Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> news
> > jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> > > >
> >>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
> different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having to
> uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new schools
> again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new job. I had to
> retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an high paying job
> when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The employer knows that
> you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of us had to make do with
> minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time at best.
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around in
> a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods could
> be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly different than
> here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of course but many were
> not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much in the way of Mexican food.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference higher
> >>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't know that,
> too >>> > > bad.
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I don't
> >>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring preferences
> when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She worked at K-Mart.
> >>> >
> >>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can sure
> >>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
> >>> >
> >>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not the
> >>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't look
> for >>> > Mexican food.
> >>> >
> >>> > Jill
> > > >
> >>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She lacked
> >>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a military
> >>> spouse.
> > > >
> > > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot of
> > > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension (assuming
> > > they're still in business when she hits official retirement age).
> > >
> > > Jill
> >
> > Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know about.
>
> No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
> listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
> >
> > Here's a turn down letter I got:
> >
> > Notification
> > Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
> > From: USA Staffing
> > Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
> > ST-10040679-17-MS
> > Dear Carol xxxxx,
> >
> > This refers to the application you recently submitted to this office
> > for the position below:
> > Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
> > Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
> > Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
> > Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
> >
> > Your rating is:
> > Eligible for the following position or positions:
> > €¢ GS-0343-13
> >
> > The following is your referral status for the position or positions
> > to which you applied:
> > €¢ You have not been referred to the hiring manager for position
> > GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
> >
> >
> > Please Note:
> >
> > We have received your application to be considered for this
> > position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
> > self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire; however,
> > there were a sufficient number of best qualified military spouse
> > candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse Preference. By law,
> > best qualified military spouses who comply with competitive
> > recruitment procedures are entitled to initial selection
> > consideration.
> >
> > If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
> > Employment Information Center at or 800-378-4559.
> >
> > Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
> > theDepartment of the Navy.
> >
> > PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
> > GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
> > opportunity announcement for this position.
> > ---------
> >
> > It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for the
> > job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled for an
> > interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I turned down to
> > be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is however very simular.
>
> Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need Bruce to
> explain it.

It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know how
it works.

You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
interview, it then rolls down to others.

--

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> news
>> > jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> > > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> > > >
>> >>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
>> different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having to
>> uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new schools
>> again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new job. I had to
>> retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an high paying job
>> when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The employer knows that
>> you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of us had to make do with
>> minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time at best.
>> >>> > > >
>> >>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around in
>> a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods could
>> be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly different than
>> here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of course but many were
>> not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much in the way of Mexican food.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference higher
>> >>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't know that,
>> too >>> > > bad.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I don't
>> >>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring preferences
>> when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She worked at K-Mart.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can sure
>> >>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not the
>> >>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't look
>> for >>> > Mexican food.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Jill
>> > > >
>> >>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She lacked
>> >>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a military
>> >>> spouse.
>> > > >
>> > > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot of
>> > > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension (assuming
>> > > they're still in business when she hits official retirement age).
>> > >
>> > > Jill
>> >
>> > Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know about.
>>
>> No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
>> listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
>> >
>> > Here's a turn down letter I got:
>> >
>> > Notification
>> > Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
>> > From: USA Staffing
>> > Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
>> > ST-10040679-17-MS
>> > Dear Carol xxxxx,
>> >
>> > This refers to the application you recently submitted to this office
>> > for the position below:
>> > Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
>> > Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
>> > Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
>> > Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>> >
>> > Your rating is:
>> > Eligible for the following position or positions:
>> > €¢ GS-0343-13
>> >
>> > The following is your referral status for the position or positions
>> > to which you applied:
>> > €¢ You have not been referred to the hiring manager for position
>> > GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>> >
>> >
>> > Please Note:
>> >
>> > We have received your application to be considered for this
>> > position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
>> > self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire; however,
>> > there were a sufficient number of best qualified military spouse
>> > candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse Preference. By law,
>> > best qualified military spouses who comply with competitive
>> > recruitment procedures are entitled to initial selection
>> > consideration.
>> >
>> > If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
>> > Employment Information Center at or 800-378-4559.
>> >
>> > Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
>> > theDepartment of the Navy.
>> >
>> > PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
>> > GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
>> > opportunity announcement for this position.
>> > ---------
>> >
>> > It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for the
>> > job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled for an
>> > interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I turned down to
>> > be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is however very simular.
>>
>> Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need Bruce to
>> explain it.
>
> It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know how
> it works.
>
> You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
> qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
> candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
> interview, it then rolls down to others.

I DO need Bruce to explain it to me. I DO!

