The Evil Dr. Longshadow

Okay, so I like my clothes big on me. What's your problem with that?

Whenever any action is unavoidably necessary in order to comply with a law, the action itself is in fact required by the law. That works with every law you could possibly name, even traffic laws. Example: The law says, "Stop for a red light". The law does NOT say, "Press the brakes". Notice that the stop mandate can not be obeyed UNTIL... YOU... PRESS... THE... BRAKES? Therefore, pressing the brakes for a red light is in fact required by the law, even when it is not specifically spelled out for you verbatem in the law that is written.

I have a mixed wardrobe of clothes bought new and clothes bought at thrift stores. In BOTH cases, I very much PREFER to have the legs of the slacks or jeans two inches longer than my actual inseam size. I do not want my socks to show when I sit down, because it gives an appearance that the jeans or slacks have shrunk in the wash.

The penalty is only a very small portion of what being without insurance would cost me. I take meds and they have to be covered. I don't want to pay full price for every refill. That alone would cost far more than what I'm paying for insurance premiums. Also, keep in mind other things such as the MRI on my back, the regular doctor visits or even any possibility of landing in a hospital.

How does such an imbecile as yourself even manage to tie your own shoes?

I have insurance and the union didn't ask about it.

Go to any hotel at all in the United States and you're going to get very similar stories. They don't have the resources to hold your luggage in perpetuity. Eventually, they need to get rid of it, by any means necessary.

Lost & Found is an entirely separate department from the bellmans station and I never had access to the Lost & Found storage room, let alone steal anything from it. We have already discussed that numerous times. Second, the bellmans station will only hold UNCLAIMED luggage for a maximum of 90 days, after which it will be either sold, discarded or given away at the mananager's discression, as per company policy as well as whatever the company's lawyers know about such circumstances. There's no theft involved.

Been this way since 1979 and It's not going to change. I wear whatever I like regardless of what the fashion trends are.

Has it ever occurred to you that having my hems slop over my shoes is my preference, even when buying new from a retail outlet?

Prove what? That I never said it was missing the bolt?

Insurance doesn't have anything to do with the union pension plan and no part of the application had asked for it.

So, now you claim to have xray vision. Good job.

That's precisely what I have been trying to tell you for several pages of this thread. You just simply did not comprehend that complying with the law that was posted is NOT POSSIBLE without such categorization and is therefore required.

The casino and alcohol regulators do not concern themselves with soft drinks of any sort, coffee or otherwise. That's why coffee is listed separately from the alcohol list on the very same page as the soft drinks.

Look for it.

This is why a real discussion can't be done on these boards. I ask a legitimate question of you and your response is just more Spam.

I didn't post it. Somebody else did. All I did was point out the inevitible result.

So, you have plenty of issues with your reading comprehension. How is compliance possible without the separate lists or inventory counts? Hint: They're not magicians. If there is any other way, please enlighten me instead of holding fast to your obnoxious denials.

How is compliance possible without the separate lists or inventory counts? Hint: They're not magicians. If there is any other way, please enlighten me instead of holding fast to your obnoxious denials.

Because being in compliance with the exising law, which already HAS BEEN POSTED Here by somebody else is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE without taking the actions I have mentioned. There IS NO OTHER WAY to comply.

When complying with any specific law is just simply not possible at all without taking specific actions, then doing so is indeed required by that regulation. Now, here's the part where you're going to say that I'm "deflecting" or "changing the subject", simply because your particular failure to comprehend like for like comparisons often obstructs your ability to hold a civilized discussion: Are you required by any federal or state law to interact with the MVC or U.S. Passort Service? Just answer yes or no.

Nope.

Who made the claim that it's missing the bolt? Isn't it up to that person to prove the statement?