On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:31:24 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 05:57:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"No one that has ever quit from the company ever got benefits."


Are *not* statements limited to personal experience. They are rather
generalized to the entire universe.

"THE" refers to one company. Sorry about your reading comprehension.

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:52:33 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 08:31:24 -0400, "
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Sep 2012 05:57:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"No one that has ever quit from the company ever got benefits."


Are *not* statements limited to personal experience. They are rather
generalized to the entire universe.

"THE" refers to one company. Sorry about your reading comprehension.

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:




It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. Probably others.

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:




It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

Strawmen are easy, huh?

The fact is that it's rather common for people to receive UI after being fired
or resigning. Again, it's all in the facts behind the case. For instance,
it's not unheard of, in "at will" states, for someone to be fired without
cause. It's also not uncommon for people to be fired for incompetence (after
clearly having been evidenced by the fact that they were in the job). Both
are eligible for UI. Basically, if someone is fired, or resigns, for reasons
beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Here is a site that has some discussion of this:
http://www.helium.com/items/313125-c...ired-in-the-us

On Sep 6, 10:35*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. *If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. *And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. *Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. *They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

Strawmen are easy, huh?

The fact is that it's rather common for people to receive UI after being fired
or resigning. *Again, it's all in the facts behind the case. *For instance,
it's not unheard of, in "at will" states, for someone to be fired without
cause. *It's also not uncommon for people to be fired for incompetence (after
clearly having been evidenced by the fact that they were in the job). *Both
are eligible for UI. *Basically, if someone is fired, or resigns, for reasons
beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Here is a site that has some discussion of this:http://www.helium.com/items/313125-c...-insurance...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances. But you're claiming that Ed's experience
where no one that quit at his company ever received unemployment
insurance, is irrelevant or unusual. I say it's not unusual.

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 6, 10:35*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. *If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. *And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. *Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. *They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

Strawmen are easy, huh?

The fact is that it's rather common for people to receive UI after being fired
or resigning. *Again, it's all in the facts behind the case. *For instance,
it's not unheard of, in "at will" states, for someone to be fired without
cause. *It's also not uncommon for people to be fired for incompetence (after
clearly having been evidenced by the fact that they were in the job). *Both
are eligible for UI. *Basically, if someone is fired, or resigns, for reasons
beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Here is a site that has some discussion of this:http://www.helium.com/items/313125-c...-insurance...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances.

If you read it, it's clearly *not* extenuating circumstances. If the employee
is not at fault, UI is payable. It really is that simple.

But you're claiming that Ed's experience
where no one that quit at his company ever received unemployment
insurance, is irrelevant or unusual. I say it's not unusual.

No, I'm saying that his experience is irrelevant. The facts differ.

On Sep 6, 11:00*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:35*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. *If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. *And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. *Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. *They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

Strawmen are easy, huh?

The fact is that it's rather common for people to receive UI after being fired
or resigning. *Again, it's all in the facts behind the case. *For instance,
it's not unheard of, in "at will" states, for someone to be fired without
cause. *It's also not uncommon for people to be fired for incompetence (after
clearly having been evidenced by the fact that they were in the job). *Both
are eligible for UI. *Basically, if someone is fired, or resigns, for reasons
beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Here is a site that has some discussion of this:http://www.helium.com/items/313125-c...surance...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. *Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances.

If you read it, it's clearly *not* extenuating circumstances. If the employee
is not at fault, UI is payable. It really is that simple.

Read what? It isn't that simple. If an employee quits just because he
just doesn't feel like working any more, he isn't at fault. And in
the vast majority of cases, he isn't going to collect unemployment
because it was his choice to quit.

Now can the employee come up with some BS story, about
sexual harrassment, unsafe work conditions, the employer
firing him as opposed to him just quiting, etc and get some
review board somewhere to let him collect? Sure. But it
isn't typical. Which was Ed's point that in the cases he
was involved in, he never saw it happen.





But you're claiming that Ed's experience
where no one that quit at his company ever received unemployment
insurance, is irrelevant or unusual. * I say it's not unusual.

No, I'm saying that his experience is irrelevant. *The facts differ.- Hide quoted text -


I see, but of course if it were YOUR experience, then it would
be directly relevant, right?

