Argh, another amensty program brewing
Dec 11th 2003, 6:21 pm
#61
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: My Old KY Home!
Posts: 6,498
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward, to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them. But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?" IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are "cluttered" with the html code on my browser. Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are "cluttered" with the html code on my browser. Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
Dec 11th 2003, 9:40 pm
#62
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 2,345
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Leslie66
He continues to call me stupid for calling it spam. I guess I'll call it clutter because he hasn't called you stupid yet.
Leslie
He continues to call me stupid for calling it spam. I guess I'll call it clutter because he hasn't called you stupid yet.
Leslie
Dec 12th 2003, 12:37 am
#63
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by sunflwrgrl13
This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward, to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them. But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?" IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are "cluttered" with the html code on my browser. Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward, to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them. But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?" IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are "cluttered" with the html code on my browser. Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
There are interesting issues in the "amnesty" arena. The various merits are more of a political issue.
What I find interesting is what I consider to be the "misuse" of the term "amnesty." BTW, the 1986 "amnesty" program was NEVER officially called that -- it is referred to as "legalization."
Unforutnately, the word "amnensty" has acquired a lot of pejorative baggage. And there are lots of things that get that pejorative attached. I find it somewhat amusing that I've never seen anyone complain about the availablity of the I-601 for giving "amnesty" to those scoflaws who had the audacity, the sheer audacity and contemp of the law to remain in the United States for 271 days after admission on a VWT!
As for the formatting problems with ADF's posts, its interesting to note that the cluttered posts don't show up at ALL on google groups. On Google [the old DejaNews], MY response to Aleca, [the third item in this string] appears first.
I analogize it to playing music in our cars -- one has a CD only sound system, the other casette/CD. I have a formatting problem in playing casettes in the CD only car -- inompatible formats. I don't lose sleep over that.
Dec 12th 2003, 3:22 am
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
> This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a
> bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward,
> to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them.
In my experience many more people are not. I appreciate them when I see
them.
> But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?"
Yeah, aren't those those things that hold the rug to the floor? :-)
> IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should
> consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since
> you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
First off I don't see my comments as attacking. Not that they are never
attacking, rather they are attacking only after being attacked. Take for
example where I responded to Leslie in this very article simply asking
her what does she know of the LIFE act and then explaining how I saw it
as an amnesty program. She then attacked me. Was my words or tone
attacking or threatening? No. Do I care if such people view me as nasty?
Well no. They already view me as nasty even when I haven't done anything
nasty. You can "win" (in this case win means appear non-nasty) with
these people so why even try?
> As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that
> always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are
> "cluttered" with the html code on my browser.
Since you work for a top-notch software company why then doesn't their
software handle HTML. Pray tell what software is it that you are using?
Are you a programming? Can you look at the code? Can you talk to the
software engineers and ask them if it would be possible to handle HTML?
I notice your last word is browser. Are you trying to say that browsers
are incapable of rendering HTML?!?
On my Mandrake 9.1 Linux system if I "more" an HTML file it renders it
into ASCII and tells me if I want to see the raw HTML to append a ":" to
the file name. Outlook Express renders HTML as does Netscape and
Thunderbird. Sorry I don't use many other news reading clients as the
ones I do use handle just about everything already.
You know even Usenet news articles have a lot of clutter to them, known
as headers, yet new readers do not typically display all that clutter
nor include them in responses. The news readers are "smart" enough to
obscure such additional info. Why then can the not be made "smart"
enough to handle HTML? (Answer: Some of them are. Older news reading
clients typically are not. And apparently many web based discussion
groups have not been coded to handle them either, though they code be).
> Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people
> to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the
> news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are
> in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
It's been my experience that people do read and respond to my posts
anyway. Otherwise even you would not have responded, right? People bitch
and complain about it but largely that's all they do. And if they wish
to not read that's fine with me too.
--
Programmer - A red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with
inanimate objects.
