guaranteed by non-governmental agencies or maybe even technologies (as
mentioned in another comment below).

~~~
yummyfajitas
An Uber-style taxi service would certainly make the situation safer. You get a
paper trail before you get into the cab showing that driver X picked up
passenger Y at time T.

~~~
snitko
I agree. But please note that government regulation would have nothing to do
with it. This would be safety provided by the free market. Question is, what
would the demand for such a safety be. If the prices were to remain the same,
then the company providing this safety would drive all those freelance drivers
out of the market. If not, then there would still probably be some demand for
Uber, but also some demand for less safe options.

------
wavesounds
This is simple case of a Scab breaking down the power of the union and the
union fighting back against it.

Violence is wrong and this is not ok.

However, Uber should be more aware of what they're 'disrupting'. Strong unions
see this as a foreign company threatening their livelihoods and there will be
push back.

~~~
rmc
_However, Uber should be more aware of what they 're 'disrupting'. Strong
unions see this as a foreign company threatening their livelihoods and there
will be push back._

Yeah, this isn't USA. There are actual employment rights and strong trade
unions here.

~~~
david927
I'm also in France and I am very happy that workers actually have rights here
(as opposed to my native land, the USA).

But you always must keep diligence, because unions can devolve into a mafia.
The taxis here in France are an example of that. I have never had a single
ride that was the correct price, and after many attempts I gave up. I'm
certainly not alone. People have been trying to disrupt and get around them
for ages but they fight as mafia do: fiercely.

~~~
faster
I'm also an American living in France, and I have never even been able to get
a taxi in Paris, on the street, at marked taxi stands, or asking directly in a
bar where the taxi drivers hang out while they are 'working'. Fortunately I
don't live in Paris.

It seems that taxi companies are more mafia than union in the US also, but at
least they will pick you up. This is because the government won't give them
money if they don't work. I appreciate that France has a strong social safety
net, but this is one of the downsides of that; it's easy to abuse.

~~~
Jacqued
This seems quite disingenuous to say the least. I'm a French living in Paris,
and have never had any trouble getting a cab, unless I happened to be in one
of those neighborhoods that are completely deserted at night. In that case
you'd have to call one up.

Maybe the cabs you were trying to get already had customers on board. Hint :
if a taxi is free, the light on top of it is green. If it's red, there's
already a customer on board.

~~~
faster
The last time I tried I was with my wife and daughter, trying to get to the
airport with luggage. I think the luggage scared them off.

You know that the idea for Uber came from the founder's experience trying to
get a taxi in Paris, right? That suggests I'm not alone in my experience with
Parisian taxis.

[http://blog.uber.com/2010/12/22/ubers-
founding/](http://blog.uber.com/2010/12/22/ubers-founding/)

~~~
rmc
> _You know that the idea for Uber came from the founder 's experience trying
> to get a taxi in Paris, right?_

Actually that link says the complete opposite. It says that while in Paris,
the founder were talking about their (bad) experience of getting a taxi in San
Francisco.

> _Garrett Camp and I were hanging out in Paris for a week at Loic and
> Geraldine LeMeur’s LeWeb conference. Amongst the amazing food, the copious
> amounts of wine and inevitable nightlife crawls there were all kinds of
> discussions about what’s next. Garrett had sold StumbleUpon to Ebay and had
> been doing “hard time” at a big company. I had just completed my tour with
> Akamai after selling Red Swoosh to them in 2007._ > > _Jamming on ideas,
> rapping on what’s next is what entrepreneurs do. Garrett and I would get
> some good music, good drinks and jam until 5am. Garrett’s big idea was
> cracking the horrible taxi problem in San Francisco — getting stranded on
> the streets of San Francisco is familiar territory for any San Franciscan._

~~~
faster
You're right. I didn't read that all the way through. Shame on me.

However, the founding story I heard first was the Paris taxi story, and it's
backed up by these old tweets from LeWeb:
[http://eventifier.co/event/leweb/tweets?page=21&q=uber#](http://eventifier.co/event/leweb/tweets?page=21&q=uber#)

So maybe it was SF taxis after all, or maybe not. If I'm ever face to face
with an Uber founder I'll ask.

------
rdl
This would be really terrifying for the passengers and driver -- impressed
that the Uber driver was able to deal with it as well as he did. This pretty
clearly falls into a lethal self defense situation, so driving off, and if
required through, the attackers would be totally reasonable, but if your car
is already disabled you're kind of screwed.

It's amazing how some cities have essentially criminal mafias running taxis
(Paris, Pattaya, to some extent Bangkok), some have crazy feudalism (New York,
where you have rich people sitting on $1mm medallions and Somali immigrants
making $30/day to drive), some have what seem to be overpriced but reasonably
well run services (London, Singapore), and some just have ~no taxis at all
(most of the US outside major cities, and most poor parts of US cities).

I will shed zero tears for the end of the taxi industry. First by Uber and
ride sharing, finally by robots.

