betsy

She didn't specify any job position. I'm sure she's okay with being a cashier or a stock clerk.....but three interviews to fill those positions, I somehow doubt it. Unless things had changed and now it's the norm to get several interviews for those types of positions. She got the first and the second interview on the same day, one after the other and the second interviewer told her "you're doing very well." I think...and I have a strong hunch that they're eye-ing her for some managerial or manager-trainee position. I mean if she didn't make a good first impression, she wouldn't be given the second interview, right? She sort of has that intuition but I guess she 's being modest and wouldn't want to count the chicks before they're hatched. Btw, my neighbor'reference got contacted and was given quite a good recommendation. You think? Anyway I also know of one who only got one interview and was told that if human resources is interested, she'd be contacted. So I guess the first one is like a screening process?

No, unfortunately not. You and Angus obviously love it. Does it have a strong flavor?

My neighbor just left, all excited and anxious. She applied at the WalMart opening soon, and she was called for the THIRD INTERVIEW for next week. Apparently, she did not specify any job title she's applying for (she went to a hiring center set up by WalMart ). I can't remember when was it the last time I applied for a job, so I don't know what to say to her other than, "I certainly think you'll get a job." So what does it usually means if you get into the third interview? Do companies do several interviews nowadays? I feel like a dinosaur.

Thanks gc. Never seen that one. Another thing for my husband and I to discuss. Btw, I love pork! It's my second favorite meat (beef's no. 1)!

I agree. America had contributed vastly to other nations as well. In my original country's case it was so fortunate for us to have been bought by the USA from Spain, and promptly introduced the people to education. Other US territories like Guam seem to be doing well. I remember my father pointing out what happened to those countries invaded by the Spaniards....and France. Most, if not all of them did not fare that well. So yes, America's children have so much to be proud for.

Yes I understand that pigs nowadays are not "unsafe". And I've heard from the news sometime ago that they are trying to come up with pigs that would be carrying Omega-something, that is known as the "good cholesterol." What I would like to know though is the reasons behind the Jewish and Muslim religion why they don't eat pork. That the Old Testament, the Jews and Muslims have this one thing in common is interesting. This could be one incident that shows the link between these peoples.

It was in the Bibles Old Testament. so the thrid would be that of the Christian Religion. But as I don't think this is generally practiced among us. I never knew of this until only recently.

At least I know that Jews and Muslims do not eat pork. And only recently I found out that the The Bible's Old Testament had also included pig among the animals/fish that we shouldn't eat....although I don't think this is being practiced at all by Christians. So it's quite interesting that three major religions have this one thing in common. I am really intrigued by the similarity in this. The reason given in the Bible is that pigs are "unclean." So I'm curious. What is the reason why Muslims and Jews...and other religions (if any)...do not eat pork?

Yes, I agree Rue that with all the various interpretations and contradictions we see around us, in the end we have to rely on our own selves to find the right answers. Perhaps this is what God has meant for us to do hence we are given free wills and the capacity to think...and why Jesus warned us about those who will try to decieve, or those who claim to speak in His name.

I'm supposed to be a Roman Catholic, however I'm afraid I'm a very poor example of one.

Or they hardly have any choice. This is not dictating what is best for us. This is providing all the necessary information on which to base our choices. Who would have thought melamine is used in dog food! And if it's used in dog food, is it possible that it's also being used in some other products meant for people? I'm not too concerned about the minute details as to the amount of each and every ingredients (at least the current nutritional information labels seem to be sufficient)....but I do want to know all the the stuff that's in the food....and all the countries that are involved in its production. That shouldn't be too hard.

Whatever it is, they display the same kind of actions! Phenomenon indeed....well, isn't it a phenomenon that these street mobs suddenly materialize everywhere in the world almost simultaneously? Of course, number is the key!

How many abortion murders had happened? I'd more likely compare those to serial murderers or psychotic murders. Although I doubt these abortion murderers are more than 3 in numbers....I never did follow the news. I think there was only one arrested, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, are you suggesting Muslims are more prone to be psychotic since they could easily swell their numbers up to thousands in one go? What, all it takes is an elbow nudge and that's enought to trigger a Muslim to go bonkers? Okay, okay...since you're so keen to compare, I'll give you something closely comparable than the examples you're so desperately trying to fit in the box. The violent Muslim street protests are comparable to the days of THE TERROR in France during the times of Marie Antoinette.