On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 18:34:53 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 6, 11:00*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:46:13 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Sep 6, 10:35*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:
On Sep 5, 10:51*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 22:31:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:32:10 -0400, "
wrote:

It's amazing that you believed that your very limited experience had any
relevance to the rest of the world around you.

The laws that apply to my company apply to everyone in the states that
I'm familiar with. *Probably others.

You are clearly clueless about the matter. *It is quite possible to receive UI
insurance after being fired or even quitting. *In fact, it's not rare at all.
It simply depends on the facts behind the separation.

It may not be rare, but it's not the typical or common case. *If you
just get ****ed off or don't like your job and quit, absent coming up
with some bogus story, you don't get unemployment. *And once the
story is vetted, very likely you're not getting it anyway. *Most
people
who quit or are fired don't do so after a period of documented
sexual harrassment or labor law violation. *They quit because they
don't like the job. Or the boss fires them with documented evidence
of them not showing up for work, being repeatedly warned, etc.

Strawmen are easy, huh?

The fact is that it's rather common for people to receive UI after being fired
or resigning. *Again, it's all in the facts behind the case. *For instance,
it's not unheard of, in "at will" states, for someone to be fired without
cause. *It's also not uncommon for people to be fired for incompetence (after
clearly having been evidenced by the fact that they were in the job). *Both
are eligible for UI. *Basically, if someone is fired, or resigns, for reasons
beyond their control, they *are* eligible for UI.

Here is a site that has some discussion of this:http://www.helium.com/items/313125-c...surance...Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. *Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances.

If you read it, it's clearly *not* extenuating circumstances. If the employee
is not at fault, UI is payable. It really is that simple.

Read what? It isn't that simple.

Good grief. Read. The law states that UI is payable as long as the employee
is not at fault in the termination. Yes, it really is that simple.

If an employee quits just because he
just doesn't feel like working any more, he isn't at fault.

You're being an idiot. Of course it's his fault.

And in
the vast majority of cases, he isn't going to collect unemployment
because it was his choice to quit.

You are an idiot.

Now can the employee come up with some BS story, about
sexual harrassment, unsafe work conditions, the employer
firing him as opposed to him just quiting, etc and get some
review board somewhere to let him collect? Sure. But it
isn't typical. Which was Ed's point that in the cases he
was involved in, he never saw it happen.

Please. Stick with the point at hand.


But you're claiming that Ed's experience
where no one that quit at his company ever received unemployment
insurance, is irrelevant or unusual. * I say it's not unusual.

No, I'm saying that his experience is irrelevant. *The facts differ.- Hide quoted text -


I see, but of course if it were YOUR experience, then it would
be directly relevant, right?

The fact that my experience proves him wrong, yes.

Is there a point to your argument, other than to argue? Grow up!

On Sep 7, 12:27Â*am, "
wrote:

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. Â*Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances.

If you read it, it's clearly *not* extenuating circumstances. If the employee
is not at fault, UI is payable. It really is that simple.

Read what? It isn't that simple.

Good grief. Â*Read. Â*The law states that UI is payable as long as the employee
is not at fault in the termination. Â*Yes, it really is that simple.

You keep trying to mix together being FIRED and QUITTING.
They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.
Your own link, which you choose not to quote here, says this:

"2. Job separation. As stated above, unemployment benefits are meant
for those workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.
Some examples would include being permanently laid off, having to move
with a spouse who is in the military, and being fired for reasons
other than misconduct."

No tell us how someone who quits there job simply because they
don't feel like working any more fits that description. Or show us
anything there that says that when an employee quits because they
don't like their job, they are elligible. It isn't there.




If an employee quits just because he
just doesn't feel like working any more, he isn't at fault.

You're being an idiot. Â*Of course it's his fault.

Well, then clealy that person does not meet the
qualification for receiving unemployment. Make up your mind.
I was just trying to
figure out how you may be trying to interpret this.
And here you go yet again, with the name calling.
Let's review again, where this started:


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

KRW:
Not true. It depends on the circumstances.