~~~
negrit
> so driving [...] if required through the attackers would be totally
> reasonable

Absolutely not, doing so might kill one of them and it's a crime(Article 221-1
in the french law).

~~~
rdl
Self defense isn't an absolute right in France? Even in NYC it is.

------
rmc
Oh man, you don't wanna take on the french unions. They'll protest when it's
cold and burn paris to warm the place up.

Truck drivers starved the country of petrol a few years ago.

This ain't America.

~~~
mnml_
replace the word unions by mafias

~~~
markdown
Not a fan of unions or labour rights? Why call them mafias?

~~~
jaekwon
The way I think of a union, it's an organization of employees who bargain with
its employer.

Unless the entire taxicab industry is nationalized by law in France, it makes
no sense to me that a taxicab union is protesting against another company
disrupting their business. That's just being a thug.

You should have the right to organize for bargaining of salary. Imposing an
artificial handicap on another business model is really backwards.

~~~
dalke
Your way of thinking about unions is incomplete.

For one, a "its employer" doesn't work. The employer does not employ the
union, and employees of multiple companies may be part of the same union. "..
who bargain with their employers" is a better fit.

For another, a union can do more than just bargin with the employer. It can
provide skills training, mentorship, insurance, petition government on behalf
of the employees, and more, even outside of any employment relationship.

For a third, union abilities in the US are "artifically handicapped".
Jurisdictional strikes, secondary boycotts, common situs picketing, closed
shops, and other actions are prohibited by law. By your argument, you want
unions in the US to have much more power than they already do.

~~~
jaekwon
Ah, yes, you're right. My understanding of unions is indeed limited in the
ways that you pointed out.

Not sure I agree with your last statement. It depends... I don't think unions
should be able to forcefully close down a shop if the owner can actually
resume operations by firing all of the union members. On the other hand I'm
completely alright with unions organizing and deciding to go on strike, in
order to push for a bargain. I suppose I'm more comfortable with these
boundaries because it "naturally" follows from ownership (the union can't shut
down a factory because they don't own it) and respect for volition (the
employer can't prevent people from willfully organizing).

I also understand that sometimes large corporations prefer to shut down a
factory rather than sell the factory to the workers, in order to prevent
competition. In this case I'm willing to concede that the workers should be
able to purchase the factory from the corporation, as a judgement call that
the livelihood of the factory workers are more important than whatever benefit
the corporation sees.

But I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the
growth of another company that is winning in the free market. I believe there
is more at stake in lost opportunity that way, and so I call such practice
"backwards".

