|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 23:05:43 GMT, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
>Whether or not it is profitable has nothing to do with whether it is
>full-time employment, from what I can tell.
Correct. I was merely trying to point out that it is unlikely there
would b
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:54:27 GMT, Larry <x@y.com> wrote:
>Because if they give you unemployment benefits to ties you over while
>you're looking for another job, it (if you have marketable skills and
>the economy is doing well) is a stopgap measure
|
|
|
On 16 Sep 2006 10:23:48 -0700, "Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Suppose a person smokes cigarettes and then reads a report of the
>medical evidence linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer and other
>respiratory diseases. The smoker
|
|
|
Trent,
I think you need to get some advice from a lawyer who is familiar with
family law, divorce law, and if possible Mexican law. Your wife may divorce
you in Mexico rather than in the USA. You are correct about your child's
passport and you
|
|
|
In article
<aJkPg.168512$5i3.117557@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Mike wrote:
>
> >>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans ar
|
|
|
Larry wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you
>>> out by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law!
>>> [...]
>> F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:19:42 -0600, "richard" <don@john.son> wrote:
>You should contact the department and find out from the horses mouth what
>will happen when you do go to full status of "self employment".
I think it's clear that if I suddenly
|
|
|
In article <cckrg2lpqnvreg593t276u0baq8tvv1lrq@4ax.com>,
Mary Ann Hopkins <MAHopkins2007nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC), jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us
> (Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>
> >Self-employed people are by de
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:28:16 +0000 (UTC), jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>Self-employed people are by definition not unemployed and are thus not
>eligible for unemployment compensation, at least not in Massachusetts.
>This is me
|
|
|
Barbara Schwarz wrote:
> I hate cults. Just imagine, working for defamer cult Wikipedia for
> free. They don't even give you rice and beans or room and board there.
> What a cult!
I'm not even important enough to have a Wikipedia article about me.
|
|
|
In article <ldjrg2dgcot3mmvoe5fnc7nsct4d4ce8ut@4ax.com>,
Mary Ann Hopkins <MAHopkins2007nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:05:37 GMT, Bob Stock <x.x@xxx.com> wrote:
> >In effect, you are asking the system to subsidize your business ve
|
|
|
> On 16-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > How's about the statistics on obese fat-asses? I'd rather smoke than
> > > weigh
> > > 500 lbs. and die at 30 or 40. Maybe we should make eating illegal!!
> > > Yeah!!!!
> > > That's it!
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:05:37 GMT, Bob Stock <x.x@xxx.com> wrote:
>In effect, you are asking the system to subsidize your business venture.
In a way, I suppose that is true. In fact, if they pay for the
retraining I may need to make this idea work, o
|
|
|
On 17-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On 16-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Flawed logic. I guess according to this Ron Smith, it should
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 18:34:26 +0000 (UTC), jik@kamens.brookline.ma.us
(Jonathan Kamens) wrote:
>No. Self-employed people are disqualified from receiving unemployment
>benefits in Massachusetts.
Here is where it might be appropriate to ask if start
|
|
|
Comment on the Guardian piece 14 Sept ,2006
The writer seems to have difficulty in finding the
real error rates for forensic 'science'.
The error rate for the "gold standard" one of
DNA profiling is of order 7 per cent, expressed in 10 loci UK terms
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 10:39:11 -0600, "richard" <don@john.son> wrote:
>However, knowing that these benefits would last a year or more, why not just
>kick back and relax awhile?
While I may be okay for a while, I'm not sure that kicking back and
relax
|
|
|
In article <fBjPg.58057$QM6.32171@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
> > Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
> > by arresting him". But
|
|
|
Notebook wrote:
> Is that you Kaldis-gusting?
It ain't me, if that's what you're asking. I sign my name to my messages.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kaldis@worldnet.att.net
|
|
|
Mike wrote:
> Dog broke mexican law, and americans are saying "but he helped you out
> by arresting him". But by arresting him he broke mexican law! [...]
F*CK MEXICAN "LAW"! Dog performed a service by tracking down some rich
boy lowlife (s
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:04:22 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Notebook wrote:
>
> > Is that you Kaldis-gusting?
>
>It ain't me, if that's what you're asking. I sign my name to my message
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:50:41 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
>
>> This blog (http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com/) will live on, as it is by
>> far a more reliable source of
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:57:16 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
>Kent Wills lied:
>
>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>>> Never mind that Sarah *is* suffering from breast
|
|
|
On 16-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> > How's about the statistics on obese fat-asses? I'd rather smoke than weigh
> > 500 lbs. and die at 30 or 40. Maybe we should make eating illegal!! Yeah!!!!
> > That's it!! Let's remove ALL da
|
|
|
In article <1158426190.916759.295450@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Doc" <dr_rosenfetus@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A bar is not a public place.
Wrong. A bar is certainly a privately owned business, but by definition,
it is a place of public assembl
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:53:44 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
>forevernitefan wrote:
>
>> Sarah lost her DAUGHTER, Teddie. And your sister put a spell on her.
>
>My sister did no such thin
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:38:38 GMT,
Wayne Delia <wmd@deliafamily.net> wrote:
[...]
>If you can't show a verse in which the Bible explicitly states that
>unforgiveness causes cancer, then it'll be clear that either y
|
|
|
Gordon Burditt wrote:
> If he had gotten continuation coverage under COBRA, wouldn't that
> have eliminated the "pre-existing condition" issue?
