Jump to content
90DayFinancier

The President claims he is on drugs

 Share

38 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 

  While it may mitigate the inflammatory response in some individuals, it doesn't actually prevent someone contracting the virus. Thus it does seem silly for someone to be taking it prophylactically. There are risks in taking the drug (any drug) and while the benefits are unclear even in those with Covid-19, there is certainly no benefit, and therefore no reason for someone to take it when they don't have the virus.

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: O-2 Visa Country: Sweden
Timeline
1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  While it may mitigate the inflammatory response in some individuals, it doesn't actually prevent someone contracting the virus. Thus it does seem silly for someone to be taking it prophylactically. There are risks in taking the drug (any drug) and while the benefits are unclear even in those with Covid-19, there is certainly no benefit, and therefore no reason for someone to take it when they don't have the virus.

Even when you receive several supportive phone calls?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

Maybe he's intentionally yanking the media's chains.  If so, it's working to perfection, as usual.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

Thread will be removed unless a link to the news item is added.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Thread will be removed unless a link to the news item is added.

Question: Is it required to post an article to kick off discussion on a particular topic? I just reviewed the guidance from Penguin on posting in the subforum, and it states (emphasis added):

 

Quote

Threads where the Op is an article/ link to an article. or where most of the Op is such MUST have the exact title of the article as the subject. No editing according to your own political view, no shortening to make it sound different or any other editing.  Just the title of the article, no addition, subtraction, or changes.

https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/595604-posting-news-articles-and-tos-enforcement/?do=findComment&comment=9493013

 

This language implies that there is no requirement that an OP be an article or a link to an article, but rather that where the OP is an article or link to an article, the title of the thread must match that of the article exactly. Accordingly, my reading is that there is permission to start threads on particular topics without necessarily initially including text from an article (including the link thereto) or the link itself without an excerpt. 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, is there a change in the policy of what must be included in an initial post in a thread (i.e., there must be an underlying article and link)?

 

As a remedial measure, here's a link (although clearly the title of this post would need to be changed): https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-52717161 

 

This is an interesting topic to explore, and it would be a shame to see it shut. 

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Thread will be removed unless a link to the news item is added.

As a point of order. Where did the OP say it was a news item.? There are more than a few threads that don't reference a news item.

 

The derailment exempt thread as an example, just because its the first one I was near this one

Edited by Nature Boy 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

3 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

As a point of order. Where did the OP say it was a news item.?

 

    It has been in the news, but this felt like more of a BS session rather than pertaining to a specific news article. I guess I had the same question. Is it required that we refer to a news article just to discuss a current event. 

 

  

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

  

 

    It has been in the news, but this felt like more of a BS session rather than pertaining to a specific news article. I guess I had the same question. Is it required that we refer to a news article just to discuss a current event. 

 

  

My corona virus thread is the same thing. No news article referenced. but did reference a current event

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: O-2 Visa Country: Sweden
Timeline

Did I violate the TOS by posting original content?

7 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

Question: Is it required to post an article to kick off discussion on a particular topic? I just reviewed the guidance from Penguin on posting in the subforum, and it states (emphasis added):

 

https://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/595604-posting-news-articles-and-tos-enforcement/?do=findComment&comment=9493013

 

This language implies that there is no requirement that an OP be an article or a link to an article, but rather that where the OP is an article or link to an article, the title of the thread must match that of the article exactly. Accordingly, my reading is that there is permission to start threads on particular topics without necessarily initially including text from an article (including the link thereto) or the link itself without an excerpt. 

 

For the avoidance of doubt, is there a change in the policy of what must be included in an initial post in a thread (i.e., there must be an underlying article and link)?

 

As a remedial measure, here's a link (although clearly the title of this post would need to be changed): https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-52717161 

 

This is an interesting topic to explore, and it would be a shame to see it shut. 

Thanks, but I like my title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Thanks, but I like my title.

FINE! Last time I do something for you. 

 

(j/k, I'm generous)

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: O-2 Visa Country: Sweden
Timeline
42 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

FINE! Last time I do something for you. 

 

(j/k, I'm generous)

If the sacred TOS should ever get a supreme adjudicatin' body, you would need to be the Justice in Chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: O-2 Visa Country: Sweden
Timeline
7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

  

 

    It has been in the news, but this felt like more of a BS session rather than pertaining to a specific news article. I guess I had the same question. Is it required that we refer to a news article just to discuss a current event. 

 

  

I'm sorry, but which thread is not more than less a BS session?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline
24 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

I'm sorry, but which thread is not more than less a BS session?

I have tried to parse that but can only comment English only in the upper forums?

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...