sledge_hammer
04-15 10:58 AM
Your employer did not put a gun to your head and told you to fake your resume. You wanted a quick way to get into a job and you knew what you were doing.
Like someone else here has commented, you both deserve to pay the price for what you have done!
Hi,
I am on H1B without job and no paystubs.
My employer has been trying to find a project for me but till now he couldnt get anything.
Its been 6 months alreay since I am on H1B visa.
He made me modify my actual experience to include fake projects .
Now I am thinking of filing a complaint to DOL.
I have my H1B petition and offer letter from the employer.
But I am worried that if I file complaint ,my employer will threaten me telling that I faked my experience and submitted fake resumes.
What should I do? Will DOL take any action against me?
Any success stories of DOL complaint filing?
Like someone else here has commented, you both deserve to pay the price for what you have done!
Hi,
I am on H1B without job and no paystubs.
My employer has been trying to find a project for me but till now he couldnt get anything.
Its been 6 months alreay since I am on H1B visa.
He made me modify my actual experience to include fake projects .
Now I am thinking of filing a complaint to DOL.
I have my H1B petition and offer letter from the employer.
But I am worried that if I file complaint ,my employer will threaten me telling that I faked my experience and submitted fake resumes.
What should I do? Will DOL take any action against me?
Any success stories of DOL complaint filing?
wallpaper room decorations for teenage
conundrum
05-25 07:52 AM
Kennedy's immigration council/staffers were there until late last night and currently none of them are in. It seems they would be in only by around 9-9:15
green_card_curious
03-08 10:17 AM
This is EXACTLY the confusion. My case is explained below:
1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.
So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...
Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?
Thanks,
1. I am on H1-B - havent used my EAD yet
2. My wife has and is currently using her EAD though
3. We filed I-140 (NIW) and I-485, concurrently for both of us in July 2007.
So what happens to our I-485's and her EAD? My attorney says she should be alright (legally and work eligibility wise) till we appeal and get the final decision. But we are hearing different things at these forums. So really not sure...
Ideas? Suggestions? Examples?
Thanks,
2011 images Dining Room Decoration
misha
07-21 01:10 PM
Are you sure about Advance Parole stamp in a passport. I know about Green Card approval stamp in a passport but not AP. Have you ever had that AP stamp experience?
more...
GCard_Dream
07-09 06:49 PM
Yes. We both did get the TB test done (test and X-ray) back in 2007. Even though the TB skin test came out negative, doctor didn't wait the test result and ordered the X-ray anyway.
I did take my wife for another medical today. Didn't need any vaccination but just the TB skin test, and blood test for HIV and RPE. The doctor said that the TB test does expire after a year but I am not sure if that's true. By the way, what do you mean by both TB test (skin test and X-ray)? Is X-ray mandatory?
Thanks to all for sharing their experience and knowledge.
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
I did take my wife for another medical today. Didn't need any vaccination but just the TB skin test, and blood test for HIV and RPE. The doctor said that the TB test does expire after a year but I am not sure if that's true. By the way, what do you mean by both TB test (skin test and X-ray)? Is X-ray mandatory?
Thanks to all for sharing their experience and knowledge.
1) Did you both get TB tested? The rules have changed. This is the most common cause for an RFE on medical exam.
2) Is she on any medication? Sometimes this requires a certificate from the prescribing physician. No big deal
Overall, there is probably no cause to worry about this. In fact, this could mean you are close to being approved. Same thing happened to me (see my history in my sig line).
chinna2003
07-03 09:13 AM
Sorry if you find it offensive, but I dont think its going to prove anything to the USCIS and I am not even sure they will notice it.
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
Why is no one talking about a public demonstartion in New York or something along those lines that is bound to get TV reporters attention and having a spokesperson who can speak on our behalf in front of a national audience and talk about the discrimintaion that US shows against legal workers
If Illegal Immigrants have the courage to pursue their agenda on the streets what is stopping us from doing it.
What are we afraid of? its not the lack of issues, its the lack of resolve
Lets see if thread swells to dewcent levels we can organize a protest against USCIS infront of NBC studios
Please read, sign and observe
http://www.petitiononline.com/aos485/petition.html
To: U,S. Congress American Government
USCIS/DOS has made fun of a set of highly skilled immigrant workers of America. They issued a bulletin in June 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3258.html) declaring all classes of employment-based visa priority dates current from July 1, 2007 and then pulled the carpet under everyone's feet by issuing a bulletin in July 2007 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3263.html) which declared all July applications ineligible.
