Nice to know that you had a good hearty chuckle before your pet theory was proven absolute garbage in my last post to you...
Well here we go:
FL 178 (response to 174) - I doubt you were setting the search criteria properly though, as NONE of the searches that I've performed had any of the characteristics you describe.
That's right, after you couldn't understand that historical data might contain records related to companies that no longer exist, I thought that you might be computer illiterate. I was busy elsewhere and didn't feel that I should have to hold your hand, so I told you to try something else at the time..
Clearly RIGHT THERE in 178 you're saying that the duplicates I found, which included the first mentioning of DCM were the result of user error.
You speak of "reading comprehension"? Go back and read the paragraph that you labeled as (FL 178). Show me WHERE I said the duplicates were the result of user error. I said that I hadn't noticed those problems myself with the searches I've performed, and that I doubted you had the search criteria set correctly. You DID have a problem understanding that you shouldn't look for old records if you don't want to see records of companies that are no longer in business. As I said, I didn't feel like bothering with it at the time. I DO have other things to do in case you thought I didn't.
As for the invasion well:
FL 183 - My God. For that company alone, there's 104 applications with 30 workers each,
OK maybe you didn't say invasion, but "My God" isn't a phrase most people around here use lightly, then you point out the shear number of their applicants.
You're joking right? So an expression of shock is now an announcement of an invasion? Your mind works in ways I simply don't understand apparently...
And yes, 3024 visas are a lot of visas. Every other company I've seen listed had scatterings of 1, 5, 10, and a couple with 20 or even 60, but I had NOT seen any that had 104 applications with 30 workers each.
An expression of shock or surprise doesn't equate to "we are being invaded".
Sounds like invasion talk to me.
You've probably watched too many X-Files episodes...
See FL you've got nothing, you're scrambling for a purchase trying to defend the integrity of the data on one hand yet attacking the ineptness of the agency that produced the data on the other.
Er, run that by me again? You're saying that I'm attacking the ineptness of the Department of Labor? Where'd I say that? I said that if there IS a problem with the data, it is the Department of Labor's problem, as it is THEIR data.
You can't have it both ways. If the DOL is so incompitent that there's rampant H1B fraud going undetected then there's the clear probability that the very data they have is FUBAR.
Well, who's saying that it's undetected. It's been said that the laws haven't been enforced, but I don't recall saying that these matters went undetected. I DO remember saying that the people who filed the applications never thought the data would see the light of day in that they didn't think it would be made PUBLIC, but I didn't say the discrepencies went undetected.
If the data is perfect then how is there so much H1B fraud?
Willful non-enforcement rings a bell. You DID read the GAO article right?
Of course ou've got more contradictions than that. You're reason for obsessing on this "issue" is that the H1Bs are taking away American jobs in droves, but now there's these massive amounts of suspicious data which you're saying are either terrorists or sex slaves.
Are you saying that those who flew those planes into the World Trade Center weren't here on a visa? Or that one of the "Beltway Snipers" wasn't on a visa? Or those here in Al'Queda cells aren't here on visas?
And finally, are you saying that those little girls forced to perform sexually for this sick freak from India and his sons, that THEY weren't here on a visa?
You obviously have some SERIOUS denial issues it appears..
Well exactly which American jobs are being stolen by terrorists and sex slaves?
So you've never heard of the sex trade? Boy, I could post some stuff if you'd like that'd raise a few hairs on the back of your neck. If you REALLY want to expand this topic, perhaps we SHOULD get into that facet...
If you're right on that allegation you're wrong about them doing major damage to our job market. Can't have it both ways. You've contradicted yourself, your explanations are killing each other, it's like a Democratic primary.
It's at a point where sure they can use H1-b workers as they please, whether it be in a legitimate position while replacing an American worker, or it be a position as a prostitute in some sleazy cat house in CA and elsewhere. It ALSO provides the opportunity for terrorists to enter this country unchallenged and unnoticed.
