Tipping in USA/Canada

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 10:54:15 +1000, Craig Welch
wrote:

I understand what you sead in it's entirety - you've failed to
understand the process.

Wouldn't you think that if I had erred, some other poster would have so
advised?

Groggy is convinced that all the rest of us on Usenet are either Yanks
or fellow travelers who are all out to get him.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:

There are circumstances in which they can.
Which, is clearly stated in the docuemnt Proggie claims to have read.

That, and his belief only US citizens are restricted, is pretty much
proof he never read it.
"his belief only US citizens are..." is entirely your construct.
He's just re-stating what you've said ...

I never said "only" - I commented on the most relevant part of the act.
I avoided the ifs, buts and onlys for fear of confusing you simpletons.

Here are your words, Greg:

I really didn't and don't care - it can't apply to non-US citizens
outside the USa just as (say) New York traffic speed limits don't apply
to anyone outside NY.

That's you, saying that it *only* applies to US citizens.


Read it again - just the words I wrote this time - try not adding any
_you_ make up when you think about it!

I am _not_ saying it only applies to US citizens. I am saying it can't
apply to non-US citizens outside the USa.
US law has no juristiction over non-US citizens outside the USa.

Sure, the US can _claim_ to have juristiction over non-US citizens
outside the US but you sure as hell wouldn't want that to be taken to
it's logical conclusion!

Regards,
Greg.P.

On Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:18:43 +1000, Craig Welch
wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Do you mean that you are incapable of just stepping through your past
posts on your own PC?

No, I am quite capable of doing that.
However, due to the number of past posts I don't consider the exercise
to be worth doing. Had you not buggered around with the subject line
with every posting it would have been a simple task.

It's a simple task in any case.

I'm rather surprised that you find such a simple task so daunting.

The rest of us got over our surprise a long time ago. You will too.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
Sarah Czepiel wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:17:04 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:Craig Welch wrote:
:
: Greg Procter wrote:
: Craig Welch wrote:
: Greg Procter wrote:
:
: Craig Welch wrote:
: If I have my facts right, the overwhelming majority of Australians
: opposed the major affirmation of GWB by the Australian Government, the
: invasion of Iraq.
:
: But do correct me if I'm wrong ...
:
: "opposed the major affirmation..."
: What's that in english?
: Which of those four words do you have a problem with, Greg?
:
: I have a problem with the entire sentence in that it has three subjects.
: "affirmation" doesn't mean anything in those contexts either, unless it
: is the forth subject.
:
: Sorry Greg, I've spent enough time with you, teaching you how to use
: google. I'm not about to give you English lessons, although God knows
: you need them.
:
:You couldn't teach anyone because you don't know anything - that
:sentence of yours is total nonsense.
:
:The Australian government cannot "major affirmation of GWB". It is not
:an (english language) action.

But that's not what he wrote, Greg. What Craig wrote is perfectly
understandable and perfectly clear.
It has one action and four subjects - it is multi-ambiguous.
It seems quite clear to everyone else. If it were ambiguous, you could
have pointed out the various possible meanings.

You didn't. You can't.
" If I have my facts right, the overwhelming majority of Australians
opposed the major affirmation of GWB by the Australian Government,
the invasion of Iraq. "
Are you going to finish the bit about Iraq?
Finish what? The sentence was complete.


In what way does it relate to the first parts of the sentence???

The 'invasion of Iraq' was the 'major affirmation of GWB by the
Australian Government'.

All clear now?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

I didn't put your news-group there - at most I'm guilty of not deleting
it.
That is Craig's point.
We were following up to his posts.
His post contained both newsgroups
If you didn't remove r.t.a, that means you would have sent it to r.t.a
You didn't.

In that case I must have deleted r.t.a.
What, you don't know? You've previously admitted that you don't know how
to change the headers.

I sent a post with two relevant urls in response to a posting apparently
within the subject line.
Where is it?

Probably exactly where I posted it to.

Where is that?


antu.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
Sarah Czepiel wrote:
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 20:22:14 +1300, Greg Procter
wrote:

:I'm not looking for it - I posted it so I know it exists.

Where does it exist?
Google doesn't have it,
Of course google has it (access to it), you're just not smart enough to
find it.
Are you smart enough to find it Greg?
it hasn't shown up on
antu or rta.
Of course it has - Craig has responded to a part of it with the part in
contention snipped.
How can you state that it *has* shown up when you haven't seen it?

If I responded to a 'part of it', what was my response? If you give me
that, I can quote you back the post of yours to which I replied.

Where does it exist except in your imagination?
antu and my out box.
Google disagrees with you as to the former; and you have failed to prove
the latter.

