On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 07:18:22 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 10, 5:32*pm, "
wrote:
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).

Here you are again calling me a liar,

Only because you *are*. You consistently lie about what I've said.

but you still have not
elaborated on all those cases, have you?

What cases. I linked to an article that described the cases where UI is
allowed for people who are fired or quit. I can't read for you.


You love to hurl
short 3 word retorts and insults, instead of explaining
yourself, which could avoid a nasty argument.

I simply state the facts. You *are* a liar.


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.

No, here you are again calling me a liar,

Only because you lie. I never said EVERYONE who quits is eligible. I said
it's not as limited as you pretend.

but no elaboration, no citing of all those unlimited cases where people quit their
job and collect unemployment.

Another lie.

You really lack communication
skills and the ability to interact with others. You must have a
tough life as a result, perhaps that's why you're so bitter and
unable to accept yes for an answer.

Another lie but there is nothing surprising here.



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.

There you go again. The exact words your wrote just a couple of
posts back we



"My objection is that it is *not* a very limited circumstance.

It's not very limited. People who quit or are fired, through no fault of
their own, *are* eligible for UI. Now go ahead and lie about what I just
said. You know you want (need) to.

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."

It's not very limited. If the reasons are beyond the employee's control, they
*are* eligible.


You didn't say that it wasn't "extremely limited". You specifically
said
"It is *not* limited at all". The asterick emphasis is yours, as you
are
so fond of doing. Now I don't know what universe YOU live in, but
in mine, when something is not limited at all, then it means it is
available to everyone, therefore anyone who quits there job is
elligible
for unemployment.

"Not very limited" doesn't mean there are no limits. Moron.

And I'm the one that's stupid and a liar?

Certainly. You've done nothing buy lie here.

Ed's a liar?

If I said it, yes. I recall him being *wrong* but not specifically lying,
continuously, like you.

Four other people have participated in this segment of
the thread. And their opinions range from you are wrong, to you
are a troll. Not one agrees with you.

Lefties hanging on your posts to throw a stone. Yawn.


*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.

We are talking about employees who QUIT.

Same. Termination fired. If the circumstances are beyond their control,
they *are* eligible for UI.

Do try to stay
with the discussion.

Do try to read for comprehension.

How many of
those, in your experience, then qualify for unemployment?

I know a few hundred to a few thousand.

Ed stated those cases are very limited.

He first stated that it wasn't possible (for either someone who has been fired
or quit), which is wrong. It's not very limited at all. One test.

That in dealing with
many unemployment cases in two states he never saw an
employee who quits collect.

Self-selected sample. He only dealt with cases where there was a question.

You disparaged that experience
as not relevant.

Since his experience is not (cannot be) universal, his experience is
irrelevant. One case proves him wrong.

Yet we have not heard YOUR experience at
all. Sure there are some very
limited cases where an employee can collect. I even gave
you some examples. I provided links to NY and OH state
unemployment that discuss the limited cases where you
MIGHT still be able to collect.

Tens of thousands of cases is not "very limited".

You on the other hand just a post ago stated:

" Those cases *ARE* eligible for UI. It is *not* limited at all."

Which is correct.

*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 ****.


Now it's very clear that in fact YOU are the liar. One more time
from where Ed's post started the controversy:

Post 1 Ed: "In most states you don't have to decide. You quite, no
benefits. "

Which is *not* true.

Post 2 KRW: "Not true. It depends on the circumstances. "

True.

Post 3 Ed: "Very limited circumstances. Not if you quit because you
don't wish to
work any more. "

....and my answer? You do like to lie.


See, Ed did quickly corrected what he first posted. But the, in your
style that is all too familiar to many of us here,
you won't accept yes for an answer. You disparaged
his personal experience with many UE claims in two states. You've
called him a liar. You've called me a liar plus plenty of other
names.

No, he's simply wrong. YOU are the liar.

The above clearly shows that in fact YOU are the only liar here.


You're lying again.