Subject: [[email-masked]: Re: [[email-masked]: LCnet News-Release(10/29/93)]]

From: [email-masked] (Mi Mi)
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 93 20:52:51 CDT

This is a misdirected message. The author seems to me responded to
a anonymous arcticle carried by LCnet News-Release(10/29/93), which had
been forwarded to the lads-net committee member Mi Mi Sr.. In order to
reach the its destination, I forwarded this message to ccnl, and lads-net.

Mi Mi Sr.

=FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI=
=FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI==FYI=

Date:         Fri, 29 Oct 93 21:04:32 EDT
>From: [email-masked]
Subject:      Re: [[email-masked]: LCnet News-Release(10/29/93)]
To: [email-masked]
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Fri, 29 Oct 93 16:57:29 CDT

   I THINK YOUR IMPRESSION IS AUFULLY INEPT AND INEQUABLE IN TERMS OF ITS
CONNECTION WITH CSPA ISSUE.  HOW COULD YOU COMPLAIN THE RESPONSABILITY OF
CSPA WITHOUT ANY SOLID EVIDENCE.  HAVE YOU EVER EXAMINE YOURSELF FOR THE
POSSIBLE LIABILITY OF THE FAILURE.
   FIRST, AS A MANAGER OF THE COMPANY, ESPECIALLY A SMALL ONE, SHE/HE WOULD
PUT THE COMPANY IN A PRIORITY POSITION.  IF THEY HIRED YOU THEY WOULD HAVE
TO SPEND AT LEAST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO CHANGE YOUR VISA STATUS.  WHY
SHOULD THEY CHOSE YOU IF THEY HAD MANY CANDIDATES IN HANDS.  IN SOME SENSE,
YOUR BACKGROUND OR SKILL WAS NOT SO STRONG TO CONVINCE THEM THAT IT WOULD
BE WORTHWHILE PAYING FOR CHANGE IN YOUR VISA STATUS.  YOU WOULD HAVE
ENCOUNTERED THE SAME FATE EVEN WITHOUT THE EMEREGENCE OF THE CSPA ISSUE.
SECONDLY, PLEASE CHECK YOUR INADEQUATE LINQUISTIC PRACTICE WHILE INTERVIEWING.
I CAN INSIGHT IT FROM YOUR MAIL.  TRY TO BE CAUTIOUS WHILE MAKING ANY
CONCLUSION.  GOOD LUCK.