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


Now, what Ed has stated is the truth. You then proceeded to get
nasty
and claim Ed's personal experiences are irrelevant. Now, you're
attacking
me by calling me an idiot. What Ed has stated after he clarified it
is true.
Instead of accepting it, or explaining the specifics of your new
disagreement,
you attack him. That's also something we never
see from you, ie clarifying what you meant, or admitting you made a
mistake.

Let's see what some states say about their UE requirements:

From the state of NY:

You may be eligible for benefits if: .
€¢You lost your job due to lack of work
€¢The temporary or seasonal employment ended
€¢Your job was eliminated
€¢There was an involuntary reduction in force
€¢The company downsized or shut down
€¢The company restructured or reorganized
€¢There was a lack of company operating funds/orders
€¢You were out of work for any other business reason that you did not
choose or control
€¢Your employer discharged or fired you because you could not meet
their performance or production standards, or their qualifications for
the job

You may be denied benefits if you: .
€¢Were fired because you violated a company policy, rule or procedure,
such as absenteeism or insubordination
€¢Quit your job without good cause, such as a compelling personal
reason
€¢Are out of work because of a work stoppage (except for lockouts) in
the last 49 days that violated an existing collective bargaining
agreement where you worked



From the state of Ohio:

If he/she quit, may the applicant be eligible for benefits?

An applicant's unemployment must not be his/her fault. If the
applicant quits a job while the option of remaining employed exists,
he/she causes the unemployment. To establish eligibility, the
applicant must show that he/she had "just cause" for leaving the job.


Examples of "just cause" may include such reasons as:

–*The worker's health was endangered or he/she was physically unable
to do the work. The worker notified the employer with a medical
statement before quitting and gave the employer reasonable time to
find other suitable work for him/her.
–*The employer refused to meet conditions of the hiring agreement,
such as hours or wages.
–*The employer refused to provide legally required safety equipment or
measures.
–*The employer required the worker to perform work that violated
accepted moral or legal standards.
–*The applicant must provide information showing that he/she had "just
cause" for quitting the employment.

What are the situations where you MIGHT still be able to get
unemployment if you quit your job?

1.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job
because of a hostile working environment.
2.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job
because your job reduces your hours and/or your pay significantly.
3.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job
because of medical conditions or disability.
4.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job
because you were promised a better job, and you subsequently did not
get that other job -- this one is a real longshot.
5.You might still be able to get unemployment if you quit your job
because you quit your job to relocate and were unable to find a new
job -- this one is a real longshot.



Now all of that is consistent with what Ed said. It's consistent with
what
I have said. It's consistent with what your own link says. And that
is that
if you just quit your job, except in very limited circumstances, you
are NOT
eligible for unemployment benefits.

Everyone can see how this started. Ed stated that if you quit
you aren't eligible for UE. You pointed out that it depends on the
circumstance. Ed then even agreed with you and said that it's
very limited circumstances. Then, in your typical fashion, instead
of accepting when someone clarifies what they meant, you proceed
to attack them. Now, you're attacking me by calling me an idiot.




And in
the vast majority of cases, he isn't going to collect unemployment
because it was his choice to quit.

You are an idiot.

Nice, real nice.




Now can the employee come up with some BS story, about
sexual harrassment, unsafe work conditions, the employer
firing him as opposed to him just quiting, etc and get some
review board somewhere to let him collect? Â* Sure. Â*But it
isn't typical. Â*Which was Ed's point that in the cases he
was involved in, he never saw it happen.

Please. Â*Stick with the point at hand.

The point is that if you just quit your job, absent a compelling
reason, you do not qualify for UE. And consequently the vast
majority of those that quit their job do not receive UE.




But you're claiming that Ed's experience
where no one that quit at his company ever received unemployment
insurance, is irrelevant or unusual. Â* I say it's not unusual.

No, I'm saying that his experience is irrelevant. Â*The facts differ.- Hide quoted text -

I see, but of course if it were YOUR experience, then it would
be directly relevant, right?

The fact that my experience proves him wrong, yes.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of attacking Ed, instead of attacking
me,
why don't you try explaining the cases you have direct knowledge of
and under what circumstances and employee that just quits received
UE. That might convince someone. Calling people idiots will not.