Not sure about how COBRA exactly work regarding this issues.
But I heard that sometimes for people
|
|
|
I have it on good authority that on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:03:52 GMT,
"Theodore A. Kaldis" <kaldis@avenuecable.com> wrote:
>Ken Smith wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>> You're the one who slipped and let us know Patty is involved in
>>> witchcraft.
|
|
|
I'm dating a russian girl who is here on a VISA until december. She is
currently working in a mexican restaurant. I accidentally gave her a
hickey and she said that her boss told her she looked like a slut and
that if she came to work with any more t
|
|
|
reeder wrote:
> Sick but Insured? Think Again
> Lawsuits accuse insurance companies of retroactively dumping families
> that rack up large bills. Firms defend their policies, but the state
> is investigating.
This is typical. I personally know ab
|
|
|
David Martel wrote:
> Trent,
>
> I think you need to get some advice from a lawyer who is familiar with
> family law, divorce law, and if possible Mexican law. Your wife may divorce
> you in Mexico rather than in the USA. You are correct about y
|
|
|
I hate cults. Just imagine, working for defamer cult Wikipedia for
free. They don't even give you rice and beans or room and board there.
What a cult!
--
Barbara Schwarz (Looking for the original Mark [Marty] Rathbun. No
impostor, please!)
http:/
|
|
|
"Mary Ann Hopkins" <MAHopkins2007nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d1lrg2paburbpd7hl87cfd7d35gtsfcok5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 13:19:42 -0600, "richard" <don@john.son> wrote:
>
>>You should contact the department and find out from the
|
|
|
"Lee Hollaar" <hollaar@antitrust.cs.utah.edu> wrote in message
news:eekim0$q3e$1@antitrust.cs.utah.edu...
> In article <eek0s301j1b@news2.newsguy.com> "richard" <don@john.son>
> writes:
>>Watching one tv show last night, even the reporter doing th
|
|
|
"richard" <don@john.son> writes:
>Perhaps you should contact your local "Wage and hour" division for some
>input. Also the IRS.
>As you are now going from an employee, to "self employment", your benefits
>should remain intact.
No. Self-employed
|
|
|
Wayne Delia wrote:
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> > kensmithiscool wrote:
> >
> >>Ken Smith wrote:
> >
> > [...]
>
> That's Ted's icon for "I can't refute whatever it was I just deleted."
>
> >>>You might want to contact Barb Hall via Paramount
|
|
|
Self-employed people are by definition not unemployed and are thus not
eligible for unemployment compensation, at least not in Massachusetts.
This is mentioned at
<http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dlwdterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Claimants&L2=Issues+with+Claims&
|
|
|
In article <eek0s301j1b@news2.newsguy.com>, "richard" <don@john.son>
wrote:
> Watching one tv show last night, even the reporter doing the interview was
> obviously amazed that this particular pedophile got nothing more than house
> arrest. Confi
|
|
|
On 17 Sep 2006 02:18:30 -0700, "doosy" <lazydoosy@gmail.com> wrote:
>I live a large apartment commnity in California and I gave 30 days
>notice to leave at the beginning of this month. Yesterday morning
>(Saturday), I received the request to enter m
|
|
|
In article <MljPg.4012$8e5.2525@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Bishop@OnTheBoard.com wrote:
> On 16-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > How's about the statistics on obese fat-asses? I'd rather smoke than
> > > weigh
> > > 500 lbs.
|
|
|
In article <%MUOg.1963$t73.1544@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>,
Bishop@OnTheBoard.com wrote:
> On 16-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Flawed logic. I guess according to this
|
|
|
On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:11:58 GMT, Mary Ann Hopkins
<MAHopkins2007nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>First the bad news: I am being laid-off from my job of more than 22
>years effective September 30th. Growing older is not seen as a plus
>with my (soon to be
|
|
|
In article <eek0s301j1b@news2.newsguy.com> "richard" <don@john.son> writes:
>Watching one tv show last night, even the reporter doing the interview was
>obviously amazed that this particular pedophile got nothing more than house
>arrest.
....
>The
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Kent Wills lied:
>
>
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>
>>>Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>>>Never mind that Sarah *is* suffering from breast cancer. Could it be
>>>>that your sister's little spell worked?
>
>>>No. There is n
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>
>>>You're the one who slipped and let us know Patty is involved in
>>>witchcraft.
>
>>Actually, I seem to recall that Shannon Farren broke that one, [...]
>
> Oh, did she?
|
|
|
BIS WHY DON'T YOU OPEN YOUR MOUTH AND LET ME PISS IN IT.
Bishop@OnTheBoard.com wrote:
> On 17-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 16-Sep-2006, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > Shawn Hirn wrote:
> >
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> forevernitefan wrote:
>
>>Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>
>>>No. There is no "spell". But if you do a little research into the
>>>matter, you might discover that the SPIRITUAL cause of cancer is generally
>>>UNFORGIVENES
|
|
|
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Ken Smith wrote:
>
>>This blog (http://cameron-brown.blogspot.com/) will live on, as it is by
>>far a more reliable source of information regarding the trials of one
>>CaMORON John Brown.
>
> Man, get your head screwed
|
|
|
Ken Smith wrote:
> Kent Wills wrote:
>> You're the one who slipped and let us know Patty is involved in
>> witchcraft.
> Actually, I seem to recall that Shannon Farren broke that one, [...]
Oh, did she? When? On the air? Let's just see wha
|
