"jmcquown" > wrote in message
news
> On 11/5/2017 11:48 AM, cshenk wrote:
>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>>
>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>> news >>>> On 11/4/2017 2:02 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 12:42:59 -0500, "cshenk" >
>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ok, here's the gist. A military spouse if there are enough that
>>>>>> qualify for the job, has to be interviewed first so they can
>>>>>> support an active duty member. Once retired, that active duty
>>>>>> member who may well be sole support for the family, (including
>>>>>> spouse), has to wait at the back of the line until the spouses
>>>>>> are interviewed. We only get seen if none of them after
>>>>>> interview can be seen as able to do the job.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't get it. She doesn't give a flying fig. She's already
>>>>> given you a reasonable answer that shows the circumstances
>>>>> wouldn't have made any difference to her at the time.
>>>>>
>>>> No, Carol doesn't get it. "She had some chances that sadly she
>>>> didnt know about." Julie did apply and got a "thank you for your
>>>> interest letter". Carol keeps trying to push this as if she's got
>>>> a personal stake in the matter.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>
>>> OMFG are you ever confused! Julie didn't apply for anything. Carol
>>> did. I made the smart assed comment about needing Bruce to explain it
>>> because...uh...I was being a smart ass!
>>
>> What part of this didnt you get?
>>
>> "Jill, don't try to redirect this. We may have other military spouses
>> who needed that informaton on how to get a job when their other side
>> relocates. My information is solid and has nothing to do with Julie."
>>
>> Specifically 'HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JULIE'.
>>
>> There are other people here, and some of them may need the information
>> and that is why it was passed on.
>>
>>
> Really? Lots of military spouses here who need to know about this? Where
> did you get that idea?

They're all hiding in her closet?