If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#3591
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: A small lesson in the english language: - If you wish to indicate an abreviation you write it in a form like 'o.f.a.c.' The full stops indicate abreviations. Why then do you refer to New Zealand as NZ instead of n.z.? It's a name and therefore gets capital letters. You often write it without capital letters. I'm lazy. And stupid. Yeah, I am exchanging posts with you! |
#3592
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Mr. Travel wrote: Greg Procter wrote: No, the law cannot apply _in_ other countries. If the action is committed in another country, the law could still apply. The action taken against the violator would probably wait until they are back in the US, but the law APPLIES for the offense committed in the other country. Maybe your dictionary doesn't have this word? The best example is Taxation Law ... the IRS extends its reach to 'us yanks' the world over, does it not? I'm a New Zealander living in New Zealand - why would I know what the US tax department does??? In New Zealand the NZIRS only concerns itself with wages or salaries earned while the individual is resident in NZ. US law concerns itself with the earnings of people in the US, as well as the earnings of US Citizens and US Permanent Residents, inside and outside of the US. There is a hefty exclusion of income, probably 90,000 USD by now, and there are also some credits for foreign taxes paid. Additionally, IRS probably won't find out any income was earned. However, that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. Any yank working outside the US is going to be paying taxes in the source country - then the thieving yank government taxes them on already taxed income - I feel sorry for you all! |
#3593
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: But again I ask (as your answer had nothing to do with the subject), given that you know nothing about me, on what basis can you claim to have read more legislation that I? On the basis that you continually make unfounded conclusions about me. Which is of course no basis at all. The only basis on which you could make that call would be that you knew enough about me to make a reasonable assessment of how much legislation I had read. As you don't, you can't. That's ok Craig, you've done the same sort of thing in regard to me, numerous times. You're a prick - I just thought I try it to see what it's like. It doesn't do anything for me even if it makes you cream your nappies. Huh? Again I ask (as your answer had nothing to do with the subject), given that you know nothing about me, on what basis can you claim to have read more legislation that I? On the basis that you don't know that an Act stands on it's own. You have failed to point out the Act you have been referring to. The restrictions on Cuba involves multiple things, not a single Act. None of those "multiple things" can take away from the Act. They can only add further restrictions. Man, you are an idiot. LOL, you think I'm the idiot! You stick with that thought. |
#3594
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Threa Tip
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: "Imperial quart bottles". The US uses "US quarts". They are not the same measurement by a wide margin. The US quart is 32 ounces I believe the Imperial quart would be 40, since I think you said 20 oz made a pint. It was 1969!!! - I haven't had any use or connection with a "gallon" since. sheesh So, how would this changed the context original question, which was basically if I bought insert small quanity of a product, would it always be better to buy it from the source? I used "quart" as an example. Surely you knew it meant a quarter of a gallon. A "Quarter" was 8 "Bushels", or 32 "Pecks", or 64 "gallons". Did quart mean something different than a quarter of a gallon? It was pre-1969 - 39 years ago! Should I really remember that??? We may well have had "quart" milk bottles somewhere, sometime, before that, but I never saw one. I did see "pints" (the standard), "half-pints" (school milk and cream) and "quarter-pints".(cream) |
#3595
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: I'm just trying to understand your bile directed towards the USA. Ahh, I see! I frequent this ng (antu) in an attempt to understand the US's bile, violence and terrorist actions against the rest of the world. You're not posting into any 'this' newsgroup, Greg. You're posting into *two* newsgroups. Did you not know that? Sure - you obviously feel the need to direct my postings to rec.travel.air but I don't download that ng. As such I don't see the yank reactions to my postings there. You really don't understand this Usenet thing, do you Greg. *YOU* are posting to two newsgroups. *YOU* are sending posts out into the ether with the following header: Certainly I am knowingly posting to two newsgroups - the second purely out of respect to you. You KNOW this, but made the statement, you quoted above, about "As such I don't see the yank reactions to my postings there." Our reactions are being sent to both groups, why would you not see the reaction? You and Craig are the only yanks on rec.travel.air??? No, the conversation is on both newsgroups, not because you "Knowingly" post to both, but because you reply and don't change the current settings. You do eventually catch on - but it takes a _l_O_N_G_ time. I don't download rec.travel.air so I don't know what goes on there. |
#3596
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
"Mr. Travel" wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: What would I care about your "Green Cards"??? I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my opinion about them in regards to our discussion. We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba. In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien would be relevant. Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien of the USa.. Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him. Are you not aware that one can be a Permanent Resident of more than one country? It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the country of permanent residence. LOL - did you actually read what you wrote??? I understood it, didn't you. There are numerous meanings I could take for it. The problem is you are taking individual words out of a dictionary, rather than using a legal or goverment defintion of the terms. As we just recently found with "US Green Card", I may not understand what you understand with any yank term. Remember I've been educated in things yank by yank idiots! It's like having "Leave To Remain" in the UK. It's doesn't mean you can never leave. Well, it makes sense in English. If you have green card status in the US, you can live there. You can live there and elsewhere. You can live elsewhere, and not live in the US for a period of time, and not lose your US immigration status if certain conditions are met. It's not really difficult to look up, if you don't understand something, intead of making comments about such status that don't match the truth. Why would I look up something I don't want to know? |
