eilsoe
03-04 02:16 PM
uuh... crap...
*goes to work on entry*
*goes to work on entry*
wallpaper Spider man tattoo vintage goth
mirage
02-03 05:23 PM
Alright guys you seem to have more Political understanding than I have, that was one reason that I was talking 20 people, I have 6 people now, when we'll talk these things will come, as these 5 people may have your kind of Political knowledge
Openarms
12-08 03:04 PM
Did anybody get actual response from USCIS yet??
2011 spiderman 3d cake.
meridiani.planum
07-21 04:01 AM
Hello Gurus,
I have red in many places that there is some cases which are "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" when they say this what exactly this means? my understand is that for USCIS every case which has all proper supporting documents then they will adjudicate that case no matter what if VISA number available, can some one help in understanding what is "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" :confused::confused:
once you get past the I-140, the typical reasons for denial of I-485 are some criminal background, out of status >180 days, mistakes on forms etc.
IMO a simple case would be someone who:
- has never changed employers
- was employed with a large US corporation which is more likely to have paid him his salary every month (as opposed to a 3-4 person company where getting hold of the W-2 is the only way to confirm).
- was never denied any application (change of status / entry to US)
- has clear medical records
- has clear documents related to birth certificate
Complicated cases are when:
- someone has repeatedly changed and employers since entering the US. The IO will need to make sure status was maintained throughout all those transitions.
- some document was not submitted, or not submitted with transalations/affidavits etc. Commonly birth certificate issues.
I have red in many places that there is some cases which are "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" when they say this what exactly this means? my understand is that for USCIS every case which has all proper supporting documents then they will adjudicate that case no matter what if VISA number available, can some one help in understanding what is "Low hanging fruits" or "Ripe cases" :confused::confused:
once you get past the I-140, the typical reasons for denial of I-485 are some criminal background, out of status >180 days, mistakes on forms etc.
IMO a simple case would be someone who:
- has never changed employers
- was employed with a large US corporation which is more likely to have paid him his salary every month (as opposed to a 3-4 person company where getting hold of the W-2 is the only way to confirm).
- was never denied any application (change of status / entry to US)
- has clear medical records
- has clear documents related to birth certificate
Complicated cases are when:
- someone has repeatedly changed and employers since entering the US. The IO will need to make sure status was maintained throughout all those transitions.
- some document was not submitted, or not submitted with transalations/affidavits etc. Commonly birth certificate issues.
more...
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
immi_seeker
08-16 12:50 AM
September bulletin was out today..Wondering why there was no thread yet on IV..EB2 india shows visa number available with a cutoff date of APRIL 2004
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3761.html
more...
paskal
01-27 01:54 PM
alisa
i hope that country caps are removed
i also hope it's not at your expense :-)
i don't see why people think these things are mutually exclusive
we all want the best to happen- for ourselves- and as much as we can help it
for everyone else too!!
great work on putting the data together, hopefully we can develop some concise sound bites to present to affected people and to lawmakers.
i do suggest that the final summary should show 3 examples
China EB2 and EB3
India EB2 and EB3
ROW EB3
this way everyone affected sees something about themselves
i hope that country caps are removed
i also hope it's not at your expense :-)
i don't see why people think these things are mutually exclusive
we all want the best to happen- for ourselves- and as much as we can help it
for everyone else too!!
great work on putting the data together, hopefully we can develop some concise sound bites to present to affected people and to lawmakers.
i do suggest that the final summary should show 3 examples
China EB2 and EB3
India EB2 and EB3
ROW EB3
this way everyone affected sees something about themselves
2010 spiderman 3d cake.
gsc999
04-20 05:23 PM
I have already called seven members who have been active lately. I don't have other phone numbers. If you still need people to call. Let me know. You can PM me
more...
vinzak
11-10 10:01 PM
I think is a great idea.
From my understanding, there is a law on the books which isn't being implemented. It only follows that we go to court to ensure this law is implemented as written.
I would fully support such a measure and be willing to donate time and money for this.
I am sure various immi law associations would be willing to fight for this too.
From my understanding, there is a law on the books which isn't being implemented. It only follows that we go to court to ensure this law is implemented as written.
I would fully support such a measure and be willing to donate time and money for this.
I am sure various immi law associations would be willing to fight for this too.
hair spiderman 3d cake. provided
abhijitp
07-18 12:37 AM
Continuing on this forum with more generic title
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
This would be interesting as well as cause for concern for many of us. Do we have to go through the whole process one more time and file again?