Nice to know that you had a good hearty chuckle before your pet theory was proven absolute garbage in my last post to you...
Well here we go:
FL 178 (response to 174) - I doubt you were setting the search criteria properly though, as NONE of the searches that I've performed had any of the characteristics you describe.
That's right, after you couldn't understand that historical data might contain records related to companies that no longer exist, I thought that you might be computer illiterate. I was busy elsewhere and didn't feel that I should have to hold your hand, so I told you to try something else at the time..
Clearly RIGHT THERE in 178 you're saying that the duplicates I found, which included the first mentioning of DCM were the result of user error.
You speak of "reading comprehension"? Go back and read the paragraph that you labeled as (FL 178). Show me WHERE I said the duplicates were the result of user error. I said that I hadn't noticed those problems myself with the searches I've performed, and that I doubted you had the search criteria set correctly. You DID have a problem understanding that you shouldn't look for old records if you don't want to see records of companies that are no longer in business. As I said, I didn't feel like bothering with it at the time. I DO have other things to do in case you thought I didn't.
As for the invasion well:
FL 183 - My God. For that company alone, there's 104 applications with 30 workers each,
OK maybe you didn't say invasion, but "My God" isn't a phrase most people around here use lightly, then you point out the shear number of their applicants.
You're joking right? So an expression of shock is now an announcement of an invasion? Your mind works in ways I simply don't understand apparently...
And yes, 3024 visas are a lot of visas. Every other company I've seen listed had scatterings of 1, 5, 10, and a couple with 20 or even 60, but I had NOT seen any that had 104 applications with 30 workers each.
An expression of shock or surprise doesn't equate to "we are being invaded".
Sounds like invasion talk to me.
You've probably watched too many X-Files episodes...
See FL you've got nothing, you're scrambling for a purchase trying to defend the integrity of the data on one hand yet attacking the ineptness of the agency that produced the data on the other.
Er, run that by me again? You're saying that I'm attacking the ineptness of the Department of Labor? Where'd I say that? I said that if there IS a problem with the data, it is the Department of Labor's problem, as it is THEIR data.
You can't have it both ways. If the DOL is so incompitent that there's rampant H1B fraud going undetected then there's the clear probability that the very data they have is FUBAR.
Well, who's saying that it's undetected. It's been said that the laws haven't been enforced, but I don't recall saying that these matters went undetected. I DO remember saying that the people who filed the applications never thought the data would see the light of day in that they didn't think it would be made PUBLIC, but I didn't say the discrepencies went undetected.
If the data is perfect then how is there so much H1B fraud?
Willful non-enforcement rings a bell. You DID read the GAO article right?
Of course ou've got more contradictions than that. You're reason for obsessing on this "issue" is that the H1Bs are taking away American jobs in droves, but now there's these massive amounts of suspicious data which you're saying are either terrorists or sex slaves.
Are you saying that those who flew those planes into the World Trade Center weren't here on a visa? Or that one of the "Beltway Snipers" wasn't on a visa? Or those here in Al'Queda cells aren't here on visas?
And finally, are you saying that those little girls forced to perform sexually for this sick freak from India and his sons, that THEY weren't here on a visa?
You obviously have some SERIOUS denial issues it appears..
Well exactly which American jobs are being stolen by terrorists and sex slaves?
So you've never heard of the sex trade? Boy, I could post some stuff if you'd like that'd raise a few hairs on the back of your neck. If you REALLY want to expand this topic, perhaps we SHOULD get into that facet...
If you're right on that allegation you're wrong about them doing major damage to our job market. Can't have it both ways. You've contradicted yourself, your explanations are killing each other, it's like a Democratic primary.
It's at a point where sure they can use H1-b workers as they please, whether it be in a legitimate position while replacing an American worker, or it be a position as a prostitute in some sleazy cat house in CA and elsewhere. It ALSO provides the opportunity for terrorists to enter this country unchallenged and unnoticed.