> This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a
> bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward,
> to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them.
In my experience many more people are not. I appreciate them when I see
them.
> But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?"
Yeah, aren't those those things that hold the rug to the floor? :-)
> IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should
> consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since
> you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
First off I don't see my comments as attacking. Not that they are never
attacking, rather they are attacking only after being attacked. Take for
example where I responded to Leslie in this very article simply asking
her what does she know of the LIFE act and then explaining how I saw it
as an amnesty program. She then attacked me. Was my words or tone
attacking or threatening? No. Do I care if such people view me as nasty?
Well no. They already view me as nasty even when I haven't done anything
nasty. You can "win" (in this case win means appear non-nasty) with
these people so why even try?
> As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that
> always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are
> "cluttered" with the html code on my browser.
Since you work for a top-notch software company why then doesn't their
software handle HTML. Pray tell what software is it that you are using?
Are you a programming? Can you look at the code? Can you talk to the
software engineers and ask them if it would be possible to handle HTML?
I notice your last word is browser. Are you trying to say that browsers
are incapable of rendering HTML?!?
On my Mandrake 9.1 Linux system if I "more" an HTML file it renders it
into ASCII and tells me if I want to see the raw HTML to append a ":" to
the file name. Outlook Express renders HTML as does Netscape and
Thunderbird. Sorry I don't use many other news reading clients as the
ones I do use handle just about everything already.
You know even Usenet news articles have a lot of clutter to them, known
as headers, yet new readers do not typically display all that clutter
nor include them in responses. The news readers are "smart" enough to
obscure such additional info. Why then can the not be made "smart"
enough to handle HTML? (Answer: Some of them are. Older news reading
clients typically are not. And apparently many web based discussion
groups have not been coded to handle them either, though they code be).
> Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people
> to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the
> news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are
> in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
It's been my experience that people do read and respond to my posts
anyway. Otherwise even you would not have responded, right? People bitch
and complain about it but largely that's all they do. And if they wish
to not read that's fine with me too.
--
Programmer - A red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with
inanimate objects.
Dec 12th 2003, 3:32 am
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Folinskyinla wrote:
> What I find interesting is what I consider to be the "misuse" of the
> term "amnesty." BTW, the 1986 "amnesty" program was NEVER officially
> called that -- it is referred to as "legalization."
The essence of PC is to give an action a different term to make it sound
better while making the action no less objectionable. They don't call
illegal aliens illegal either, they're undocumented. But we all know
what it really is. If you the type of person who wishes to call a spade
a spade then you would say "He stole my money". If you are a PC person
then you say "He borrowed my money for an undetermined length of time".
You can call it "legalization" we all know it's amnesty.
> Unforutnately, the word "amnensty" has acquired a lot of pejorative
> baggage. And there are lots of things that get that pejorative
> attached. I find it somewhat amusing that I've never seen anyone
> complain about the availablity of the I-601 for giving "amnesty" to
> those scoflaws who had the audacity, the sheer audacity and contemp of
> the law to remain in the United States for 271 days after admission on
> a VWT!
I-601's are exactly that - amnesty. I-601's are extremely difficult to
get and they don't happen in the millions. They are closely scrutinised
on a case by case basis and you need to make a case to "prove" that you
deserve the amnesty. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem
with applying a blanket amnesty program to hundreds of thousands or
millions of people who have violated laws with little to no
justification as to why such amnesty should be granted without looking
carefully at each case and circumstance.
> As for the formatting problems with ADF's posts, its interesting to
> note that the cluttered posts don't show up at ALL on google groups.
> On Google [the old DejaNews], MY response to Aleca, [the third item in
> this string] appears first.
IOW, as I've been saying all along, it is doable but BE has elected not
to do it.
--
Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?
> What I find interesting is what I consider to be the "misuse" of the
> term "amnesty." BTW, the 1986 "amnesty" program was NEVER officially
> called that -- it is referred to as "legalization."
