chri'stina

I'm not sure what you are babbling on about: technology failures & Americans vs foreigners. My point is simple: the photos of the control center were doctored. Let's try to focus on the topic at hand.

BP photo-shopped a control center image in an attempt to deceive the public. They apparently thought they were smarter than everyone else and this wouldn't be discovered. Guess they were wrong. End of story.

And BP is doctoring pictures on its website. That's reality too.

I can't answer your question because I am stuck on you actually remembering a conversation!

Physical attraction doesn't mean both people are really good looking. It means you are just attracted to that person for whatever reasons there are. Superficial reasons alone are not good enough IMO. I also wonder why men who aren't hot and women who aren't hot would make such a fuss over wanting a hot person to be with. Welcome to reality, most people are not hot.

No. Unless he has a valid EAD it would be working without authorization. K1s are not incidentally authorized and a social security number has nothing to do with it.

Not only that, but then they wouldn't be working without authorization . I'm kinda surprised at the responses here TBH.

I think a specific banning sends a different message than disallowing an exemption. It seems to me that the proposed banning is due to a growing desire to encourage European Muslims to assimilate and discourage future immigration from Muslim countries.

You should have to take it off in circumstances that require it - for safety reasons. But I really can't think of many instances where that would really be an issue.
If I wanted to dress like Darth Vader every day just because I really like Star Wars, should I not be able to?

no it isn't.
it's just another thread in off topic. if you want a forum that is more private with membership more restricted, you're better off starting a private blog or opening a yahoo group.
understand that I have no problem with you wanting or seeking such a sanctuary. what I'm saying is it won't work on OT.

I'm glad someone is bringing the issue out into the open.
Noone here (except for Natty) violated the TOS in this thread, yet all manner of negative and veiled derogatory comments (most recently references to Romans and invaders) have been posted in the general direction of myself and others whose only apparent "crime" is posting in this thread.
Given that VJ is a public board, surely it isn't right for there to be a insular clique of posters who actively try to disparage and eject people who don't fit their groups internal parameters. So long as the thread remains within the bounds of the TOS, noone has any right (more importantly, noone has any power) to tell anyone else where they can or cannot post.

Good morning, everyone!
It is a beautiful day today!

That is such a new, clever comeback! How did you come up with it?

If you mean lacking in the dressing provocatively department, yes I am lacking there and will continue to, on purpose.

That is such a new, clever comeback! How did you come up with it?

If you mean lacking in the dressing provocatively department, yes I am lacking there and will continue to, on purpose.

Obviously not an American poll as women here would think dressing provocatively is demeaning and couldn't possibly contribute to increased production.

I concur

She was being sarcastic. She shares our disdain for the soccer dorks.

We're talking about border states. Do try to pay attention, as difficult as that might be with your drug-addled Californian hippie brain.

Personally I'm glad you shared the pic with us and I got to say you showed great restraint by only saying STFU. Cleo was being very rude and her comment IMO was uncalled for

Um...like I said. There are many, many resources available for pregnant women AND after the delivery process...ever heard of WIC? I would know...since I work with that population in my career.
So, the woman should abort her kid who is able to survive outside the womb solely because she's worried about what her co-workers think if she gave up the baby? Methinks that's a little silly

It just seems odd since its not a TOS violation.

I was suprised at that too. I am thinking that's the first time I have ever seen Cleo call for a thread closure or moderation....Even on the website-that-cannot-be-mentioned ( AKA the cesspool).

Cleo, I find it absolutely bizarre that you would want this thread closed because a photo was used in an emotional way. People do it all the time, so what? It doesn't violate the TOS. I find it even somewhat hypocritical given you advocate zero moderation in OT.

Moderators, suspend me if you must, but do not make any comments or this thread invisible. I stand by what I said and I wish to not have anyone hide behind the cloak of 'invisibility' where a know it all, trolling, antagonistic remark was met with my STFU response. Let them both stay out there for everyone to see.
Ty!

STFU Cleo. Seriously.