In post 261 and 250 you were shown that it is standard practice to submit LCA applications with the same start date and job title. IF you can't follow the logic, it is your lack of intelligence that is the issue, not the data.
No matter how you spin it, the number of application records submitted by a company is not an issue. I had said many times that if there are data errors, they are errors present in the DOL database and were not added or "massaged" by anyone at zazona.com. The owners of zazona.com HAVE described the known errors, and if there are duplicates, it is not their fault, as you had in fact earlier alleged.
IF you REALLY desire the truth in this, why don't you email the Department of Labor and ask THEM about the possibility of duplicate records. I DID find that the number of your so-called duplicates was directly related to the fact that MANY if not ALL of the foreign owned companies apparently had these "duplicates". As we had seen later on, the ONE US company that had these so-called "duplicates" had such a sequence as to demonstrate that it is normal for companies to submit multiple applications with the same start date and job title.
Now can you PLEASE just find another thread to haunt?
Neither of those posts say any such thing. also you've always insisted the data is absolutely correct that the odd numbers are because the companies are importing terrorists. I'm the one saying that that there's bad data. I've never once accused zazona of deliberately corrupting the data, the worst I've said about them is that it's possible their stored procedures that bring out the data (often refered to as "massaging data" but not in an indicting way, massages are a good thing, you need one, you seem tense) might suck. IMHO all zazona should do is make sure their procedures aren't the cause and if they aren't add to their FAQ that it looks like the DOL could have bizaare duplicate entries. What's the big deal?
See even you are finally admitting that the data could be bad. You could have done this yesterday instead of ranting on and on scrambling for possible explanations. But for whatever reason you refused to even entertain the possibility that a government organization could have crappy data until cornered and forced to. Don't go blaiming me for your own intransigence. This should have been four posts, you're the one that made it two days.