Can a pregnant fiancée be granted a k1visa?

[no name 1]

No one labeled PI visa seekers either. An accurate term was used to describe a subset of female PI visa seekers and then others became offended by the use of the accurate terminology

I'd post a definition of the term 'label' but we know those are only allowed for some VJers.

I'm preeeeeeeeeeeeeety sure this is considered labelling (of a group of visa seekers):

I expect what's on pushbrk's mind, given that he thought the woman was from the Phillippines, is that many K-visa applicants from the PI are or have been prostitutes.

If something is common among PI visa seekers then since the full set constitutes a great many people, then any common subset includes "many" people, including the subset of angelic darlings.

Strangely enough, neither you nor Yodrak have PI wives yet feel free to judge them.

Nor have I seen any links backing up your 'beliefs'.

[smoke20 0]

smoke,

no, i'm not ok w/ either.

But you haven't voiced any objection to it, no "#######"?

.....

like it or not: you are a mod....you are held to a higher standard. but, it seems you feel being a mod gives you the ok to say whatever you feel like saying. I DO NOT.

I am a VJ member, and I do have the right to express my opinions (within the bounds of the TOS) the same as any other VJ member.

Yodrak

you wouldn't have gotten a "#######" if you would have clarified your slam on filipinas. but instead you pm me with blah, blah ,blah.

so if i feel a country has "many" questionable k-1 bennies like thailand.(the sex capital of asia) you'd be ok w/ it.

[Dr_LHA 3]

This is all rather silly isn't it? Yet again a unrelated topic has degenerated into 2 people's need to make statements about the character of PI K-1 visa applicants. Its unnecessary, irrelevant, and dare I say it, something any poster (especially a moderator) shouldn't be getting into again after acknowledging the offense it caused when previously discussed.

I would like to suggest that VJ should provide answers for people's questions, and not speculation as to the fidelity of their fiancees/cousins/whatever.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Dr_LHA

[Yodrak 7]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's objectionable to point out that many ex-prostitutes apply for K1 visas in the Philippines, but it's not objectionable to point out that it's not unusual (i.e. there are many instances) for women with boyfriends on the side, some pregnant by those boyfriends, to apply for K1 visas in the Philippines.

They are equally distasteful states of affairs, in my opinion, yet one seems to touch 'hot buttons' and the other does not.

Interesting.

Yodrak

Edited August 14, 2007 by Yodrak

[Yodrak 7]

Dr_LHA,

Exactly the point I am trying to make. Thank you.

Yodrak

This is all rather silly isn't it? ....

[no name 1]

Dr_LHA,

Exactly the point I am trying to make. Thank you.

Yodrak

This is all rather silly isn't it? ....

Wow, so now you edit a quote so it fits your needs?

[Dr_LHA 3]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's objectionable to point out that many ex-prostitutes apply for K1 visas in the Philippines, but it's not objectionable to point out that it's not unusual (i.e. there are many instances) for women with boyfriends on the side, some pregnant by those boyfriends, to apply for K1 visas in the Philippines.

Is there anything to suggest that this is the case of the OP's cousin, other than idle speculation? In which case was it necessary to even bring this up?

[pushbrk 12,894]

No one labeled PI visa seekers either. An accurate term was used to describe a subset of female PI visa seekers and then others became offended by the use of the accurate terminology

I'd post a definition of the term 'label' but we know those are only allowed for some VJers.

I'm preeeeeeeeeeeeeety sure this is considered labelling (of a group of visa seekers):

I expect what's on pushbrk's mind, given that he thought the woman was from the Phillippines, is that many K-visa applicants from the PI are or have been prostitutes.

If something is common among PI visa seekers then since the full set constitutes a great many people, then any common subset includes "many" people, including the subset of angelic darlings.

Strangely enough, neither you nor Yodrak have PI wives yet feel free to judge them.

Nor have I seen any links backing up your 'beliefs'.

There is no "judging" in the posts you refer to. Identifying subsets is not judging.

Not all knowledge is derived from websites. Many people have "experiences" or "talk to people about their experiences" or "go to classes" etc. Perhaps you can relate?

[Kez/JWolf 6]

I am sure there are ex-prostitutes from all over the world that have benefited from a visa to the US... the problem comes when a Moderator and member of VJ picks on one race of people and implies that "many" of the woman are or were prostitutes....

And then goes on to try and defend his outrageous comments and then bans a member for calling him out on it... As a Moderator of VJ you have to be seen to be fair and just to all and I am sorry if you think otherwise but your actions then and again today do not suggest you are being fair or just... after all it was you who rised the issue in this thread...

Kez

[no name 1]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why it's objectionable to point out that many ex-prostitutes apply for K1 visas in the Philippines, but it's not objectionable to point out that it's not unusual (i.e. there are many instances) for women with boyfriends on the side, some pregnant by those boyfriends, to apply for K1 visas in the Philippines.

Is there anything to suggest that this is the case of the OP's cousin, other than idle speculation? In which case was it necessary to even bring this up?

Post #18.

Beware: This post may spontaneously combust!

Not all knowledge is derived from websites. Many people have "experiences" or "talk to people about their experiences" or "go to classes" etc. Perhaps you can relate?

Sure, but the difference between us is I do not make blanket statements nor will I judge an entire subset based on a handful of (outdated) experiences.

Edited August 14, 2007 by devilette

[pushbrk 12,894]

yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

I'm sticking with this response.

Following is the winning entry from an annual contest calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

.

This year's term: Political Correctness.

.

And the winning definition is:

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a ####### by the clean end."

the following is from dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

smug - 1. contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.

this is from encarta: smug (adj)

Synonyms: self-satisfied, superior, self-righteous, arrogant, conceited, full of yourself, haughty, complacent, self-assured

Antonym: humble

The timid often misidentify confident as smug. Confident people know this.

[no name 1]

yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

I'm sticking with this response.

Following is the winning entry from an annual contest calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

.

This year's term: Political Correctness.

.

And the winning definition is:

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a ####### by the clean end."

the following is from dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

smug - 1. contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.

this is from encarta: smug (adj)

Synonyms: self-satisfied, superior, self-righteous, arrogant, conceited, full of yourself, haughty, complacent, self-assured

Antonym: humble

The timid often misidentify confident as smug. Confident people know this.

Wow. You do not know when to stop, do you?

[pushbrk 12,894]

yordak: the problem people were having w/ that other thread is you never admitted the comment was questionable. we all read what your post said. "many" was the word you used. if you would have showed a little bit of grief or understanding that it may have been offensive...."maybe i worded that wrong"..."didn't mean to offend" would have cooled peoples fire. but, you didn't you went into defense mode. telling everyone the difference between all-many-most. & you're doing it again today.

just admit it: you made a questionable comment in the heat of the moment, nothing wrong with it. we all do it.

I'm sticking with this response.

Following is the winning entry from an annual contest calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.

.

This year's term: Political Correctness.

.

And the winning definition is:

"Political Correctness is a doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a ####### by the clean end."

the following is from dictionary.com:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

smug - 1. contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.

this is from encarta: smug (adj)

Synonyms: self-satisfied, superior, self-righteous, arrogant, conceited, full of yourself, haughty, complacent, self-assured

Antonym: humble

The timid often misidentify confident as smug. Confident people know this.

Wow. You do not know when to stop, do you?

A confident person is not cowed by a difference of opinion.

[Kez/JWolf 6]

Ah I recognize that sub-spices.... its PompusGit aka like to think he is above all.... wow thought they were all extinct....

Kez

[Jasman0717 9]

Wow, how did this get so far