I'm probably missing a lot of subtlety here; like if the factory owner can
fire all of the union workers during a strike, isn't that akin to the factory
worker banning unions outright? I really don't know the answer.

~~~
dalke
"I am not willing to extend the liberties of a labor union to stifle the
growth of another company that is winning in the free market."

That's the key point. Unions are constrained on what they can do. I can
threaten to stop working unless my employer stops purchasing from a company
with a horrible safety record, where the employees of the other company are on
strike as protest. We're both agreed on that, right?

But do it collectively - say, 90% of my fellow 4,000 employees threaten to
stop working in support of the workers of the other company - and suddenly
it's labeled a union and our actions considered an illegal sympathy strike.

I can't help but conclude that the legal constraints on what a union can do
mean that it can't fully participate in a free market. Instead, the 'free
market' you're talking about is actually 'the market where collective action
freedoms have been deliberately handicapped.'

(Personally I think there must be constraints on a free market, but that's a
different conversation.)

"if the factory owner can fire all of the union workers during a strike"

Why can the factory owner do that? Surely the union contract would prohibit
mass firing during a strike. Otherwise, as you say, what's the point of having
a union?

In the context of US law, there are certain things that an employer is
prohibited from doing. Mass firing of legally striking employees is one of
them. Even non-union ones. (See
[http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/15/walmart-striking-
wor...](http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/10/15/walmart-striking-workers-non-
unionized/) for a nice summary.

------
kristaps
Many taxi drivers are considered semi-criminal tough guys where I'm from
(apparently elsewhere around the world too), so this is one incumbent which
can become quite unpleasant while on their way out.

------
aric

       "Microsoft Managers And Employees Protest, Bash Computer of Linux User"
    

Eventually, some of these hardworking taxi drivers will have an epiphany.
They're fighting the wrong entity. Fighting against decentralized commerce and
personal choice is generally a side of aggressors. When the dynamics of
reality become inconvenient to monetary interests, the first call of
aggressors and cultists alike is to forsake the freedom of others. _We pay the
piper. We eat gruel. You better fall in line too, or else..._ The sooner a
person begins to _actually_ care about other people, the sooner a person may
acknowledge reality to adapt or improve.

~~~
vincie
Or, turning it around somewhat: "Lisp Programmers Demand Expulsion of Users of
Inferior Languages".

Dude, leave them alone. If that is what they want to do, let them be. Never
mind what your opinion of "improvement" is.

~~~
ahomescu1
> Dude, leave them alone. If that is what they want to do, let them be.

If they're using violence to get what they want, you can't really leave them
alone (morally or practically).

------
Nux
Times are changing and people tend to resist change. Unfortunately many times
it gets violent. Unions are a dangerous thing to mess with, but in the end the
customer convenience should win.

All they need to make sure is that Uber pay their proper taxes in France. ;-)

------
VSerge
This calls for the police to get involved and bring these attackers to court,
plain and simple. How anyone could imagine this is a valid form of protest is
beyond me.

------
neverminder
The luddism approach never wins, but there will always be people who will try.

------
stumpyfr
All french people are not rude, stupid and whatever like them ;) It's a shame
and in the same time, we can use it against cabs who don't understand that
it's maybe time to accept change and move on with, not against.

~~~
kubiiii
I think the protest is not directed towards the right direction, but Parisian
taxi drivers need to buy a license which is like 200 k. They see this
investment go down the drain as new businesses like uber appear.

~~~
stumpyfr
I know, I am from Paris :). But my point is "why not accept it's maybe time to
change some "things"". Why we use Uber? it's geek (ok its a point) but mostly
because: -nice and clean car -nice people -good service -moderne (phone,
payement,...)

I am sure it's possible to modernise cabs of Paris (and other cities)(hmm
maybe time to think about a new project! ;))

------
rekatz
Uber driver apparently pulled them out safely. It's a shame some countries
take change so violently. I love Paris and France, I also use Uber there...
this is terrible. SO glad Kat and Renaud made it home safely afterwards.

~~~
aragot
The article doesn't state it's a protest against Uber.

I condemn violence and most strikes when they're used as an easy form of
politics, but we can also note that protesters don't feel supported by their
government and that's their way to make a threat.