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=10383
Per Greg Siskind -- July 2nd filers might have to file again, as all July 2nd application were rejected. Check out the link below as well as the comment section for the blog
Greg Siskind is reporting the following about July2nd rejection here
http://blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/07/faqs-part-1.html
part of above post --
USCIS did not state how cases filed and rejected on the 2nd are to be handled other than to say that properly filed applications would be accepted. This presumably covers the many cases filed after the second that were held, but it doesn�t explain what will happen to the cases received earlier. We hope USCIS will issue special instructions to issue July 2nd receipt dates to those who are able to document they attempted to file. We presume some folks are still waiting on their July 2nd cases to be returned and are debating refiling new cases rather than waiting. Unfortunately, there is a risk of not getting the package back before August 17th and some people will need to refile without proof of the earlier filing. Hopefully, again, USCIS will institute a process for such individuals to avoid being penalized.
USCIS has not announced any details yet on how it will determine which cases get 2007 visa numbers that might still be available. We also don�t know yet how cases will be processed that are not in the batch of cases that get green card numbers this year. For those who will have to get numbers in future years, applications should be worked by the order of the priority date. So applicants with labor certifications approved some time back, for example, should go before people in the same category with later priority dates.
For individuals filing cases not requiring a labor certification (such as Schedule A cases and national interest waivers), the priority date is the date of filing. Because there may be hundreds of thousands of applications received between July 2nd and August 17th with many of these cases not requiring a labor certification, the date during this six week period a case is filed could make a big difference in terms of when a case will complete processing. And, again, getting that July 2nd priority date for those who filed early and were rejected could make a big difference in when their cases are ultimately processed through to completion.
This would be interesting as well as cause for concern for many of us. Do we have to go through the whole process one more time and file again?
more...
GreenCard4US
06-10 06:24 PM
For whatever reason, rumors are flying all over the Internet that the end of H1B and EAD employment authorization is at hand. This is complete nonsense. The purported basis for these rumors is an amendment offered in the Senate (S. Amdt. 4319) to a tax bill previously passed by the House (HR 4213). As written, this proposal would prohibit companies from filing H1B petitions if the company has laid off any employees in the last year. It would also void all existing H petitions for a company if the company lays off personnel.
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
Let's put this in context. Microsoft decides to lay off some of its loading dock personnel because they want to outsource that work. Under this proposal, they would then have to terminate all of their H1B engineers. That simply doesn't pass the laugh test.
Like most of Grassley's proposals, this amendment is pure idiocy. I suppose that's what happens when your parents are siblings. This bill has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law. .
hot d like Is going back to high school when Spiderman+3d+2012
varshadas
02-18 01:12 PM
Himanshu,
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We are glad to help to get us all out of this mess.
Rajeev, Sanjay, Hemal. Shekhar and Ajay, were you able to get in touch with your local Congressmen, if not, please do so.
Thanks,
Varsha
Thank you very much for your appreciation. We are glad to help to get us all out of this mess.
Rajeev, Sanjay, Hemal. Shekhar and Ajay, were you able to get in touch with your local Congressmen, if not, please do so.
Thanks,
Varsha
more...
house spiderman 3d 2012. theyll Spiderman+3d+2012
p_kumar
02-20 03:16 PM
Do you belive this guy?. His name is Ron Gotcher. All he will say is GOTCHA!!!!:D
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
But seriously, Any chance of Eb3 advancing this year?.
tattoo spiderman 3d 2012. 2012, Spider-Man 3D,
jjava100
07-01 03:07 PM
Thank you for contacting me to share your views about Senate Amendment 4319 to the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act (H.R. 4213). I appreciate the time you have taken to correspond with me.
In my position as a United States Senator, I benefit greatly by hearing a wide spectrum of opinions expressed by Oregonians. I listen carefully to these views as I study each issue and decide how to vote on legislation which comes before the Senate. On any issue, I value your thoughts and ideas.
Again, I appreciate your feedback. I have made note of your concerns, and I will certainly keep them in mind. Please keep in touch.
All my best,
In my position as a United States Senator, I benefit greatly by hearing a wide spectrum of opinions expressed by Oregonians. I listen carefully to these views as I study each issue and decide how to vote on legislation which comes before the Senate. On any issue, I value your thoughts and ideas.
Again, I appreciate your feedback. I have made note of your concerns, and I will certainly keep them in mind. Please keep in touch.
All my best,
more...
pictures spiderman 3d wallpapers.
iv_only_hope
02-21 04:21 PM
I guess one worst case scenario would be EB1 and EB2 row using upto 39,000 visas each. Then the 140k/ year wait for India and china would extend to eternity
dresses spiderman 3d cake. 3D Cakes
NKR
10-16 03:24 PM
So to put extensive blame on USCIS for the "reaction" (I assume you are talking about the backlogs) is not right.
