ADIT photos

Old Feb 1st 2001, 5:02 am
  #16  
RJLiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh good, another intelligent reply.

> In article <[email protected] k.net>,

> >
> > It was not advice, it was a rhetorical remark to your blanket
> statement.
>
> You may stick your rhetorical remarks up your fat rhetorical Ass
>
> Grinch
>
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 5:45 am
  #17  
Grinch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I _think_ and can be corrected, that the photo specification
> says that right ear and left eye must be visible, and that all facial features must be
> identifiable. I had mine taken with glasses, no earrings, and the K1 interview officer
> (London) and the AOS interview officer (Dallas) both looked closely at them to see
> whether they were acceptable and did not query the glasses at all. Maybe another
> discretionary thing, if the features are clear they let it go perhaps. YMMV.

You are totally correct. It is possible that Glasses and earings may be deemed as not
obscuring by one person and obscuring by another. As it is one of these discretionary
things I would err on the side of caution.

What works for one may not work for another and I feel that this groups advice should take
the safe route.

Unfortunately not everyone agrees with me on this and like to argue.

Grinch
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 5:50 am
  #18  
paulgani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

RJ,

Why are you trying to emulate Voight? You know, this is *exactly* the kind of conversation
he would try to pull off - "well it worked for me or this one person, and so what if the
underlying information is incorrect - the fact that it worked at least once means my
statement is right and you are wrong so nahh nahh nahh".

Think long. Think hard. Do you want to be known as Voight #2?

Paulgani

> I never said it was ok. I simple said that it has been done.
>
> You stated that you can not submit one with glasses and I simple said that
I
> submitted ones with earrings and glasses and had no problem. So it can be done. Maybe
> you are not suppose to do it but it has been done.
>
> So get over it. Your statement that you can not submit one with glasses
is
> not true. You should say something like, people have done it but it is
not
> advised. That would be better advice they saying it can not be done.
>

> > In article <[email protected] k.net>,

> > > Had my ADIT photos done with glasses and had no problem.
> >
> > so despite the fact that this group has seen adit photos rejected after they were
> > submitted with Earings and glasses and my AOS photos were rejected by Philly because
> > of glasses you would tell people that it is Ok because it worked for you.
> >
> > Good information
> >
> > Grinch
> >
> >
> >

> >
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 6:16 am
  #19  
Grinch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Think long. Think hard. Do you want to be known as Voight #2?

or even Voight with the Fat Rhetorical Ass

Grinch
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 7:10 am
  #20  
RJLiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Funny you should mention that. I was just thinking the same thing. But then I am not as
smart as Voight. Maybe a smart ass though.

Anyway since Voight was mentioned here is a neat little site I just found. www.iqtest.com

I think there test is flawed though because I got a IQ score of 148.

And to the Grinch, I may have a rhetorical ass but it is definitely not a fat
rhetorical ass.

Of course since my wife likes to cook so much I have developed Dunlap's disease. Where my
stomach done lapped over my belt.

> RJ,
>
> Why are you trying to emulate Voight? You know, this is *exactly* the
kind
> of conversation he would try to pull off - "well it worked for me or this one person,
> and so what if the underlying information is incorrect - the fact that it worked at
> least once means my statement is right and you are wrong so nahh nahh nahh".
>
> Think long. Think hard. Do you want to be known as Voight #2?
>
> Paulgani
>

> > I never said it was ok. I simple said that it has been done.
> >
> > You stated that you can not submit one with glasses and I simple said
that
> I
> > submitted ones with earrings and glasses and had no problem. So it can
be
> > done. Maybe you are not suppose to do it but it has been done.
> >
> > So get over it. Your statement that you can not submit one with glasses
> is
> > not true. You should say something like, people have done it but it is
> not
> > advised. That would be better advice they saying it can not be done.
> >

> > > In article <[email protected] k.net>,

> > > > Had my ADIT photos done with glasses and had no problem.
> > >
> > > so despite the fact that this group has seen adit photos rejected
after
> > > they were submitted with Earings and glasses and my AOS photos were rejected by
> > > Philly because of glasses you would tell people that it is Ok because it worked for
> > > you.
> > >
> > > Good information
> > >
> > > Grinch
> > >
> > >
> > >

> > >
> >
> >
>
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 7:53 am
  #21  
sine nomine
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

i am reminded of godwin's law ("'as a usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a
comparison involving nazis or hitler approaches one.' there is a tradition in many groups
that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the nazis has
automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.").

perhaps a possible corollary is "as a a.v.u.m-b discussion grows more acrimonious, the
probability of someone posting their purported iq score approaches 1."

--
sine | deb who will omit the explanation of why iq-score-dicksize wars among adults are
really pointless
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 7:57 am
  #22  
Edward Vlasov
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Anyway since Voight was mentioned here is a neat little site I just found.
> www.iqtest.com

> I think there test is flawed though because I got a IQ score of 148.

Divide it by $9.95 heh
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 8:23 am
  #23  
RJLiles
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If the NG ever goes to being moderated you have my vote.

> i am reminded of godwin's law ("'as a usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of
> a comparison involving nazis or hitler approaches one.' there is a tradition in many
> groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the nazis has
> automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.").
>
> perhaps a possible corollary is "as a a.v.u.m-b discussion grows more acrimonious, the
> probability of someone posting their purported iq score approaches 1."
>
> --
> sine | deb who will omit the explanation of why iq-score-dicksize wars among adults are
> really pointless
 
Old Feb 1st 2001, 8:49 am
  #24  
jeffreyh1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Deb,

Pun intended?

Regards, JEff there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
---------------------------------------------------
In article <[email protected]>,

> <<snip>>
> --
> sine | deb who will omit the explanation of why iq-score-dicksize wars among adults are
> really pointless
>

--
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.