------
vincie
Uber and it's ilk are nice and disruptive and all and you get a cheap ride out
of it, but we must not forget that they are disrupting people's livelihood and
cultural and social traditions too. I do not condone the violence, but I kind
of understand it. Do we really want every country to be Americanized like
this, one disruptive app at a time? To some people, these "unions" appear to
be protection rackets, but I saw them as part of the French society and
culture. If you don't like it, don't force your own beliefs and practices down
their throats. Go somewhere else.

~~~
digitalengineer
Oh yeah and the Mafia is just part of Italian culture right? Don't like it go
somewhere else? As a person with Amsterdam Taxi experience (including getting
pulled out of a taxi and forced to ride another taxi at the train station at
midnight) I welcome competition. The problem with no competition is the way
some taxi-drivers can treat their 'clients': We've had drivers refusing to
accept clients, because they were female, or because the ride wasn't
profitable enough or even because they were BLIND. The driver didn't want the
dog in the car. We've even had drivers trying to rape clients. It's a bloody
mess. UBER in Amsterdam has been a big success. I welcome them with arms open
wide.

~~~
vincie
The mafia is illegal in Italy as far as I know, so that is not a valid
comparison. Yes there are problems with all taxi drivers, and I do not see how
Uber drivers are immune from these.

~~~
digitalengineer
THATS the disrupting part: You can rate your driver online. See
[https://www.uber.com/drivers](https://www.uber.com/drivers) You see the
rating before you book a ride. This makes all the difference.

~~~
thaumasiotes
But aren't the ratings meaningless? I remember reading how Uber drivers were
upset because a rating measurably below 5 out of 5 can get you fired. As long
as that system prevails, a driver's rating won't tell you anything more than
the fact that you found them on Uber did.

~~~
digitalengineer
I think if you had the identity of the driver (both before and after the ride)
a lot of drivers would not behave like criminals. Instead of fighting UBER
these companies would do better if they put the client on the center stage and
perhaps start their own rating-identity service.

~~~
brohee
The taxi registration and the time of the ride are as good as an identity for
the purpose of identifying an individual driver if you chose to report the
driver to the regulating authority...

------
negamax
This is like Hotel owners hitting home owners for being host on Airbnb?

~~~
_pmf_
> This is like Hotel owners hitting home owners for being host on Airbnb?

Hotel owners are typically a bit above minimum wage.

~~~
roma1n
French cab drivers are typically way above minimum wage...

~~~
brohee
Not in Paris. The independents still paying their medallion ("plaque de taxi",
valued at about 240k €) are strangled by debt, and those that are employee are
barely above minimum wage.

It's pretty obvious to everyone that dropping the medallion system is the way
forwards, but is there any example anywhere of dropping the medallion system
in a fair manner for those that actually bought their medallion recently?

Also, another thing I'm pretty concerned about is the qualification of non
taxi drivers. The taxi license is actually very hard to get, I'm not so sure
of what Uber requires of its drivers...

~~~
icebraining
_is there any example anywhere of dropping the medallion system in a fair
manner for those that actually bought their medallion recently?_

Why not just return their money?

~~~
brohee
Their money was paid to the previous holder of it, not to the state.

------
DanBC
French labour laws are serious. French unions don't mess around.

Farmers use their machines to fling cow shit at government buildings. They set
fire to lorries full of live sheep.

See this example of officials vigorously enforcing labour laws.
[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/french-
pub-f...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/french-pub-
fined-9000-after-customers-returned-empties-to-bar--because-its-undeclared-
labour-9018432.html)

~~~
thaumasiotes
> They set fire to lorries full of live sheep.

Wow. I'd love to see that happen in the US, where Obama was criticized for
swatting a fly in public.

------
cpa
Bashing french unions certainly is fun, but please note that there absolutely
no evidence (in the article) that the attack was perpetrated by a french taxi
driver. This article is either very poorly documented or consciously
misleading (or both).