The essence of PC is to give an action a different term to make it sound
better while making the action no less objectionable. They don't call
illegal aliens illegal either, they're undocumented. But we all know
what it really is. If you the type of person who wishes to call a spade
a spade then you would say "He stole my money". If you are a PC person
then you say "He borrowed my money for an undetermined length of time".
You can call it "legalization" we all know it's amnesty.
> Unforutnately, the word "amnensty" has acquired a lot of pejorative
> baggage. And there are lots of things that get that pejorative
> attached. I find it somewhat amusing that I've never seen anyone
> complain about the availablity of the I-601 for giving "amnesty" to
> those scoflaws who had the audacity, the sheer audacity and contemp of
> the law to remain in the United States for 271 days after admission on
> a VWT!
I-601's are exactly that - amnesty. I-601's are extremely difficult to
get and they don't happen in the millions. They are closely scrutinised
on a case by case basis and you need to make a case to "prove" that you
deserve the amnesty. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem
with applying a blanket amnesty program to hundreds of thousands or
millions of people who have violated laws with little to no
justification as to why such amnesty should be granted without looking
carefully at each case and circumstance.
> As for the formatting problems with ADF's posts, its interesting to
> note that the cluttered posts don't show up at ALL on google groups.
> On Google [the old DejaNews], MY response to Aleca, [the third item in
> this string] appears first.
IOW, as I've been saying all along, it is doable but BE has elected not
to do it.
--
Why is the alphabet in that order? Is it because of that song?
Dec 12th 2003, 4:09 am
#66
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2003
Location: Loveland, Colorado
Posts: 409
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Andrew -
You miss the point entirely. The real point is that the vast majority (77% the last time I analized such things) of this particular newsgroup post and VIEW with a browser. In the browser view, your posts most often are filled with an incredible amount of clutter. So much so as to be virtually unreadable. It appears that you don't care whether your posts are readable or not. I agree with Folinskyinla that you have some interesting things to say, but the formatting puts me, and I believe many others in this NG, off. If you care what your posts look like, use your browser (you DO own a browser don't you?) to see what you have been inflicting on the rest of us all this time.
Richard III
You miss the point entirely. The real point is that the vast majority (77% the last time I analized such things) of this particular newsgroup post and VIEW with a browser. In the browser view, your posts most often are filled with an incredible amount of clutter. So much so as to be virtually unreadable. It appears that you don't care whether your posts are readable or not. I agree with Folinskyinla that you have some interesting things to say, but the formatting puts me, and I believe many others in this NG, off. If you care what your posts look like, use your browser (you DO own a browser don't you?) to see what you have been inflicting on the rest of us all this time.
Richard III
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
> This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a
> bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward,
> to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them.
In my experience many more people are not. I appreciate them when I see
them.
> But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?"
Yeah, aren't those those things that hold the rug to the floor? :-)
> IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should
> consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since
> you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
First off I don't see my comments as attacking. Not that they are never
attacking, rather they are attacking only after being attacked. Take for
example where I responded to Leslie in this very article simply asking
her what does she know of the LIFE act and then explaining how I saw it
as an amnesty program. She then attacked me. Was my words or tone
attacking or threatening? No. Do I care if such people view me as nasty?
Well no. They already view me as nasty even when I haven't done anything
nasty. You can "win" (in this case win means appear non-nasty) with
these people so why even try?
> As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that
> always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are
> "cluttered" with the html code on my browser.
Since you work for a top-notch software company why then doesn't their
software handle HTML. Pray tell what software is it that you are using?
Are you a programming? Can you look at the code? Can you talk to the
software engineers and ask them if it would be possible to handle HTML?
I notice your last word is browser. Are you trying to say that browsers
are incapable of rendering HTML?!?
On my Mandrake 9.1 Linux system if I "more" an HTML file it renders it
into ASCII and tells me if I want to see the raw HTML to append a ":" to
the file name. Outlook Express renders HTML as does Netscape and
Thunderbird. Sorry I don't use many other news reading clients as the
ones I do use handle just about everything already.