Is there a point to your argument, other than to argue? Â*Grow up!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Typical. It's this kind of attitude that has resulted in me losing
respect for you some time ago. My point is that I'm fed up with
your mean, nasty attitude towards me and others here and I'm
for one am not going to put up with it. Ed is a regular, long time
poster who I respect. You're just a nasty, arrogant, divisive person.
And that's not meant as a name calling attack,
it's just an observation of your behavior here, as illustrated above.

It's also interesting that you act as if I'm the only one arguing
the point. Ed argues it. You've made far more posts on this
subject than either Ed or me. Regarding growing up, time to look
in the mirror.

On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 04:42:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 7, 12:27*am, "
wrote:

Of course the problem there is that nothing there says that
it's common for someone who quits or is fired for cause to qualify for
and receive unemployment. *Does it happen, sure if you can prove some
extenuating circumstances.

If you read it, it's clearly *not* extenuating circumstances. If the employee
is not at fault, UI is payable. It really is that simple.

Read what? It isn't that simple.

Good grief. *Read. *The law states that UI is payable as long as the employee
is not at fault in the termination. *Yes, it really is that simple.

You keep trying to mix together being FIRED and QUITTING.

No, I certainly am not. You aren't hearing *reason for*. Either
(being fired and quitting) *may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. This is simply not true.

Your own link, which you choose not to quote here, says this:

Idiot. I linked it. I expected you to read it if you were interested
in the thread.

"2. Job separation. As stated above, unemployment benefits are meant
for those workers who lost their job through no fault of their own.

*EXACTLY* That's what I've been saying. Now I'm sure you'll try to
put words in my mouth. It is your MO.

Some examples would include being permanently laid off, having to move
with a spouse who is in the military, and being fired for reasons
other han misconduct."

Precisely what I've been saying, moron.

No tell us how someone who quits there job simply because they
don't feel like working any more fits that description. Or show us
anything there that says that when an employee quits because they
don't like their job, they are elligible. It isn't there.

*I* didn't say that. *YOU* did, moron! I was right. You're trying
to put words in my mouth.


If an employee quits just because he
just doesn't feel like working any more, he isn't at fault.

You're being an idiot. *Of course it's his fault.

Well, then clealy that person does not meet the
qualification for receiving unemployment. Make up your mind.
I was just trying to
figure out how you may be trying to interpret this.
And here you go yet again, with the name calling.
Let's review again, where this started:

Let's not and leave it with you being a moron.

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, z wrote:




No, I certainly am not. You aren't hearing *reason for*. Either
(being fired and quitting) *may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. This is simply not true.



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.

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.

On Sep 7, 11:40*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, wrote:

No, I certainly am not. *You aren't hearing *reason for*. *Either
(being fired and quitting) **may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. *If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. *His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. *He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. *This is simply not true.

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.

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?




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.

On 9/8/2012 9:02 AM, wrote:


That's the problem with krw. He can't take yes for an answer.

In my humble opinion, krw is a troll... and a major-league idiot!

On 9/8/2012 9:02 AM, wrote:


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?


The best thing to do with immature people or those with issues (need to
continually insult people and argue with them etc) is to tune them out
so I simply ignore those posts. I have no patience to engage them and it
is pointless anyway because it will always be the same nonsense.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



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.


Rather than cite facts, discuss and clarify, it must just be easier to
call someone an idiot or a leftie.

krw seems to be a usually intelligent person, but sometimes . . . . .

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:40:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, z wrote:




No, I certainly am not. You aren't hearing *reason for*. Either
(being fired and quitting) *may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. This is simply not true.



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

From my 9/3 post:
Very limited circumstances.

It is *not* a "very limited circumstance". It happens quite often.

Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more.

You're lying5 now. I never stated any such thing.

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.

In you *very* limited experience, perhaps.

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 7, 11:40*pm, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, wrote:

No, I certainly am not. *You aren't hearing *reason for*. *Either
(being fired and quitting) **may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. *If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. *His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. *He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. *This is simply not true.

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.

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.


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.

On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:27:19 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



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.


Rather than cite facts, discuss and clarify, it must just be easier to
call someone an idiot or a leftie.

You obviously can't read. I did post a citation to a discussion of this very
topic.

krw seems to be a usually intelligent person, but sometimes . . . . .

....you can't read.

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. 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.
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.