So, counter my explanations not with a simple statement....but with a credible explanation. You can't negate what I explained with a childish "it ain't so" and expect us to take it just like that. I insist, "yes, it is so." And I've explained why it is so.

How can you say EXACT EQUIVALENT when first of all, we're talking of only a group of 30 YOUNG PEOPLE - take note how they specified YOUNG - whereas violent Muslim protests usually comprise of a mass of people numbering from hundreds to thousands, and from varying age groups and genders? Wheras I could easily assume that these 30 young people (probably in their late teens) could be stoned or high, displaying the same insane tendencies we sometimes see among sore-loser hockey fans...it will be hard for me to assume that the hundreds or thousands of Muslims violently protesting are all druggies! Of course it's nowhere the same! It's not even nowhere the equivalent of the rampaging youth in France (burning cars etc..)! And then let's talk about the focus of their violence. This group of 30 has one, sole focus! The art-show! It resulted in a brawl! The rampaging youth of France....everything they can lay their hands on, either to be vandalised or beaten up, or killed! The rampaging violent Muslim proetsters.....everything in their path is fair game, either to be vandalised or beatened up, or killed! Actually, the link above states only a "group of young people"...and that about 30 people joined the fight! So we're not talking of a group of 30 young protesters. And it was a fight! A brawl! Let's get a grip and put this in a sensible perspective!

Yesterday, I checked out a box of Kraft Dinner trying to find out where it came from. All the box says was: Under license by Kraft Canada Inc., Don Mills, Ontario. Should I correctly assume that it means Kraft Dinner is made in Canada? Some other products by other companies would say: Prepared for AAA Company, Lilyput Quebec. Prepared by whom? Do you think specific information should be given? I think so. If there is a regulation that all ingredients used should be printed on the box along with the accurate easy-to-read nutritional information....then the place where the product was made should also be stated. The consumers want to be fully infromed so as they can make their own choice. Of course, the product may have been made in Canada....but what about the macaroni that they used, or the cheese powder, the salt, other spices? Should all these information be included as well - all the places involved for all ingredients that made up the product?

The cartoons appeared in editorials, I believe. And they were made for a reason - as part of the current problems the world is facing due to terrorism, which is fueled by a religious belief, martyrdom in the name of their God. This so-called art show by some gay organizers was meant to taunt, to mock, to deliberately cause upset - in a FURTHER ATTEMPT TO CHANGE the traditional Christian belief. Would these same gay organizers accept it calmly if some groups decide to put up an art show that depicts and associates gays with all sorts of perversities, most notably pedophilia? Various themes will provide such elaborate backdrops - from ancient times to pulpits and schools! Historical figures will make quite a contribution in the lavish production of such art show (from toga-clad philosophers chasing young boys merrily in the meadows of Greece to the militant marching of NAMBLA founders in a gay-pride parade) - and it wouldn't require a stretch of the imagination either (unlike this Jesus-as- gay art show). The so-called "faggot cricifixion" will have a gay counterpart - the torture/muder of a young teenage boy abducted, tortured and butchered by the gay killer....or perhaps the artistic rendition of the death of Gacy.... And yet no doubt, such a show would be lambasted as a hate-promoting event, a homophobic art show....fueled by some intolerant gay-hating extremists! Don't get me wrong, I do not support violence to stress a point....but not all people think or feel as I do. I would rather some groups express their hate through art shows, thus if it's okay for a small group of gay organizers to put up such a show - others should be able to put up the same kind of garbage show to their hearts' content - be it directed towards gays, or women, or children, or Muslims, or dogs and emus. As long as the public do not fund any such garbage trying to pass up for "art". But seriously, I think some gays are stretching the limit to the fullest. And it does not bode well.

I know the question is directed at Argus, but can I just give my opinion. It's so easy to get off on a tangent. In this case, some of us were just responding to this:

I'd say the gay organizers for this event are the INTOLERANT EXTREMISTS. And I guess the protesters share your sentiment.