You know even Usenet news articles have a lot of clutter to them, known
as headers, yet new readers do not typically display all that clutter
nor include them in responses. The news readers are "smart" enough to
obscure such additional info. Why then can the not be made "smart"
enough to handle HTML? (Answer: Some of them are. Older news reading
clients typically are not. And apparently many web based discussion
groups have not been coded to handle them either, though they code be).
> Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people
> to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the
> news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are
> in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
It's been my experience that people do read and respond to my posts
anyway. Otherwise even you would not have responded, right? People bitch
and complain about it but largely that's all they do. And if they wish
to not read that's fine with me too.
--
Programmer - A red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with
inanimate objects.
sunflwrgrl13 wrote:
> This post started off rather interesting, and has now turned into a
> bit of an attack. You know Andrew, many people are straight-forward,
> to-the-point individuals, and I can appreciate that, as I'm one of them.
In my experience many more people are not. I appreciate them when I see
them.
> But have you ever heard of a thing called "tact?"
Yeah, aren't those those things that hold the rug to the floor? :-)
> IF you care that people seem to be nasty to you, maybe you should
> consider phrasing your comments/replies in a non-attacking tone. Since
> you've been around the 'net so much, I'm sure you know what I mean.
First off I don't see my comments as attacking. Not that they are never
attacking, rather they are attacking only after being attacked. Take for
example where I responded to Leslie in this very article simply asking
her what does she know of the LIFE act and then explaining how I saw it
as an amnesty program. She then attacked me. Was my words or tone
attacking or threatening? No. Do I care if such people view me as nasty?
Well no. They already view me as nasty even when I haven't done anything
nasty. You can "win" (in this case win means appear non-nasty) with
these people so why even try?
> As far as your html software, I work for a top-notch company that
> always has updated software, and I'd say about 75% of your posts are
> "cluttered" with the html code on my browser.
Since you work for a top-notch software company why then doesn't their
software handle HTML. Pray tell what software is it that you are using?
Are you a programming? Can you look at the code? Can you talk to the
software engineers and ask them if it would be possible to handle HTML?
I notice your last word is browser. Are you trying to say that browsers
are incapable of rendering HTML?!?
On my Mandrake 9.1 Linux system if I "more" an HTML file it renders it
into ASCII and tells me if I want to see the raw HTML to append a ":" to
the file name. Outlook Express renders HTML as does Netscape and
Thunderbird. Sorry I don't use many other news reading clients as the
ones I do use handle just about everything already.
You know even Usenet news articles have a lot of clutter to them, known
as headers, yet new readers do not typically display all that clutter
nor include them in responses. The news readers are "smart" enough to
obscure such additional info. Why then can the not be made "smart"
enough to handle HTML? (Answer: Some of them are. Older news reading
clients typically are not. And apparently many web based discussion
groups have not been coded to handle them either, though they code be).
> Obviously you do have some control over it, thus, IF you want people
> to read & respond to what you post, or make people more aware of the
> news stories you post about, you should consider making sure they are
> in a legible format for 95% of the people reading them.
It's been my experience that people do read and respond to my posts
anyway. Otherwise even you would not have responded, right? People bitch
and complain about it but largely that's all they do. And if they wish
to not read that's fine with me too.
--
Programmer - A red-eyed, mumbling mammal capable of conversing with
inanimate objects.
Dec 12th 2003, 4:43 am
#67
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Richard III
Andrew -
You miss the point entirely. The real point is that the vast majority (77% the last time I analized such things) of this particular newsgroup post and VIEW with a browser. In the browser view, your posts most often are filled with an incredible amount of clutter. So much so as to be virtually unreadable. It appears that you don't care whether your posts are readable or not. I agree with Folinskyinla that you have some interesting things to say, but the formatting puts me, and I believe many others in this NG, off. If you care what your posts look like, use your browser (you DO own a browser don't you?) to see what you have been inflicting on the rest of us all this time.