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL�s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
Read your above sentence, then read your below sentence. If I try to find a relation between these two sentences I do not know what you are talking.
Firstly: If USCIS was reacting, they would not have approved the so called "newer" applications.
Second: When you say "approving" newer applications, are you saying approving older applications by PD or older applications by RD/ND (with older being 3-4 year older RD/PD)?? USCIS has never had to process applications by PD, only factor they have is RD/ND. PD just tells when someone can be approved (or apply), it doesn't get you any priority in the processing queue. I am sure you dont want the situation where you have your later PD, earlier RD, but someone who chose to delay his app to come with an ancient PD, but a fresh RD to get processed ahead of you (when both of you are current) do you?
Again I am not sure what you are saying but MY PD is in early 2004 and RD was in Aug, they moved my application to another centre and my new RD is Oct. then I saw 2006 and 2007 cases getting approved. This is not right, why are they going by RD and not on PD?.
I am bit out of touch, but isn't PERM/BEC a DoL operation not USCIS. Then again, those were the factors you have no control. Even when it was just the Labor Cert process, there had been disparities between various processing centers. Some people made use of provisions (sometimes fraudulently) to get their LCs through these "fast" process centers. I too have been affected by the Perm/LC situation, but I don't think USCIS is to take blame on that.
Exactly dude, there should be some synchronization between DOL and USCIS. Just saying that USCIS is not responsible for DOL�s actions does not solve the problem, they can conveniently blame each other and take till eternity to process applications and you will keep saying the same thing that USCIS is not to be blamed.
Am I defending USCIS: No, I am just saying if people want a Flower campaign, they should go ahead with it. No point putting FUD to stop people from doing what they want.
No, you did not say that, all you said was USCIS is not doing anything wrong.
more...
makeup Awesome Looking - 3D Tattoos
mhathi
03-17 11:42 AM
There are several of us who have been left with no choice but to file under EB3 by our employers, despite qualifying for EB2 at least.
Maybe the lawmakers should understand this plight...
I am forced into EB3 despite having a US Masters due to the same situation, but I wonder what lawmakers can do about this. The best way will be for us to lobby for relief in all EB immigration categories; not just EB1 or EB2.
Which is what is IVs stated goal anyways.
Maybe the lawmakers should understand this plight...
I am forced into EB3 despite having a US Masters due to the same situation, but I wonder what lawmakers can do about this. The best way will be for us to lobby for relief in all EB immigration categories; not just EB1 or EB2.
Which is what is IVs stated goal anyways.
girlfriend spiderman 3d 2012. being shot entirely in 3D,; being shot entirely in 3D,
ushkand
07-24 11:57 AM
Simply_GC:
yes there is an option for you. When you get the I-485 receipot, mail in the employment letter along with copy of 485 receipt (just so they can track) and a another letter stating the oversight.
Doesn't receipting an application automatically mean they accepted the application?
yes there is an option for you. When you get the I-485 receipot, mail in the employment letter along with copy of 485 receipt (just so they can track) and a another letter stating the oversight.
Doesn't receipting an application automatically mean they accepted the application?
hairstyles Spiderman tattoo with 3d skin
pointlesswait
07-28 12:45 PM
I would recommend each and everyone...be it a believer or a non-believer..
to read the book by Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion..
If u have even an iota of rationality ..you will appretiate the beauty of his argument...This book is a must read for every mortal...
You can get a "used" copy on amazon for 3$...please..i beg u guys to read it!
to read the book by Richard Dawkins: The God Delusion..
If u have even an iota of rationality ..you will appretiate the beauty of his argument...This book is a must read for every mortal...
You can get a "used" copy on amazon for 3$...please..i beg u guys to read it!
GreenLantern
03-07 07:28 AM
Wow, that is nice grinch. It's pretty detailed. I like the map on the wall.
:thumb:
:thumb:
ajay
01-16 08:56 PM
See buddy, there are some people who will cry whatever scenario they are in, and some people who will laugh and be happy in whatever scenario they are in. The key to optimism and happy life is to find someone who has it worse, and realize how fortunate you are. At least you are not having to live in the slums of India. At least you are not having your daughter breathe the polluted air of an Indian metro. At least you have a healthy family and no medical emergencies to worry about. Enjoy what you have got, not crib about what you've got.
This is what I always thank my elders and God for what I have been given in my day to day life.
This is what I always thank my elders and God for what I have been given in my day to day life.
No comments:
Post a Comment