The June bulletin caused a frenzy of activity amongst the applicants which ranged from applicants cancelling their travel plans and rushing to file their petitions to applicants tying the nuptial knot and cancelling their plans of higher studies. This act is mockery and disrespect of such skilled workers, causing them huge emotional and mental trauma. It also represents a huge economic loss in terms of time and resources consumed for readiness in filing the applications that involved the individuals, their employers and the attorneys representing them.
As a mark of protest we would like to observe July 13, 2007 as "NO WORK DAY". We demand justice from America and the American Governement. We believe our voices will only be heard when our presence (and importance) is made conspicuous by our absence. So, all those who believe in this are urged to refrain from going to work on Friday July 13, 2007.
Sincerely,
more...
lostinbeta
10-03 11:53 AM
Thanks :) I while back I wrote an Action that produced the effect because I used to use the fade out effect a lot, but my Photoshop got screwed up somehow and I had to remove it. So I don't have that Action anymore:(
Maybe I should remake it, I don't know, I don't use the effect as much anymore. I think I could just do it by hand.
Maybe I should remake it, I don't know, I don't use the effect as much anymore. I think I could just do it by hand.
2010 Sitting Room Decor trends in
deardar
09-14 03:56 PM
WOW - 6 to 7 congress men attending the rally- TOOOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.
more...
optimist578
03-18 01:05 PM
Most of the pro-immigrant bills donot seem to have cosponsors, whereas, the anti-immigrant/security-enhancing/american-jobs-protecting bills have a lot of support.
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
A small list of bills I found somewhat relevant to our issues...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
H.R.133 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (5)
H.R.938 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to make changes related to family-sponsored immigrants and to reduce the number of such immigrants.
Sponsor: Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] (introduced 2/8/2007) Cosponsors (17)
H.R.19 : To require employers to conduct employment eligibility verification.
Sponsor: Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.132 : To impose a criminal penalty on an alien who fails voluntarily to depart the United States after securing permission to do so, or who unlawfully returns to the United States after voluntarily departing.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (2)
H.R.98 : To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to enforce restrictions on employment in the United States of unauthorized aliens through the use of improved Social Security cards and an Employment Eligibility Database, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Dreier, David [CA-26] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (24)
H.R.842 : To provide for enhanced Federal, State, and local assistance in the enforcement of the immigration laws, to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, to authorize appropriations to carry out the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Norwood, Charles W. [GA-10] (introduced 2/6/2007) Cosponsors (None)
H.R.131 : To impose a mandatory minimum sentence on a deportable alien who fails to depart or fails to attend a removal proceeding.
Sponsor: Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] (introduced 1/4/2007) Cosponsors (1)
hair room decor. kid-room-decor-1.
Kodi
05-02 09:47 AM
I entered with 2 months to spare and they didn't even question. And I was on my 6th year.
more...
getgreensoon1
04-07 04:02 PM
You mean those passing from the likes of TVU and ITU or those from Harvard/MIT ?? How do you define "reputed" US University ? And why do you think clients engage "underskilled" operators and not "skilled" US graduates ? Lower rate ? But then we see so many US graduates languishing in EB 3 ???
BTW, why are you still having a hard time getting visa --- the quota was wide open till January at least .
There is no point blaming on non-US students when US students are making a beeline to desi consultants for H1. May be the law should be -- no consulting job for US graduates.
A reputed university = very few or no gultis. TVU had only gultis...so did not qualify.....
BTW, why are you still having a hard time getting visa --- the quota was wide open till January at least .
There is no point blaming on non-US students when US students are making a beeline to desi consultants for H1. May be the law should be -- no consulting job for US graduates.
A reputed university = very few or no gultis. TVU had only gultis...so did not qualify.....
hot girlfriend selena gomez outfit
rb_248
11-17 02:27 PM
My company is layingoff people. We have been through 5 rounds of layoffs. They have asked all the H1Bs to hold off until about 6 months after the final layoff is over. They have issued written memos to all my cols in H1B stating this reason. Truly unfortunate.
more...
house room decorations for teenagers
gc_bulgaria
10-09 04:18 PM
http://www.immigration-law.com/
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
10/08/2007: I-140 Portability After 180 Days of 485 Filing and Service Centers Standard Procedure of Review and Adjudication
When there is a retrogression of visa numbers and anticipated long delays in 485 adjudication due to the massive July VB fiasco 485 filings, it is anticipated that there will be a substantial number of 485 applicants who may have to change employment along the way, either voluntarily or involuntarily, under AC 21 Section 106(c) provision. Accordingly, whether one reports the change of employment proactively or not, one should learn the internal review and adjudication procedures within the Service Center which are adopted by the adjudicators in adjudicating such I-485 applications.
