A pondering lurker

[Alt name 1]

(yawns), is bored, and done with this thread

[Fandango 1,439]

(yawns), is bored, and done with this thread

It's really a disservice to be all finger pointy and whatnot, but not willing to explain and back up your statements. This could have been a very civil discussion!

[Alt name 1]

True. Doesnt change any of our outcomes one iota to finger point does it? Something to think about.

(yawns), is bored, and done with this thread

It's really a disservice to be all finger pointy and whatnot, but not willing to explain and back up your statements. This could have been a very civil discussion!

[Fandango 1,439]

True. Doesnt change any of our outcomes one iota to finger point does it? Something to think about.

(yawns), is bored, and done with this thread

It's really a disservice to be all finger pointy and whatnot, but not willing to explain and back up your statements. This could have been a very civil discussion!

I thought you were done here?

If you're not going to politely explain what you meant before, then there's no use talking to you. I am more than willing to have a civil discussion with you...even one where we both disagree. But I will not sit idly by while you paint any part of VJ as advocating fraudulent means of obtaining visas.

[Alt name 1]

Except we both know that there are a few members on here that salivate at the thought of AOS and just send anyone who is anybody straight to AOS for any suggested case.

I am politely saying I did not challenge you but we both know that there are some canadian and uk posters who absolutely love and support the concept of "tourist" to aos.

also politely offering to go, get examples, and post them. but i think you know

may we end this?

True. Doesnt change any of our outcomes one iota to finger point does it? Something to think about.

(yawns), is bored, and done with this thread

It's really a disservice to be all finger pointy and whatnot, but not willing to explain and back up your statements. This could have been a very civil discussion!

I thought you were done here?

If you're not going to politely explain what you meant before, then there's no use talking to you. I am more than willing to have a civil discussion with you...even one where we both disagree. But I will not sit idly by while you paint any part of VJ as advocating fraudulent means of obtaining visas.

[Fandango 1,439]

Except we both know that there are a few members on here that salivate at the thought of AOS and just send anyone who is anybody straight to AOS for any suggested case.

I am politely saying I did not challenge you but we both know that there are some canadian and uk posters who absolutely love and support the concept of "tourist" to aos.

also politely offering to go, get examples, and post them. but i think you know

may we end this?

Actually, this is important enough to bring out in the open. If you can show where someone advocates illegally entering with intent to immigrate, or bashing you for saying it is illegal, that person needs to be brought to Ewok's attn.

Bring your examples. I think it'd be good for the site. I'm sure E will take the appropriate action.

[Alt name 1]

get wet for something else. my postings, views, and thoughts are public here. K? enough

1. until i get tossed ima say what i want

2. you know exactly what im talking about

with that said, im out on this one, get it?

Except we both know that there are a few members on here that salivate at the thought of AOS and just send anyone who is anybody straight to AOS for any suggested case.

I am politely saying I did not challenge you but we both know that there are some canadian and uk posters who absolutely love and support the concept of "tourist" to aos.

also politely offering to go, get examples, and post them. but i think you know

may we end this?

Actually, this is important enough to bring out in the open. If you can show where someone advocates illegally entering with intent to immigrate, or bashing you for saying it is illegal, that person needs to be brought to Ewok's attn.

Bring your examples. I think it'd be good for the site. I'm sure E will take the appropriate action.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Now here we have what I have been observing.

An apparent disagreement between two members as to what is considered 'illegal'.

Why are members questioning the legal paths of others? Because it isn't available to them? Because it isn't legal in their own minds? Because it's different than what they did?

And most importantly, why does Admin allow for the confusing conjecture?

[Alt name 1]

No

in my case, the outcome doesnt matter

here, there are a few who recommend different paths

Either way, so what? Each case stands or falls on merits.

Now here we have what I have been observing.

An apparent disagreement between two members as to what is considered 'illegal'.

Why are members questioning the legal paths of others? Because it isn't available to them? Because it isn't legal in their own minds? Because it's different than what they did?

And most importantly, why does Admin allow for the confusing conjecture?

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I'm very confused now.

You previously referred to 'alternate immigration paths'.

Yet here you state the outcome of the paths does not matter.

It is quite true each case stands or falls on its own merits. But I believe there are different paths, which can equal the same result - merits notwithstanding.

No

in my case, the outcome doesnt matter

here, there are a few who recommend different paths

Either way, so what? Each case stands or falls on merits.

Now here we have what I have been observing.

An apparent disagreement between two members as to what is considered 'illegal'.

Why are members questioning the legal paths of others? Because it isn't available to them? Because it isn't legal in their own minds? Because it's different than what they did?

And most importantly, why does Admin allow for the confusing conjecture?

[stinger157 0]

I'm very confused now.

You previously referred to 'alternate immigration paths'.

Yet here you state the outcome of the paths does not matter.

It is quite true each case stands or falls on its own merits. But I believe there are different paths, which can equal the same result - merits notwithstanding.

No

in my case, the outcome doesnt matter

here, there are a few who recommend different paths

Either way, so what? Each case stands or falls on merits.

Now here we have what I have been observing.

An apparent disagreement between two members as to what is considered 'illegal'.

Why are members questioning the legal paths of others? Because it isn't available to them? Because it isn't legal in their own minds? Because it's different than what they did?

And most importantly, why does Admin allow for the confusing conjecture?

There is just one right path, the legal path. Anything that is not in compliance with immigration laws can lead to problems lateron.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I'm very confused now.

You previously referred to 'alternate immigration paths'.

Yet here you state the outcome of the paths does not matter.

It is quite true each case stands or falls on its own merits. But I believe there are different paths, which can equal the same result - merits notwithstanding.

No

in my case, the outcome doesnt matter

here, there are a few who recommend different paths

Either way, so what? Each case stands or falls on merits.

Now here we have what I have been observing.

An apparent disagreement between two members as to what is considered 'illegal'.

Why are members questioning the legal paths of others? Because it isn't available to them? Because it isn't legal in their own minds? Because it's different than what they did?

And most importantly, why does Admin allow for the confusing conjecture?

There is just one right path, the legal path. Anything that is not in compliance with immigration laws can lead to problems lateron.

There are many legal paths that lead to the same result - living legally in the US.

Edited December 29, 2007 by JohnnyQuest

[stinger157 0]

I'm very confused now.

You previously referred to 'alternate immigration paths'.

Yet here you state the outcome of the paths does not matter.

It is quite true each case stands or falls on its own merits. But I believe there are different paths, which can equal the same result - merits notwithstanding.

No

in my case, the outcome doesnt matter

here, there are a few who recommend different paths

Either way, so what? Each case stands or falls on merits.

Now here we have what I have been observing.

An apparent disagreement between two members as to what is considered 'illegal'.

Why are members questioning the legal paths of others? Because it isn't available to them? Because it isn't legal in their own minds? Because it's different than what they did?

And most importantly, why does Admin allow for the confusing conjecture?

There is just one right path, the legal path. Anything that is not in compliance with immigration laws can lead to problems lateron.

There are many legal paths that lead to the same result - living legally in the US.

And getting deported later. Like lately a few times in the news.

[Ta Ta 1]

Intent people .......INTENT is what matters. Short and simple......one small word and so often overlooked in all the discussions.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Intent people .......INTENT is what matters. Short and simple......one small word and so often overlooked in all the discussions.

And why do you think that is?