|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Old fat expat
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Location: a caravan of dust, making for a windy prairie
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Don't obfuscate UrbanL
A number of posters have asked you where was the report widely discredited?
We await. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| crescent wrote: |
I didn't say practicing lawyer IN KOREA. What does it say there under your avatar?
|
You said "practicing lawyer" Since he is IN KOREA, he is either a practicing lawyer in Korea or not a practicing lawyer at present. |
Practicing lawyer as in accredited; engaged; working in law.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practicing
He's in Korea right now? You can prove this too?
As if this petty game of yours really makes a difference to a claim you made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if the man is in Korea at the moment, he can still be engaged in the practice of law in the jurisdiction in which he is authorized to practice said profession. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
[
Well there are certain inaccuracies and overly inflammatory language in it for one thing. . |
I'll just pick one example for now.
On page four of said report (at the bottom) it states
"The E-2 visa policy is essentially a country-wide search of all suspicious foreign residents"
However it isn't. It affects only those people on an E-2 visa (or those who wish to work at a public school). "all suspicious foreign residents" is clearly false. And he knows this or should. Putting in lies in your report makes it discredited pure and simple.
The term "search" is inflammatory and overly so as it doesn't really describe what happens.
"The first stage involves a roundup of the suspects."
Again inflammatory language. "Suspects?" Really now. 
"The second stage involves body searches for drugs and diseases."
Really? Was anyone patted down at Incheon airport? Did uniformed goons break into your apartment and strip search you?
What he means...but it wouldn't be so dramatic as "body searches"... is that we are required to take a drug test.
Once again misleading (to anyone who doesn't know what he is talking about) and overly dramatic. Plus it's really reaching to describe drug tests as a body search. According to the American Heritage Dictionary it is "a physical search of a person made usually by patting the body with the hands and often by exploring bodily orifices in an attempt to find concealed weapons, explosives, drugs, and other contraband."
I'd say that what most people think of when they hear the term "body search"...not drug test.
But that semantic quibble aside, drug tests are a requirement of many jobs back home. It's not unreasonable here either.
So we've got an outright lie, and inflammatory language and we are only on page 4 of the report so far. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your main problem is a rigid, pedantic use of English.
| Quote: |
| "The E-2 visa policy is essentially a country-wide search of all suspicious foreign residents |
"
Notice the quote does not say "all foreign residents", but 'all suspicious foreign residents'.
By enacting categorical, specific requirements ONLY for E2 visa holders, immigration has thus classified this group as 'suspicious'. The E2 visa policy was therefore a remedy to root out all suspicious foreign residents. Anyone with memory knows the government has been pointing the finger at E2 visa holders for a very long time.
Were the same requirements brought about for F visa holders? No, because they are not in the 'suspicious' category. Do KOREAN teachers have to submit drug tests?
Language use, especially English has more applications in meaning than you are entitled to judge.
Drug tests are requirements for SOME jobs back home. They are applicable to the JOB, not a group of people. If drug tests were required for a 'teaching job' in Korea, then Koreans would be tested, F visa holders would be tested.
But, the most laughable part of your 'intellectual dishonesty'; you decide that the terms 'search' and 'suspects' are inflammatory? Who the hell are you to decide that?
And since when have you worked at the airport long enough to know who has been patted down, and who hasn't? You have proof of that, too?
Why didn't you save us all this trouble and say YOU discredited him, instead of saying his paper was 'widely discredited'.
Last edited by crescent on Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:36 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old fat expat
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Location: a caravan of dust, making for a windy prairie
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No UM.
The question you were asked was "where was the report widely discredited?"
What part of the question do you not understand?
I don't want your assessment of the article. I read it in its entirety some months ago. You said it was widely discredited. You are discrediting it now. Are you wide? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crescent wrote: |
Your main problem is a rigid, pedantic use of English.
| Quote: |
| "The E-2 visa policy is essentially a country-wide search of all suspicious foreign residents |
"
Notice the quote does not say "all foreign residents", but 'all suspicious foreign residents'.
By enacting categorical, specific requirements ONLY for E2 visa holders, immigration has thus classified this group as 'suspicious'
Nice theory but that is false. If you want to work at a public school full time, you get drug tested and that is true for F-holders as well.
The E2 visa policy was therefore a remedy to root out all suspicious foreign residents. Anyone with memory knows the government has been pointing the finger at E2 visa holders for a very long time.