Richard III
Andrew -
You miss the point entirely. The real point is that the vast majority (77% the last time I analized such things) of this particular newsgroup post and VIEW with a browser. In the browser view, your posts most often are filled with an incredible amount of clutter. So much so as to be virtually unreadable. It appears that you don't care whether your posts are readable or not. I agree with Folinskyinla that you have some interesting things to say, but the formatting puts me, and I believe many others in this NG, off. If you care what your posts look like, use your browser (you DO own a browser don't you?) to see what you have been inflicting on the rest of us all this time.
Richard III
Hi Richard:
Be nice. Take a note of what he said in response to me:
"> As for the formatting problems with ADF's posts, its interesting to
> note that the cluttered posts don't show up at ALL on google groups.
> On Google [the old DejaNews], MY response to Aleca, [the third item in
> this string] appears first.
IOW, as I've been saying all along, it is doable but BE has elected not
to do it."
In other words, he admits that there is a formatting compatibility problem. To allow me an imprefect analogy -- he seems to be admitting that he is using a DVD which does not work well on the BritishExpats CD player or cassette deck.
Do note that these recent posts ARE in a format that is working on BritishExpats just fine.
I appreciate his effort to do that.
Dec 12th 2003, 4:48 am
#68
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Richard is nice. He's one of the nicest kindest sweetest people that posts on this forum. Unlike ADF.
Originally posted by Folinskyinla
Hi Richard:
Be nice. Take a note of what he said in response to me:
"> As for the formatting problems with ADF's posts, its interesting to
> note that the cluttered posts don't show up at ALL on google groups.
> On Google [the old DejaNews], MY response to Aleca, [the third item in
> this string] appears first.
IOW, as I've been saying all along, it is doable but BE has elected not
to do it."
In other words, he admits that there is a formatting compatibility problem. To allow me an imprefect analogy -- he seems to be admitting that he is using a DVD which does not work well on the BritishExpats CD player or cassette deck.
Do note that these recent posts ARE in a format that is working on BritishExpats just fine.
I appreciate his effort to do that.
Hi Richard:
Be nice. Take a note of what he said in response to me:
"> As for the formatting problems with ADF's posts, its interesting to
> note that the cluttered posts don't show up at ALL on google groups.
> On Google [the old DejaNews], MY response to Aleca, [the third item in
> this string] appears first.
IOW, as I've been saying all along, it is doable but BE has elected not
to do it."
In other words, he admits that there is a formatting compatibility problem. To allow me an imprefect analogy -- he seems to be admitting that he is using a DVD which does not work well on the BritishExpats CD player or cassette deck.
Do note that these recent posts ARE in a format that is working on BritishExpats just fine.
I appreciate his effort to do that.
Dec 12th 2003, 5:27 am
#69
Account Closed
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 16,266
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Andrew Defaria
Folinskyinla wrote:
> What I find interesting is what I consider to be the "misuse" of the
> term "amnesty." BTW, the 1986 "amnesty" program was NEVER officially
> called that -- it is referred to as "legalization."
The essence of PC is to give an action a different term to make it sound
better while making the action no less objectionable. They don't call
illegal aliens illegal either, they're undocumented. But we all know
what it really is. If you the type of person who wishes to call a spade
a spade then you would say "He stole my money". If you are a PC person
then you say "He borrowed my money for an undetermined length of time".
You can call it "legalization" we all know it's amnesty.
> Unforutnately, the word "amnensty" has acquired a lot of pejorative
> baggage. And there are lots of things that get that pejorative
> attached. I find it somewhat amusing that I've never seen anyone
> complain about the availablity of the I-601 for giving "amnesty" to
> those scoflaws who had the audacity, the sheer audacity and contemp of
> the law to remain in the United States for 271 days after admission on
> a VWT!