#3597
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: What would I care about your "Green Cards"??? I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my opinion about them in regards to our discussion. We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba. In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien would be relevant. Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien of the USa.. Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him. Are you not aware that one can be a Permanent Resident of more than one country? It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the country of permanent residence. LOL - did you actually read what you wrote??? Yes. I wrote: "It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the country of permanent residence". You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you? Very true, but you certainly make me laugh with your brainwashed statements. :-) If a person (whether or not a "Permanent Resident) isn't permanently residing in the country of permanent residence, then he/she obviously isn't a permanent resident in that country. sheesh |
#3598
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
Craig Welch wrote:
Mr. Travel wrote: Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: What would I care about your "Green Cards"??? I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my opinion about them in regards to our discussion. We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba. In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien would be relevant. Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien of the USa.. Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him. Again... and again.. A Green Card Holder/permanent resident/resident alien, does have to remain in the US. So, Craig being in Singapore doesn't mean he isn't a US Resident Alien. Nor does it interfere with my British Right of Abode. For someone whom Greg thought he was insulting by calling me 'Asian', how am I doing? Very badly, because your argument is based on a false premise. |
#3599
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: What would I care about your "Green Cards"??? I didn't bring "Green Cards" into the discussion, but I was asked my opinion about them in regards to our discussion. We were talking about the law regarding buying stuff from Cuba. In that discussion, green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien would be relevant. Only if the hopeful buyer is a green card holder/permanent resident/resident alien of the USa.. Given that Craig is presumably resident in Singapore, all those options can almost certainly be discounted as applying to him. Are you not aware that one can be a Permanent Resident of more than one country? It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the country of permanent residence. LOL - did you actually read what you wrote??? Yes. I wrote: "It's not necessary for a Permanent Resident to permanently reside in the country of permanent residence". You really don't have a clue about this stuff, do you? Very true, but you certainly make me laugh with your brainwashed statements. :-) If a person (whether or not a "Permanent Resident) isn't permanently residing in the country of permanent residence, then he/she obviously isn't a permanent resident in that country. sheesh So what? You've tried to draw out a distinction between 'permanent resident' and 'Permanent Resident', so allowing that distinction, read the sentence again. Yes, I've done that - you're effectively saying that a person can be a permanent resident in two countries at once. That's obviously not possible, and it has nothing at all to any distinction between the term and the words. Assuming equal time in each country and some travelling time between, the person cannot be in either country for even half the year. |
#3600
|
|||
|
|||
Greg Procter Thread
Craig Welch wrote:
Greg Procter wrote: "Mr. Travel" wrote: Greg Procter wrote: Craig Welch wrote: Mr. Travel wrote: Greg Procter wrote: No, the law cannot apply _in_ other countries. If the action is committed in another country, the law could still apply. The action taken against the violator would probably wait until they are back in the US, but the law APPLIES for the offense committed in the other country. Maybe your dictionary doesn't have this word? The best example is Taxation Law ... the IRS extends its reach to 'us yanks' the world over, does it not? I'm a New Zealander living in New Zealand - why would I know what the US tax department does??? In New Zealand the NZIRS only concerns itself with wages or salaries earned while the individual is resident in NZ. US law concerns itself with the earnings of people in the US, as well as the earnings of US Citizens and US Permanent Residents, inside and outside of the US. There is a hefty exclusion of income, probably 90,000 USD by now, and there are also some credits for foreign taxes paid. Additionally, IRS probably won't find out any income was earned. However, that doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. Any yank working outside the US is going to be paying taxes in the source country - then the thieving yank government taxes them on already taxed income - I feel sorry for you all! So to add to the large (and seemingly growing) number of things you don't understand ... you've never heard of tax treaties? Of course I've heard of tax treaties. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Statistics Canada Admits-Edmonton Is Crime Center of Canada! City Complains | Loaf of Bread | Europe | 0 | March 21st, 2007 06:53 PM |
Statistics Canada Admits-Edmonton Is Crime Center of Canada! City Complains | Loaf of Bread | USA & Canada | 0 | March 21st, 2007 06:53 PM |
Tipping at Pinnacle Grill, was HAL Tipping Policy | RTCReferee | Cruises | 2 | June 16th, 2004 09:18 PM |
Tipping at Pinnacle Grill, was HAL Tipping Policy | Lunyma | Cruises | 1 | June 11th, 2004 11:02 PM |