And once again, you're digging yourself into an even deeper hole.
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". And that if you just quit because you don't feel like
working anymore, you can't collect. 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.




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.





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.

On Sep 10, 12:03*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:40:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, wrote:

No, I certainly am not. *You aren't hearing *reason for*. *Either
(being fired and quitting) **may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. *If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. *His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. *He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. *This is simply not true.

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

From my 9/3 post:
Very limited circumstances.

It is *not* a "very limited circumstance". *It happens quite often.

Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more.

You're lying5 now. *I never stated any such thing.


Not in those exact words perhaps. But in the preceeding post you
said:

"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. "


Read that. You end by saying "It is *not* limited at all" . If the
acceptable
reasons under which one can qualify are not limited, then ANY reason,
including where you just don't wish to work any more makes you
eligible."
That is what that says, in your own words.

So, I say it's not Ed that is the liar. And again, Ed quickly
acknowledged
that there are some limited reasons where one can collect if they
quit. In
turn, you've now taken the bizarre position that the reasons are
totally unlimited.
In other words, you can't take yes for an answer.

But keep digging your hole.

On 9/8/2012 10:27 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 06:02:52 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:



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.


Rather than cite facts, discuss and clarify, it must just be easier to
call someone an idiot or a leftie.

krw seems to be a usually intelligent person, but sometimes . . . . .


Sometimes? Its a continuous pattern of doing that often multiple times
per day..

On 9/10/2012 9:59 AM, wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:03 am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:40:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, wrote:

No, I certainly am not. You aren't hearing *reason for*. Either
(being fired and quitting) *may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. This is simply not true.

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

From my 9/3 post:
Very limited circumstances.

It is *not* a "very limited circumstance". It happens quite often.

Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more.

You're lying5 now. I never stated any such thing.


Not in those exact words perhaps. But in the preceeding post you
said:

"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. "


Read that. You end by saying "It is *not* limited at all" . If the
acceptable
reasons under which one can qualify are not limited, then ANY reason,
including where you just don't wish to work any more makes you
eligible."
That is what that says, in your own words.

So, I say it's not Ed that is the liar. And again, Ed quickly
acknowledged
that there are some limited reasons where one can collect if they
quit. In
turn, you've now taken the bizarre position that the reasons are
totally unlimited.
In other words, you can't take yes for an answer.

But keep digging your hole.




I can't imagine what you are trying to accomplish. "krw" knows they are
the smartest person in the world and will continually let everyone know
by telling them they are stupid. Instead of a normal conversation it
really is a great way to get your point across and so much easier
because clearly everyone except krw is stupid...

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.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 06:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sep 10, 12:03*am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:40:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, wrote:

No, I certainly am not. *You aren't hearing *reason for*. *Either
(being fired and quitting) **may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. *If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. *His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. *He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. *This is simply not true.

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

From my 9/3 post:
Very limited circumstances.

It is *not* a "very limited circumstance". *It happens quite often.

Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more.

You're lying5 now. *I never stated any such thing.


Not in those exact words perhaps.

So you're admitting that you're a liar. Fine.

As long as we agree on that much, I'm happy.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:43:02 -0400, George wrote:

On 9/10/2012 9:59 AM, wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:03 am, "
wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:40:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:51:35 -0400, wrote:

No, I certainly am not. You aren't hearing *reason for*. Either
(being fired and quitting) *may* be eligible for UI, depending on the
reasons behind it. If the employee is not at fault (meaning the
reasons are beyond his control), the MAY STILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR UI. Got
it?

They are two very different things.
Ed started the controversy here about under what conditions
you can receive UI if you QUIT. His point was that if you just
quit your job, except in limited circumstances, you are NOT
elligible for UE.

No, that is *NOT* what the issue is about. He stated, only backed up
by his very limited experience, that you could *not* get UI if you
were fired or quit. This is simply not true.

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

From my 9/3 post:
Very limited circumstances.

It is *not* a "very limited circumstance". It happens quite often.

Not if you quit because you don't wish to work any more.

You're lying5 now. I never stated any such thing.


Not in those exact words perhaps. But in the preceeding post you
said:

"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. "


Read that. You end by saying "It is *not* limited at all" . If the
acceptable
reasons under which one can qualify are not limited, then ANY reason,
including where you just don't wish to work any more makes you
eligible."
That is what that says, in your own words.