The good material to review on this procedure is the USCIS Standard Operating Procedure for the adjudicators. The SOP states that "If the alien is using the portability provisions of AC21 106(c), the adjudicator must determine that both the ported labor certification and the ported I-140 are still valid under the current employer, especially in regards to the continual payment of the prevailing wage, similar occupation classification, and the employer’s ability to pay the prevailing wage."
(1) Prevailing Wage Payment: The AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer pays the prevailing wage or higher wage for portability. However, the adjudicators review the wage as part of their determination of "continuing validity" of the ported certified labor certification application and I-140 petition. When the applicant stays with the same employer without changing employer, payment of wage less than the prevailing wage should not present any serious issue inasmuch as the employer establishes that the employer was financially able to pay the prevailing wage and is continuously able to pay the prevailing wage until the green card is approved. However, when there is a change of employer who pays less than the prevailing wage, there is no clear-cut rule with reference to this issue. Payment of less than prevailing wage thus potentially can raise two issues when there is a change of employer. One is the adjudicator's argument that there is no continuing validity of the labor certification or I-140 petition. The other is the argument that different wage reflects that the labor certification job and the new job with the new employer are two different occupational classifications.
(2) Similar occupational classification issue: The similarity of the two positions involves not the "jobs" but "occupational classification." Accordingly, the old and new positions do not necessarily have to match exactly in every details, especially specific skill sets. Currently, the USCIS is looking up the Labor Department SOC/OES classifications of occupations. When the two jobs fall under the same occupational classification in the DOL occupational definitions, the two jobs are generally considered "similar" occupational classification. As long as the two jobs belong to a similar occupational classification, the applicant can work for the new employer anywhere in the United States. There is no physical location restrictions.
(3) Employer's financial ability to pay the wage: Again, AC 21 106(c) does not specifically require that the new employer must prove that the new employer has and will have a financial ability to pay the prevailing wage. However, the adjudicators appear to review the portability case considering the new employer's ability to pay as well as part of review of continuing vality of labor certification and I-140 petition.
Remember that when there is a portability issue, two things can ensue. If one proactively reports the eligibility of portability meeting all the foregoing requirment, the adjudicators are likely to decide the pending I-485 application on the merit. However, if the 485 applicants do not report proactively change of employment and the USCIS somehow obtains information of the alien's change of employment, for instance, by employer's report of termination of employment or withdrawal of I-140 petition or substitution of alien beneficiary, then 485 applicants are likely to be served a notice of intent to deny I-485 applications or in most cases, the adjudicator transfers the I-485 file to the local district office for interview.
In AC 21 106(c) portability situation, the adjudicators also review the issue of the continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition involving the original employer, and are likely to raise similar issues which are described above. However, when the alien ports with the "approved" I-140 petition with a copy of the last paycheck and W-2, the adjudicators rarely revisit the original employer's foregoing issues in determining the 140 portability issue. The issues are raised when the alien ports before the I-140 petition is approved. Under the Yates Memorandum, when the alien ports before I-140 petition is approved, the alien has a burden of proof that the I-140 petition was approvable. Accordingly, inasmuch as I-140 petition was approvable and the alien ports after 180 days of I-485 filing, even if the original employer withdraws the I-140 petition, the pending I-485 will not be affected. Yates Memorandum indicates that in such a circumstance, the adjudicator should adjudicate the pending I-140 petition and if finds approvable, then recognizes 106(c) portability and continues to adjudicate the pending I-485 application. Without doubt, in the foregoing situation, the adjudicator will intensively and carefully review the issue of continuing validity of labor certification and I-140 petition issues which are specified above, particularly the employer's financial ability to pay the wage, and the applicant will have to overcome tremendous hurdles to deal with the challenges by the USCIS. Accordingly, people should not port before I-140 petition is approved unless they are assured that the original employer will continuously cooperate and support his/her green card process.
tattoo room decoration for boys.
pappu
12-28 02:23 PM
NSC Dec 2007 Processing Times says:
Also, when they are mentioning "April 24, 2007" date , are they ignoring the applicants who are stuck in namecheck process for years? If a person has filed 485 in 2005 or 2006 but stuck in namecheck, how come 485 is completed?