> There’s no confirmation that this attack came from the protesting taxi
> drivers; however, that certainly seems to line up with the sentiment felt by
> taxi drivers these days – unwarranted hate.

~~~
userulluipeste
But it's not only about the physical attack itself, which I agree that it's
doubtful, it's also about the broad view. There's an economical-based conflict
that stretches far out of pure economical front, using questionable methods,
for questionable reasons (fight someone because some one else ripped you
off?). Not that is something unique, but interesting to watch nevertheless.

------
sebastialonso
I've been always curious about these relationship that arises when someone
disrupts an existing ecosystem.

I'm all for innovation,and finding ways to make things, environments and
habits, better, more efficient, safer and more intelligent. This, however,
raises an interesting moral dilemma. In these ecosystems, prior to the
disruptor, agents live and thrive. After the disruptor, these agents must
adapt or otherwise, be gone.

When you think these agents are actually human beings, with issues, dreams and
families, a new variable is added to the discussion. Is it OK to disrupt an
ecosystem if you find a way to make everything better? Is it moral? You found
a better way, so surely it must be implemented, and there are few arguments
against that. The agents in the ecosystem had almost all what was needed to
find the new way, to enhance their ecosystem: time, experience, imagination.
And for one motive or another, they failed to do it. What is their argument
when someone else comes along and provides a better solution?

I'm not trying to sound Randian or anything, but I truly believe that 'we have
families to feed' or 'will lose job' is not a very good argument. Is the
ecosystem supposed to be kept in the previous state just for the agenda of a
subset of the agents? Under that argument, we shouldn't have cars in the first
place. Nor bronze age
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EGAtLGDU7M))

Is this a testament of the inherent cruelty (cruelty in a poetic way, just as
natural selection can be thought of cruel) of the free market, or just a
testament of the importance of innovation as a way of survival? Maybe both? I
can't help but notice heavy analogies with Natural Selection.

~~~
jaekwon
At the same time, it's just a bit strange that we take "innovation" for
granted.

Think about it. The way we prod it forward, always stumbling away from our
past.

Overall may be the biggest baddest religion man has ever seen.

Godliness is our final destination. That's significant, and possibly our own
undoing.

------
tadfisher
What a great way to win support for your cause.

------
collypops
That's what I call disruption

------
parasight
> There’s no confirmation that this attack came from the protesting taxi
> drivers

So why are we talking as if it came form the protesting taxi drivers then?
Maybe they were just ordinary thugs. I know people who got robed in their
rental car in Paris. I love Paris but there are certainly saver places in
France.

------
tga_d
This isn't "guerrilla warfare," it's an isolated case of assault.

------
userbinator
Would it be of any benefit if Uber cars were less identifiable?

~~~
aragot
Yes.

While Uber doesn't seem faithful to me on this story, I would also love if
taxis in Paris were affordable and good quality, like in Madrid and Syndey. It
would develop the job and reduce car pollution.

------
pointer899
Glad to see the taxi drivers of Paris taking action. Uber are just another
scumbag American company, trying to turn a skilled profession into an
anonymous commodity service, and in the process ensure the CEO makes millions
while the employees receive peanuts. This doesn't fly in a country with such
strong Unions and solidarity as France.

~~~
mgraczyk
This seems like sarcasm, but if it isn't would you care to elaborate on how
France or its citizens are harmed by Uber? You seem to have first praised the
Taxi drivers for lashing out at Uber drivers, but then you claim that Uber is
a "scumbag" because of the way it treats its drivers. Isn't that
contradictory?

~~~
pointer899
Not sarcasm. American companies are notorious for treating employees like shit
and paying them as little as they legally can. French Unions ensure decent
working conditions and a fair wage.

~~~
icebraining
_" treating employees like shit"_

Unlike smashing the windows and tires of the car they're driving? The guy
driving the Uber car is just an employee, too.

~~~
pointer899
He's essentially a scab, undermining the Unions bargaining power. Enough scabs
and it becomes difficult for employees to be treated fairly.

~~~
icebraining
If there are enough scabs to fill the required positions, one might question
the legitimacy of the union.

------
static_typed
Luckily for Uber, the protesters only protest a maximum of thirty five hours
per week, Fuck off entirely for the month of August, and won't travel more
than two miles from one of the dirty bistros to protest in the first place.

If I was Uber, I would pay cash to all the homeless people to take slow long
rides in the normal cabs to block them up.

~~~
carlob
I downvoted your comment because it doesn't add nothing to the conversation
other than prejudice and borders on racism.

Every other day there is content on the front page suggesting that a shorter
work week and 4 weeks of holiday are actually good for you and still here you
are.

You're probably just a troll, I shouldn't even have replied.