So, I say it's not Ed that is the liar. And again, Ed quickly
acknowledged
that there are some limited reasons where one can collect if they
quit. In
turn, you've now taken the bizarre position that the reasons are
totally unlimited.
In other words, you can't take yes for an answer.

But keep digging your hole.




I can't imagine what you are trying to accomplish. "krw" knows they are
the smartest person in the world and will continually let everyone know
by telling them they are stupid. Instead of a normal conversation it
really is a great way to get your point across and so much easier
because clearly everyone except krw is stupid...

Clearly those who refuse to read, are.

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, but you still have not
elaborated on all those cases, have you? You love to hurl
short 3 word retorts and insults, instead of explaining
yourself, which could avoid a nasty argument.




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




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. 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."


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



*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. Do try to stay
with the discussion. How many of
those, in your experience, then qualify for unemployment?
Ed stated those cases are very limited. That in dealing with
many unemployment cases in two states he never saw an
employee who quits collect. You disparaged that experience
as not relevant. 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.

You on the other hand just a post ago stated:

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



*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. "

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

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

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

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.

On Sep 11, 9:03*pm, "
wrote:

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

What cases.


The cases that form your basis for claiming that unemployment
insurance is not limited at all for those that quit their job.
Ed provided his experience going to unemployment hearings
in two different states. You claimed his experience is irrelevant.
We're waiting to hear YOUR experience, where if one just
quits their job, unemployment is available and "not limited at all".



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

Typical.





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

Everyone can judge for themselves who the liar is. Here is
exactly what you said:

KRW:

""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."

If unemployement compensation is " *not* limited at all",
then it would indeed be available to anyone and everyone
who quits, including those who quit just because they
don't want to work anymore.





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

Another lie.

From above, in your own words:

"What cases?" when I asked for elaboration of your experience
with all those "not limited at all" cases.





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.

Not a lie and it seems to be the perception of a growing number of
long
time posters here.






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.


Now everyone can judge for themselves who the liar and moron
is. In your own words above, you DID NOT SAY "It's not very
limited." YOU SAID:

"It is *not* limited at all" The emphasis with astericks is yours.


So here you are lying about what you actually said. You are now
trying to dig yourself out of your own hole by inserting the word
"very" which totally changes the meaning.

That makes YOU the liar. And I'd say you're also pretty dumb
to try to pull that off when what you said is there in black and
white.





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.


And that's why some of those here call you a troll and others
like me lost all respect for you long ago. Just because
none of the five people agree with you and you've lost the argument,
which has nothing to do with politics, you start calling them all
lefties? You really do have issues.




*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.


It's not the same. Of the people collecting unemployment at
this moment, the vast majority, a huge percentage of them,
are getting it because they were fired due to business
conditions. A small percentage of that total are workers who
quit and had a damn good reason why, eg unsafe working
conditions, discrimination, harrassment. Virtually none of
them are getting it where the reason is they just don't want
to work anymore.
Quitting because they don't want to work anymore are the
exact words Ed used. According to one of your very clear
statements that I cited above, unemployment is
not limited at all for them. That means they could walk into
an unemployment office and say "I quit that job because I
just didn't want to work anymore" and they would collect.

But not in my world, not in Ed's world, not in the real world.



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

I know a few hundred to a few thousand.


At the beginning of this thread you said "What cases?"
because I suggested that rather than call people morons and
lefties, it would be better for your case to cite the experiences
you are talking about. "What cases?" implies they don't
exist. Now here you are bringing up hundreds to a few thousand
again. And I'm the liar? You can't even keep your story
straight, which is a problem that liars have, isn't it?



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.

Which is a blatant lie. The situations where you can quit
your job and then collect are in fact limited. I've given you
links to OH and NY state unemployment websites that
show exactly that.

Everyone can read the thread and judge for themselves who
the liar is. Who is right. Who is the poster that goes off the
rails, refuses to accept yes for an answer. And who quickly
descends into calling everyone who disagrees with him a
moron or leftist. Actually they have already done that. Of
the 5 or 6 people in the thread, not one agrees with you.
The opinions range from you are wrong, to that you're just
an argumentative troll with issues.