On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 18, 3:32 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 12:24:28 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 17, 2:04 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:24:57 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Nov 14, 7:57 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > > > > For me, i choose work from the list they provide because thats the
> >> >> >> >> > > > > only choice available. What i want to do, what i would like to do and
> >> >> >> >> > > > > what i might be good at are irrelevant. my skills are irrelevant. you
> >> >> >> >> > > > > MUST pick from their official list. its a joke. there is no effort
> >> >> >> >> > > > > made to help get you into something meaningful (there's no help at all
> >> >> >> >> > > > > really).
>
> >> >> >> .
>
> >> >> >> Oh  *do* give the location of this Jobcentre. If what you say *is* a
> >> >> >> fact I shall be happy to take the matter further - all I need is for
> >> >> >> you to provide details - if you care to, that is.
>
> >> >> >take the matter further how?
>
> >> >> If you care to provide the details of where this alleged action is
> >> >> taking place I shall be able to invistigate *why* and *how* they are
> >> >> implementing it.
>
> >> >you are suggesting it isn't job centre policy?
>
> >> >and you still haven't answered my question?  What basis do you
> >> >personally intend to investigate? Are you the secretary for work and
> >> >pensions?
>
> >> I am indeed suggesting that this is *not* Jobcentre Plus policy.
>
> >> And you have yet to identify the location of this apparent mis-deed.
>
> >> How am I able to investigate? By making contact with people and asking
> >> questions.  Simple enough. Just leave it that, eh?
>
> >> Now - are you prepared to name and shame the Jobcentre involved or can
> >> I assume the whole thing is a figment of your imagination?
>
> >You are asking me to possibly put myself into an awkward position
> >because you are assming im making this up, yet you ask me to 'just
> >leave it at that' in return?
>
> >A bit much isn't it? Is there a reason why you shouldn't tell me why i
> >should trust you and believe you have a healthy interest in this?
>
> >Given this has been JC policy for as long as I can remember in every
> >office I've been in I must assume that you are not perhaps as familiar
> >with how they work as you would like to think. Perhaps you could tell
> >me what you think they should be doing instead, if you find what i
> >claim so unbelievable as to think i'd waste my time posting utter
> >nonsense. They have always said you must pick three categories fo work
> >for your jobseekers agreement and those categories must be the
> >categories they use to advertise jobs. they don't offer training or
> >anything like that and when i was alast signing on there was no effort
> >made to offer me anything beyond my own efforts to find work.
>
> >Now if you want me to 'name and shame', you need to give me a bit more
> >to go on.
>
> I am simply asking you to name the location of the Jobcentre where you
> claim this is happening. There's no need to be paranoid. I don't want
> your details. Just the location - that's all. What's the harm in
> providing that? Is there a fear that your complaint will be proved
> unfounded?
>
> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
> further to be said.

you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
any special ability to change things?

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:56:41 -0800 (PST), ghostwhistler@googlemail.com
wrote:

>On Dec 4, 11:37 am, Robbie  wrote:
>> ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
>> > On Dec 3, 10:02 pm, Gran  wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:29:11 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Nov 21, 6:45 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
>> >>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
>> >>>>>> further to be said.
>> >>>>> you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
>> >>>>> proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
>> >>>>> any special ability to change things?
>> >>>> Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
>> >>>> there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
>> >>>> understanding?
>> >>> You really are a prize cunt aren't you. YOu expect me to name the
>> >>> place which could well lead to me getting into trouble because i have
>> >>> to sign there and have absolutely no idea who you are or even if you
>> >>> can do anything, and yet when aked for a little reciprocation you
>> >>> decide to have a hissy fit.
>> >>> What part of you are a fucking prick don't YOU understand you silly
>> >>> cunt.
>> >> You were only asked to say which office is carrying on this dodgy
>> >> sounding practice. You weren't asked your name, were you? Or do you
>> >> imagine that 'they' will be able to read your mind despite the
>> >> tin-foil hat.
>>
>> >> Oh perleeease -  do stop being so precious. You'd either like this
>> >> questioned from within or you wouldn't. It's as easy as that.
>>
>> >> I'm really not at all surprised you seem to be having such a hard
>> >> time, given your somewhat negative attitude and apparent unwillingness
>> >> to relay even the most simple piece of information without making a
>> >> big drama from it.
>>
>> > and this is going to be investigated how? Some nerd on the internet
>> > has the power to ring up the DWP and say 'oy, i heard on the internets
>> > you are shit! sort it ahhhht!'
>>
>> > get real.
>>
>> > if the loser can't answer a basic question as to how he intends to
>> > investigate or who he is in relationship to being able to inetigate
>> > any kind of change then why should i tell him anything?
>>
>> > if he can't divgule info quid pro quo then he's the one with the
>> > tinfoil hat, pal, not i.
>>
>> Reading between the lines I think the poster was going to phone that
>> local Job Centre! Quite rightly the other poster didn't divulge his or
>> her location.
>>
>> --
>> Robbie
>
>I don't care who he is or where he lives, but if he thinks that ringin
>up the JC in question in classic 'angry from tumbriudge wells' style
>indignation, he's even more in need of that tinfoil hat.

