On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:44:19 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:07*am, "
wrote:

Well, at least one of the two of you read what I wrote.

From my 9/3 post:
Very limited circumstances. Not if you quit because you don't wish to
work any more.

That's the problem with krw. *He can't take yes for an answer.
First you said that a person who quits can't collect unemployment
insurance. *That is true in the vast majority of cases. *krw, objected
and you quickly clarified it, saying you meant that they can't collect
except in very limited circumstances and not if they just don't wish
to work any more. *That is consistent with my
experience. *It's consistent with your experience.
It's also consistent with the links provided to NY and CT state
unemployment and krw's own link.

My objection is that it is *not* a very limited circumstance. *There are good
reasons that one would quit, or be fired, that are beyond the employee's
control. *Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. *It is *not* limited at all.


Then perhaps instead of just saying "no you're wrong", it's *not*
limited,
etc., you could elaborate on those cases that have been
accepted where an employee quits because they don't feel like working
anymore and they can collect unemployment.

You're lying about what I said, again. You do that a lot when you lose an
argument (which in your mind, you never have).

All my experience, that
of Ed and the other posters here and the links to state UE websites I
have
provided say that it is indeed limited. The link you provided
doesn't say
UE is not limited in those cases either. If it's not limited at all,
which is truly ridiculous, then EVERYONE who quits who would be
collecting.

You're lying again.

Yet, the vast majority of those who quit are not collecting. That
alone
is enough to prove your new and even more bizarre claim is wrong.

Stupid. I never claimed it was universal, simply that it wasn't extremely
limited. In fact, I stated that it was based on circumstances; if the
termination was not at the fault of the employee, he was eligible for UI. I
can't help it if you choose not to read, then move the goal posts when you're
caught in a lie.

And once again, you're digging yourself into an even deeper hole.

Bull****. You can't read and can't think.

Ed first said that if one quits then they can't collect UE. You
objected
and he immediately clarified that he meant except in "very limited
circumstances".

He didn't and you kept piling on the ****. I stated clearly that it was a
matter of circumstances and you kept on piling the BS.

And that if you just quit because you don't feel like
working anymore, you can't collect.

You insist on lying. I never said that and have called you on it a number of
times.

I and it seems everyone else
believes
that is true.
Now you want to deepen your hole by your new claim that the
circumstances under which you can collect UE if you quit, are not
limited at all? Amazing.

You're a damned liar. There is no sense in trying to get you to understand
what you clearly can't.




Yet instead of accepting your clarification, or perhaps discussing
what exceptions he believes people are using, he continues arguing
as if you never made the clarification, with short replies of
a few words and then starts attacking me and calling me an idiot
and moron for agreeing with you.
Sadly, it's not unusual behavior for him. *I wonder if he treats those
he deals with in person the same way?

You simply read what you want to see.


What I read is you calling people who have been regular and
valuable contributors to this newsgroup over the years, who I
consider intelligent, idiots and morons. You did it to me and
it's not the first time. Funny thing, not one other poster here
agrees with your position, either. You dig yourself into a hole
and despite everyone remaining nice, you just start calling us
names.


You have proven to be the moron, here. There's no sense in ignoring that
fact. I calls 'em as I sees em.




I've gone to many unemployment hearings in two different states *No
one that has ever quit from the company ever got benefits. *Nor has
anyone that was fired since it is always with cause and proven. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

But Ed, hasn't krw told you that your experience is irrelevant? *Now
krw's experience, that of course is relevant. * Funny thing though,
rather than tell us exactly what that experience is, he's hurling
insults.

Your experience is *very* limited. *There is no question about that.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And again, Ed has direct experience with multiple UE cases in two
states. What he experienced agrees with the NY and OH state UE
websites that I provided excerpts from. You have yet to tell us what
in your experience leads you to believe that someone who just quits
their job because they don't want to work anymore can collect UE,
that the circumstances under which they can collect are not limited,
etc.

I have *direct* experience that proves the opposite. His statement was clearly
*wrong* and you keep digging.