I-601's are exactly that - amnesty. I-601's are extremely difficult to
get and they don't happen in the millions. They are closely scrutinised
on a case by case basis and you need to make a case to "prove" that you
deserve the amnesty. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem
with applying a blanket amnesty program to hundreds of thousands or
millions of people who have violated laws with little to no
justification as to why such amnesty should be granted without looking
carefully at each case and circumstance.
Folinskyinla wrote:
> What I find interesting is what I consider to be the "misuse" of the
> term "amnesty." BTW, the 1986 "amnesty" program was NEVER officially
> called that -- it is referred to as "legalization."
The essence of PC is to give an action a different term to make it sound
better while making the action no less objectionable. They don't call
illegal aliens illegal either, they're undocumented. But we all know
what it really is. If you the type of person who wishes to call a spade
a spade then you would say "He stole my money". If you are a PC person
then you say "He borrowed my money for an undetermined length of time".
You can call it "legalization" we all know it's amnesty.
> Unforutnately, the word "amnensty" has acquired a lot of pejorative
> baggage. And there are lots of things that get that pejorative
> attached. I find it somewhat amusing that I've never seen anyone
> complain about the availablity of the I-601 for giving "amnesty" to
> those scoflaws who had the audacity, the sheer audacity and contemp of
> the law to remain in the United States for 271 days after admission on
> a VWT!
I-601's are exactly that - amnesty. I-601's are extremely difficult to
get and they don't happen in the millions. They are closely scrutinised
on a case by case basis and you need to make a case to "prove" that you
deserve the amnesty. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem
with applying a blanket amnesty program to hundreds of thousands or
millions of people who have violated laws with little to no
justification as to why such amnesty should be granted without looking
carefully at each case and circumstance.
First, thank you for acknowledging the formatting problem. And also, thank you for formatting this post to conform with the readers [even though you don't like them]. It is appreciated.
Most of what you are saying is in the realm of political discussion -- who should and who shouldn't be allowed to stay here.
The terms "amnesty", "illegal alien" or "undocumented worker" don't appear in the law. I've never liked the use of either PC or non-PC in this arena. I know that many PC-speakers object to the term "alien" but since recent PC use of "non-citizen" parallels the very definition of "alien", that is one use of PC that doesn't bother me too much. [Although, the pedantic side of me wonders about "non-citizen nationals" from Samoa -- but that is a minor quibble.
]The closest thing to "illegal alien" in the law might be "unauthorized alien" in the employment authorizaton regulations. However, it is possible to be an "illegal alien" and be an "authorized alien" with EAD in hand! There are many aliens "illegally" present in the US who can't be deported due to practical considerations. The prime example are former green card holders with convictions, final orders of removal and no other country which will accept them. In fact, there is a nickname for these people who are in custody due to danger to the community: "lifers."
In other areas of the law which are dependent upon immigration status -- there has been created the concept of "PRUCOL" -- an acronym for "permanently resident under color of law." I have a client who entered as a medical doctor under a "J" visa which is, by defintion, a "dirty" J. INS determined that he WILL be persecuted in his home country, so removal to that country has been "with-held" as is allowed by the law. However, due to a technical ground, he cannot be granted asylum. He falls under the PRUCOL definition. But technically speaking, he has no right to remain here. If DHS ever found a third country willing to take him, he could be deported.
Out of curiosity -- lets posit a overstayed alien, call her an "illegal alien" -- who marries a US citizen. She can file for adjustment of status and gain legal status. Her illegal status is not even questioned by DHS. Would you consider this a "blanket amnesty"?
Dec 12th 2003, 5:29 am
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by Leslie66
Richard is nice. He's one of the nicest kindest sweetest people that posts on this forum. Unlike ADF.
Richard is nice. He's one of the nicest kindest sweetest people that posts on this forum. Unlike ADF.