If a person is stuck in namecheck, or has an RFE... his/her case in not counted in II485 backlog at that time.
Also, when they are mentioning "April 24, 2007" date , are they ignoring the applicants who are stuck in namecheck process for years? If a person has filed 485 in 2005 or 2006 but stuck in namecheck, how come 485 is completed?
If a person is stuck in namecheck, or has an RFE... his/her case in not counted in II485 backlog at that time.
more...
pictures room decoration for boys. of
nirenjoshi
01-17 01:39 PM
slc ut,
We applied for my wife's ITIN # in July 06 and received the # in about 4-6 weeks. i cant remember exactly how many days it took..
We used the W7 form to get the ITIN #..
I am from North Carolina...
We applied for my wife's ITIN # in July 06 and received the # in about 4-6 weeks. i cant remember exactly how many days it took..
We used the W7 form to get the ITIN #..
I am from North Carolina...
dresses room decor. beautiful kids
franklin
07-21 06:42 PM
OR change your birth country to England :)
Sorry that won't help :)
Sorry that won't help :)
more...
makeup selena gomez house inside.
ivgclive
05-11 03:43 PM
Don't count on USCIS to do something to eliminate backlog. They are idiots and inefficient morons.
Please tell us what made yourself to file on NIW category.
Please tell us what made yourself to file on NIW category.
girlfriend wall decor for sale
ksairi
05-12 02:59 PM
Thanks
hairstyles room decoration pictures.
mach1343
05-13 11:36 PM
I am in the similar situation. Attended for visa interview at Toronto US Consulate on May 6. VO just kept I129 (All the annexures), Client/vendor letters. Informed you will get replay within 1-2wks. Its already been a week, I didnt get any response back. Consulate called client on the same day. No updates after that.
Appreciate if someone could let us know, usually how long it takes to get any status update ? I have been working with the same Employer/Client for last 4 years.
Are you working for a consulting company or a direct to your employer?
Appreciate if someone could let us know, usually how long it takes to get any status update ? I have been working with the same Employer/Client for last 4 years.
Are you working for a consulting company or a direct to your employer?
gopalkrishan
08-03 04:58 PM
Dear Registered OP,
I guess you have accidentally choose IV to post your issue,
the key word search "Frustation" on google might have drove you here,
not your mistake! try this website (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) :D
Hi Sanju,
I do realize that IV is a focused forum .. but I thought that since all the members here are stressed with GC process, backlogs and continued frustrations of PD, I would just try to provide them with a moment of smile .. So there was no mistake in my posting on IV ..
More over I posted it under "Interesting Topics" so that I do not hamper any mainstream discussions :) If even this is unacceptable then I will redact my post with due apologies ..
Regards,
Gopal Krishan
I guess you have accidentally choose IV to post your issue,
the key word search "Frustation" on google might have drove you here,
not your mistake! try this website (http://www.atkins.com/Homepage.aspx) :D
Hi Sanju,
I do realize that IV is a focused forum .. but I thought that since all the members here are stressed with GC process, backlogs and continued frustrations of PD, I would just try to provide them with a moment of smile .. So there was no mistake in my posting on IV ..
More over I posted it under "Interesting Topics" so that I do not hamper any mainstream discussions :) If even this is unacceptable then I will redact my post with due apologies ..
Regards,
Gopal Krishan
gunabcd
07-17 04:48 PM
I am ashamed to read these comments coming from "highly skilled" people. Administrators please take preventive steps. We dont want some sickos malign IV. :mad: :mad:
Come on guys, we are in US not in Saudi Arabia. Such comments are made in US senate also. It's not illegal to say something like that. It was a good joke. With all due respect let me ask you, are "Highly skilled" not human being?
Still I agree that such comments should not be made, because it could become a norm, and someone someday could really cross the boundry, which could create a problem for IV.
Come on guys, we are in US not in Saudi Arabia. Such comments are made in US senate also. It's not illegal to say something like that. It was a good joke. With all due respect let me ask you, are "Highly skilled" not human being?
Still I agree that such comments should not be made, because it could become a norm, and someone someday could really cross the boundry, which could create a problem for IV.
No comments:
Post a Comment