Perhaps you should just slow down a moment and stop making assumptions
and wild guesses.

Firstly - do you kow the poster? Are you sure the poster is a 'he'?

The 'angry from tumbriudge wells' (sic) seems more your style. 

I think the poster is more likely to be using the 'Hey, does *your*
office do this?  We've not seen anything that says we can do it - can
you give me a link to the guidance?" style of questioning.

On Dec 6, 3:23 pm, Gran  wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:56:41 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Dec 4, 11:37 am, Robbie  wrote:
> >> ghostwhist...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >> > On Dec 3, 10:02 pm, Gran  wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 08:29:11 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >>> On Nov 21, 6:45 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> >>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Nov 18, 7:38 pm, Punter  wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 08:12:19 -0800 (PST), ghostwhist...@googlemail.com
> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>> However - if you choose not to name the location then there is nothing
> >> >>>>>> further to be said.
> >> >>>>> you are very good at avoiding questions. You haven't even given me any
> >> >>>>> proof that you can do anything about it. Why shulkd I believe you have
> >> >>>>> any special ability to change things?
> >> >>>> Which part of  "However - if you choose not to name the location then
> >> >>>> there is nothing further to be said" are you having trouble
> >> >>>> understanding?
> >> >>> You really are a prize cunt aren't you. YOu expect me to name the
> >> >>> place which could well lead to me getting into trouble because i have
> >> >>> to sign there and have absolutely no idea who you are or even if you
> >> >>> can do anything, and yet when aked for a little reciprocation you
> >> >>> decide to have a hissy fit.
> >> >>> What part of you are a fucking prick don't YOU understand you silly
> >> >>> cunt.
> >> >> You were only asked to say which office is carrying on this dodgy
> >> >> sounding practice. You weren't asked your name, were you? Or do you
> >> >> imagine that 'they' will be able to read your mind despite the
> >> >> tin-foil hat.
>
> >> >> Oh perleeease -  do stop being so precious. You'd either like this
> >> >> questioned from within or you wouldn't. It's as easy as that.
>
> >> >> I'm really not at all surprised you seem to be having such a hard
> >> >> time, given your somewhat negative attitude and apparent unwillingness
> >> >> to relay even the most simple piece of information without making a
> >> >> big drama from it.
>
> >> > and this is going to be investigated how? Some nerd on the internet
> >> > has the power to ring up the DWP and say 'oy, i heard on the internets
> >> > you are shit! sort it ahhhht!'
>
> >> > get real.
>
> >> > if the loser can't answer a basic question as to how he intends to
> >> > investigate or who he is in relationship to being able to inetigate
> >> > any kind of change then why should i tell him anything?
>
> >> > if he can't divgule info quid pro quo then he's the one with the
> >> > tinfoil hat, pal, not i.
>
> >> Reading between the lines I think the poster was going to phone that
> >> local Job Centre! Quite rightly the other poster didn't divulge his or
> >> her location.
>
> >> --
> >> Robbie
>
> >I don't care who he is or where he lives, but if he thinks that ringin
> >up the JC in question in classic 'angry from tumbriudge wells' style
> >indignation, he's even more in need of that tinfoil hat.
>
> Perhaps you should just slow down a moment and stop making assumptions
> and wild guesses.
>
> Firstly - do you kow the poster? Are you sure the poster is a 'he'?
>
No, that's the point.