You are right, Richard is a nice person. Andy seems like a "nice" person also but he and I are so far apart on some issues...ie.. how to deal with "illegal immigration" and the "letter of the law" which in some cases may differ from the "spirit or intent" of certain laws. Actually I will say this, Andy appears to be very intelligent but..
"neither a great deal of intelligence nor a great deal of education goes to the making of genius; love, love, love, that's the essence of true genius." Amadaus Mozart.
Dec 12th 2003, 5:37 am
#71
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Richard III wrote:
> You miss the point entirely.
No I don't - I just don't agree with you.
> The real point is that the vast majority (77% the last time I analized
> such things) of this particular newsgroup post and VIEW with a browser.
Are their browsers incapable of rending HTML? Seems that Google manages
to deal with it.
> In the browser view, your posts most often are filled with an
> incredible amount of clutter. So much so as to be virtually
> unreadable. It appears that you don't care whether your posts are
> readable or not.
Seems people have been reading and responding nonetheless.
I don't care to solve the problem with YOUR software of choice. One
point you miss is that this is not the only newsgroup I read and post
to. And I doubt BritishExpats gives access to the over 60K newsgroups I
might want to read. Plus I hate web based discussion groups for many
reasons I've posted about before.
> I agree with Folinskyinla that you have some interesting things to
> say, but the formatting puts me, and I believe many others in this NG,
> off.
I cannot help it that you choose to use a method of access that causes
you problems. I use the tools of my own choosing and you use the tools
of your own choosing. In order to communicate together both tools must
adhere to standards. While it may be discouraged to post in HTML it is
not forbidden and it falls well within the standard.
> If you care what your posts look like, use your browser (you DO own a
> browser don't you?) to see what you have been inflicting on the rest
> of us all this time.
Yes I do have a browser - several of them. I have no interests in
signing up for an account at BritishExpats to view my postings. I am
capable of taking your word for it that it is indeed ugly. What do you
think I'm going to go over there and say "Wow this is ugly!" and change?
I know it's ugly. I know what HTML looks like in the raw. I write it
myself. If I wish to see what it looks like in the raw I need only type
Control-U. Have you looked at raw Usenet postings? They're ugly too. But
the news reading client hides this ugliness. Even BE hides it. Why then
can it not be made to "hide" the "ugliness" of an HTML post? I hear
Google does.
--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
> You miss the point entirely.
No I don't - I just don't agree with you.
> The real point is that the vast majority (77% the last time I analized
> such things) of this particular newsgroup post and VIEW with a browser.
Are their browsers incapable of rending HTML? Seems that Google manages
to deal with it.
> In the browser view, your posts most often are filled with an
> incredible amount of clutter. So much so as to be virtually
> unreadable. It appears that you don't care whether your posts are
> readable or not.
Seems people have been reading and responding nonetheless.
I don't care to solve the problem with YOUR software of choice. One
point you miss is that this is not the only newsgroup I read and post
to. And I doubt BritishExpats gives access to the over 60K newsgroups I
might want to read. Plus I hate web based discussion groups for many
reasons I've posted about before.
> I agree with Folinskyinla that you have some interesting things to
> say, but the formatting puts me, and I believe many others in this NG,
> off.
I cannot help it that you choose to use a method of access that causes
you problems. I use the tools of my own choosing and you use the tools
of your own choosing. In order to communicate together both tools must
adhere to standards. While it may be discouraged to post in HTML it is
not forbidden and it falls well within the standard.
> If you care what your posts look like, use your browser (you DO own a
> browser don't you?) to see what you have been inflicting on the rest
> of us all this time.
Yes I do have a browser - several of them. I have no interests in
signing up for an account at BritishExpats to view my postings. I am
capable of taking your word for it that it is indeed ugly. What do you
think I'm going to go over there and say "Wow this is ugly!" and change?