No Craig, you failed to devise a search that would find my post; I don't
need to 'prove' anything to idiots.

You've made an assertion.

You can't/won't back it up.

It would appear therefore that you were lying.


So, anything you won't explain/back up is evidence that you are lying!



You do a hell of a lot of lying, Craig!


You haven't explained your location.
You haven't explained your nationality.
You haven't explained your race.
You haven't explained why you bugger about with the subject line.
You haven't explained why you don't buy your cigars from Cuba.
You haven't explained why you buy Cuban cigars from New Zealand.
You haven't explained why you can't trace an existing posting.

So many lies from _you_ Craig. So much evidence!

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Mr. Travel wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:

Larry in AZ wrote:

Waiving the right to remain silent, Craig Welch
said:


Greg Procter wrote:


The USA isn't a part of the real world.
Have you ever been to the USA Greg?
He's giving up.

I long ago gave up on the USa.
But have you *been* to the USA?

Christchurch or Auckland to LA to Heathrow/Frankfurt/... is the normal
route to Europe.
The alternative Asia/Singapore is becoming the prefered route these days
due to US paranoia.
Great, you've been to the Bradley Terminal at LAX.
But without going to the USA, somehow.

You geographical knowledge is remiss, as usual.

Are you asserting that you *have* been to the USA?

I'm not asserting anything.
I neither confirm nor deny - a position that is perfectly acceptable to
US officialdom.

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Larry in AZ wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Craig Welch
said:

Greg Procter wrote:
Larry in AZ wrote:
Waiving the right to remain silent, Craig Welch
said:

Greg Procter wrote:

The USA isn't a part of the real world. Have you ever been to the
USA Greg? He's giving up.
I long ago gave up on the USa.
But have you *been* to the USA?
Here's one for the new year... Ask Groggy about New Zealand's Constitution.
Then prepare yourself for a good time. ;-)
Indeed, there's quite a bit of reading in the New Zealand Constitution,
isn't there Greg?

Quite possibly, but no-one other than the politicians involved have ever
read it.

How can that be? Politicians didn't write the New Zealand Constitution.


So exactly who do you think wrote the so called New Zealand
Constitution???

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:

I am NOT talking about "any" law.
It's one specific restriction that applies equally to US citizens and US
"green card" holders.
So what?
You seem to indicate it was some other law I was referring to when I
stated it also applied to non citizens.

The same "law" being discussed applies to BOTH US citizens, AND non US
citizens that are US permanent residents.
So what?

Both those situations are _additions_ to the point I made. The only way
I could cover all possible additions and exceptions would be to post the
entire act. That would have been counter-productive as you could not
have understoodit.
The point you made.... lol
You make this up as you go along.
You had NO idea it applied to non-US citizens until I made that comment.
I really didn't and don't care - it can't apply to non-US citizens
outside the USa just as (say) New York traffic speed limits don't apply
to anyone outside NY.
Oh yes it can.

You're going for a new level of stupidity?

That's an interesting, but not very useful way of making an argument.

I'll state it again ... feel free to refute me ... US legislation can
apply to people who are not US citizens, outside the US.


LOL. You're not very smart, are you Craig?



If I as a non-US citizen visit NY I would expect to have to obey NY
speed limits and not claim exemption to drive using NZ speed limits.
Do you have some relevant point?

His point was very clear. The legislation that we are discussing applies
to some non-US citizens.

So?

So you were wrong.


No.

--
Craig http://www.wazu.jp/
1,239 Unicode fonts for 82 written language groups:
Price your own web plan: http://www.wazu.jp/hosting/

Craig Welch wrote:

Greg Procter wrote:
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote:
The bit about green card holders is near enough irrelevant to the
majority and the general situation.
It closes a tiny loop-hole for US citizens.
It's in the same sentence of the regulation.
So? The bit about green card holders is near enough irrelevant to the
majority and the general situation.
'Near enough irrelevant'? Is that a legal term?

Certainly not.

Well if you're arguing about legislation, shouldn't you be precise with
your language?

It closes a tiny loop-hole for US citizens.
How can a piece of legislation that applies to green card holders close
a loophole for citizens?

Some smart-arse yank might send a green card employee to Cuba to buy
cigars for him/her.

How would that provide a loop-hole, Greg?

Do you have a green card, Greg?

Well, I've got a set of drawers holding assorted colours of card in my
studio, I'm sure there would be some green card in there. Does it matter
what thickness?

It's rather apt that you chose the word 'thickness', Greg.


Every time I read your posts the term springs to mind.
You asked if I had a green card - I answered honestly. (as I always do)