Were the same requirements brought about for F visa holders? No, because they are not in the 'suspicious' category
Then why do they have to submit drug tests for working at a public school?
Do KOREAN teachers have to submit drug tests?
Language use, especially English has more applications in meaning than you are entitled to judge.
Drug tests are requirements for SOME jobs back home. They are applicable to the JOB, not a group of people. If drug tests were required for a 'teaching job' in Korea, then Koreans would be tested, F visa holders would be tested.
But, the most laughable part of your 'intellectual dishonesty'; you decide that the terms 'search' and 'suspects' are inflammatory? Who the hell are you to decide that?
And since when have you worked at the airport long enough to know who has been patted down, and who hasn't? You have proof of that, too?
|
When did I say who has been patted down and who hasn't? Indeed it is laughable. You accuse me of "intellectual dishonesty" and then misrepresent what I said.
Last edited by TheUrbanMyth on Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Foreign Teachers in Korea have about as much impact on Korean policy that Korean-Americans in the USA have in impacting American policy.
Put that in your cereal and eat it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crescent
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: yes.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You are either really obtuse, or you need these games to divert attention from the fact that you lied. Keep up the games, TUM.
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Really? Was anyone patted down at Incheon airport? Did uniformed goons break into your apartment and strip search you? |
Does this, or does this not insinuate that you believe people are not patted down at the airport?
Now, are you going to continue tripping over yourself? Or are we all going to see where this report was "WIDELY DISCREDITED"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mayorgc
Joined: 19 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TUM, at times, you are a voice of reason.
At other times, you come off really condescending. Your constant "Do you even speak English???" attitude really sucks.
When you're wrong or when you get called out on one of your false statements, you go round n' round in circles with your semantics that go on forever. Just let it go buddy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Look, folks; we all know that everyone who must work at a public school has to undergo the tests, regardless of visa type. The issue is that only those on the E-series visa must undergo the tests to work at the private schools.
ETA: There's nothing at all wrong with the science of Semantics. What is wrong is twisting one's words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdog2050
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| eamo wrote: |
Because you don't see any discrimination or racism in Korea?
. |
Again where did I say anything like this?
Why do you keep making up stuff about my position and what I see? At first it was entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself with wild assumptions but now it's getting old. If you can't understand plain English then just say so. |
Jessssuuuuusssss Christ. You really like hijaking threads, don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old fat expat
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Location: a caravan of dust, making for a windy prairie
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
UM:
The question you were asked was "where was the report widely discredited?"
What part of the question do you not understand?
Why won't you answer the question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdog2050
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mayorgc wrote: |
TUM, at times, you are a voice of reason.
At other times, you come off really condescending. Your constant "Do you even speak English???" attitude really sucks.
When you're wrong or when you get called out on one of your false statements, you go round n' round in circles with your semantics that go on forever. Just let it go buddy. |
I mean, if he's trolling, he's done an amazing job, but he posts here too much so he must be serious.
His "discrediting"...ahem...of the report in question is ludicrous. The issue with Korean law, in general and not just in the E2 immigration circle, is that Korean law is malleable and applicable at a whim. This is why you can say Korea has rule-by-law and not the rule-of-law.
Are most people literally "patted down"? No, Wagner is obviously using colorful language; that's dangerous, I agree, because there could be readers who think we're literally being patted down. But, what Wagner is referring to is the fact that if a policeman walked into your school, right now, he could drug test you with no warrant and no suspicion. God help you if you complain as the Korean constitution says you have a right to.
And that's just the one point.
You also claim that Wagner's paper is "widely discredited". Wha??? Really? Cause the only evidence you've produced in this thread is your own pedantic inclinations. If you wanted to say that ATEK is discredited, that's valid, but a statement that has nothing to do with this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Old fat expat wrote: |
UM:
The question you were asked was "where was the report widely discredited?"
What part of the question do you not understand?
Why won't you answer the question? |
Because I couldn't find the relevant article until now.
A bit of background. Wagner submitted his report to the NHRCK in February 2009
This article was submitted the following month by Lee Bok-nam the director of Border Control Division...so not just some desk jockey...this is apparently the Big Cheese himself weighting in.
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/03/137_40819.html
He says that
"Consequently, Prof. Wagner' claim [that there is no legal basis for requiring CBC's and drug tests] stems from the lack of understanding of the Constitution and the Immigration Control Act of Korea
And at the end of the day, Immigration's opinion is the only one that counts as they are the people who issue the visa. If they dismiss Wagner as not credible , then so is his report. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