You wish. Something is askew with perception if this simple little "over-reaction" by a group of 30 young people burning posters - posters of their God being insulted - is compared to SIMULTANEOUS MASS VIOLENT PROTESTS BY THOUSANDS ALL OVER THE WORLD, burning, vandalising, hurting and KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE! Comparison between this so-called art show and those mohammed cartoons. Reaction-wise? Yep. Islam still have that monopoly right now. And by the looks of it, this group of 30 young people were copycatting the violent reactions of the Muslims. Talk about influence and setting an example! Wait till all radicals from all other religions start doing the same thing. Hey, if a certain group can get their message across and get the world to cower in fear....why couldn't others do the same tactic?

I am a Catholic, and you gave a precise example of one I'm also questioning now. Praying to the saints....or even to the Virgin Mary....may be going against the law of God. Thou shalt not have other gods before me. Praying to others may be falling under the category of "worship". Praying before their statues may also be interpreted as praying to idols. I'm also questioning the different prayers. Jesus had given only one: The Lord's Prayer. What's your take on this? As for the anti-religion posters....you are entitled to your own belief. And we Christians are entitled to ours. This topic is not to indicate that I question the existence of God or Jesus. I question only the various interpretations that exist...since I am aware of Jesus' preaching to us, warning : Beware of those who speak in My name.

I am a Christian. The topic was meant to be a question to us all Christians, basing it on the Word of God warning us of paganistic rituals. Not too long ago, I was one of the defenders of Christmas - keeping the Merry Christmas greetings alive! However, it must come with age.....contemplating and discussing about God with my husband quite more these days. The christmas tree is pagan-based. The fact that the christmas day we celebrate is not really the birthdate of Jesus, but apparently was a day for pagan celebrations in the old days. I'm not sure how Christians came to celebrate it as the birthday of Jesus. To make it worse, it had become so commercialized....and being materialistic is opposite to Jesus' teachings. I am wondering if we, as Christians, are unwittingly (although with good intentions on our part) going against God by celebrating christmas. Like Jefferiah, I am not big on the tree. I think I would just look at December 25 as a day for family, friends and thanksgiving to God. I'd still keep the turkey!

Someone left me a message or a comment. What do I do to access it? I did choose to "accept comment", but no comments showed up. Intsructions for dummies (like me) urgently needed. Thanks.

When you guys rally to boycott companies that outsource to China, don't just mention one name - Walmart. This is what makes some statements dubiously questionable. Statements like this do not seem to be talking about the real issue of this topic at all....it's more like anti-Walmart. Practically most companies outsource or get imports from China. Why don't you just say, check what you buy and don't buy things that come from China. So, no I'm not a spokeperson for Walmart. I just think that for an issue to be taken the way it's intended....I wish for accuracy.

No, I'm not saying that only products coming from other countries have safety recalls. We have issues such as e.coli and salmonella, botulism etc.. It is not possible to have perfection at all times. However, we still have a higher standard than most countries. A lot of third world countries have major issues/problems having a standard that's at least comparable to us or "passable." Corruptions in these places makes it hard....but that's their own problem to address. My point is, why should we lower our own standards? Why shouldn't we use our power as consumers to demand that the products coming to our shelves have the safety quality we expect? How many times have I heard China's name mentioned just this past year alone when it comes to something such as lead??? That's no excuse! Mattel should know! Mattel should make it its responsibility to know! Especially when China's been notorious for lead-based materials over the years! When companies are dealing with other countries, it's their responsibility to know! I don't think the execs of these companies are dumb not to have any doubts as to the quality of their products being manufactured overseas! There is such a thing as quality-control in most major big enterprises! But that's it, isn't it? Mattel makes toys for children! It's so common for children to put toys in their mouth, to gnaw and chew off! I had a baby we suspected was part-beaver for her determination to want to chew off baseboards! Read your statements. You yourself say that it is hazardous if it gets into your system. That there is potential risk. If lead hadn't been used in our own country for more than a decade, obviously the risk is certain enough to warrant that it be dis-continued. Why should we take a chance? My question is: why should we lower our own standards just to accomodate these foreign countries? If they want to play ball, they have to go by the rules just like all the players here in our own country. If they can't, that's too bad...they're benched. Companies based here in our own county, creating jobs for our own citizens have to go through all the extra expenses of complying to meet our high standards.