I know it's ugly. I know what HTML looks like in the raw. I write it
myself. If I wish to see what it looks like in the raw I need only type
Control-U. Have you looked at raw Usenet postings? They're ugly too. But
the news reading client hides this ugliness. Even BE hides it. Why then
can it not be made to "hide" the "ugliness" of an HTML post? I hear
Google does.
--
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Dec 12th 2003, 5:44 am
#72
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Folinskyinla wrote:
> Do note that these recent posts ARE in a format that is working on
> BritishExpats just fine.
> I appreciate his effort to do that.
For the record I tend to post in plain text AND HTML. Still people
complained. So for a time I set it to just post HTML. I figured people
are gonna complain anyway. People complained more. So now I'm back to
posting plain text and HTML.
(Also note that I believe that it will only do the HTML if an HTML
construct is used. So if I bold something or include a smiley (I think)
it becomes a plain text/HTML post. Also, I'm pretty sure that if I reply
to an article that is HTML it will continue to use HTML. If I do nothing
it becomes just a plain text post - I think. I have not fully
investigated this though you could if you want. Also I recently switched
from Netscape to Thunderbird. Now both are derived from Mozilla, the
Open Source project that Netscape became, so I would think they would
behave similarly though Thunderbird has continued onward while Netscape
was killed by AOL so it may behave differently).
--
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
> Do note that these recent posts ARE in a format that is working on
> BritishExpats just fine.
> I appreciate his effort to do that.
For the record I tend to post in plain text AND HTML. Still people
complained. So for a time I set it to just post HTML. I figured people
are gonna complain anyway. People complained more. So now I'm back to
posting plain text and HTML.
(Also note that I believe that it will only do the HTML if an HTML
construct is used. So if I bold something or include a smiley (I think)
it becomes a plain text/HTML post. Also, I'm pretty sure that if I reply
to an article that is HTML it will continue to use HTML. If I do nothing
it becomes just a plain text post - I think. I have not fully
investigated this though you could if you want. Also I recently switched
from Netscape to Thunderbird. Now both are derived from Mozilla, the
Open Source project that Netscape became, so I would think they would
behave similarly though Thunderbird has continued onward while Netscape
was killed by AOL so it may behave differently).
--
Out of my mind. Back in five minutes.
Dec 12th 2003, 6:01 am
#73
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by David9287
Hey 66,
You are right, Richard is a nice person. Andy seems like a "nice" person also but he and I are so far apart on some issues...ie.. how to deal with "illegal immigration" and the "letter of the law" which in some cases may differ from the "spirit or intent" of certain laws. Actually I will say this, Andy appears to be very intelligent but..
"neither a great deal of intelligence nor a great deal of education goes to the making of genius; love, love, love, that's the essence of true genius." Amadaus Mozart.
Hey 66,
You are right, Richard is a nice person. Andy seems like a "nice" person also but he and I are so far apart on some issues...ie.. how to deal with "illegal immigration" and the "letter of the law" which in some cases may differ from the "spirit or intent" of certain laws. Actually I will say this, Andy appears to be very intelligent but..
"neither a great deal of intelligence nor a great deal of education goes to the making of genius; love, love, love, that's the essence of true genius." Amadaus Mozart.
Hi David,
He also argues just for the sake of arguing. Arguing for a reason is wonderful. Fight for something you believe in. Fight with someone you disagree with. But don't just do it for entertainment. He claims to be honest and "in your face", but he is really inconsistent and plays mind games. Intelligence is not wisdom.
Leslie
Dec 12th 2003, 6:04 am
#74
Forum Regular
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 32
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
You said a lot there. an intelligent person can be very foolish. Take me for instance. lol
Dec 12th 2003, 6:28 am
#75
WTF?
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Homeostasis
Posts: 79,443
Re: Argh, another amensty program brewing
Originally posted by dave dubya
You said a lot there. an intelligent person can be very foolish. Take me for instance. lol
You said a lot there. an intelligent person can be very foolish. Take me for instance. lol
You said a mouthful there, dubya.