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> > > news > >>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> > > >
> >>> > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>>>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >>> > >
> >>>>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>>>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
> >>different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having
> to >>uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new
> schools >>again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new
> job. I had to >>retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an
> high paying job >>when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The
> employer knows that >>you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of
> us had to make do with >>minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time
> at best. >>>>> > > >
> >>>>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around
> in >>a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods
> could >>be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly
> different than >>here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of course
> but many were >>not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much in the way
> of Mexican food. >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference
> higher >>>>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't
> know that, >>too >>> > > bad.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I
> don't >>>>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring
> preferences >>when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She worked
> at K-Mart. >>>>> >
> >>>>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can
> sure >>>>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not
> the >>>>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't
> look >>for >>> > Mexican food.
> >>>>> >
> >>>>> > Jill
> >>> > >
> >>>>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She lacked
> >>>>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a military
> >>>>> spouse.
> >>> > >
> >>> > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot
> of >>> > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension
> (assuming >>> > they're still in business when she hits official
> retirement age). >>> >
> >>> > Jill
> > > >
> >>> Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know
> about.
> > >
> > > No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
> > > listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
> > > >
> >>> Here's a turn down letter I got:
> > > >
> >>> Notification
> >>> Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
> >>> From: USA Staffing
> >>> Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
> >>> ST-10040679-17-MS
> >>> Dear Carol xxxxx,
> > > >
> >>> This refers to the application you recently submitted to this
> office >>> for the position below:
> >>> Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
> >>> Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
> >>> Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
> >>> Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
> > > >
> >>> Your rating is:
> >>> Eligible for the following position or positions:
> >>> €¢ GS-0343-13
> > > >
> >>> The following is your referral status for the position or
> positions >>> to which you applied:
> >>> €¢ You have not been referred to the hiring manager for position
> >>> GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Please Note:
> > > >
> >>> We have received your application to be considered for this
> >>> position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
> >>> self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire; however,
> >>> there were a sufficient number of best qualified military spouse
> >>> candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse Preference. By
> law, >>> best qualified military spouses who comply with competitive
> >>> recruitment procedures are entitled to initial selection
> >>> consideration.
> > > >
> >>> If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
> >>> Employment Information Center at or 800-378-4559.
> > > >
> >>> Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
> >>> theDepartment of the Navy.
> > > >
> >>> PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
> >>> GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
> >>> opportunity announcement for this position.
> >>> ---------
> > > >
> >>> It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for the
> >>> job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled for an
> >>> interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I turned down to
> >>> be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is however very simular.
> > >
> > > Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need Bruce
> > > to explain it.
> >
> > It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know
> > how it works.
> >
> > You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
> > qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
> > candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
> > interview, it then rolls down to others.
>
> I DO need Bruce to explain it to me. I DO!

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.

--

On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 12:42:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> > >
>> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
>> > > news >> >>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> > > >
>> >>> > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>>>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >>> > >
>> >>>>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>>>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > >
>> >>>>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
>> >>different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having
>> to >>uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new
>> schools >>again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new
>> job. I had to >>retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an
>> high paying job >>when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The
>> employer knows that >>you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of
>> us had to make do with >>minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time
>> at best. >>>>> > > >
>> >>>>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around
>> in >>a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods
>> could >>be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly
>> different than >>here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of course
>> but many were >>not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much in the way
>> of Mexican food. >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference
>> higher >>>>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't
>> know that, >>too >>> > > bad.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I
>> don't >>>>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring
>> preferences >>when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She worked
>> at K-Mart. >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can
>> sure >>>>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not
>> the >>>>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't
>> look >>for >>> > Mexican food.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Jill
>> >>> > >
>> >>>>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She lacked
>> >>>>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a military
>> >>>>> spouse.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot
>> of >>> > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension
>> (assuming >>> > they're still in business when she hits official
>> retirement age). >>> >
>> >>> > Jill
>> > > >
>> >>> Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know
>> about.
>> > >
>> > > No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
>> > > listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
>> > > >
>> >>> Here's a turn down letter I got:
>> > > >
>> >>> Notification
>> >>> Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
>> >>> From: USA Staffing
>> >>> Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
>> >>> ST-10040679-17-MS
>> >>> Dear Carol xxxxx,
>> > > >
>> >>> This refers to the application you recently submitted to this
>> office >>> for the position below:
>> >>> Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
>> >>> Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
>> >>> Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
>> >>> Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>> > > >
>> >>> Your rating is:
>> >>> Eligible for the following position or positions:
>> >>> • GS-0343-13
>> > > >
>> >>> The following is your referral status for the position or
>> positions >>> to which you applied:
>> >>> • You have not been referred to the hiring manager for position
>> >>> GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >>> Please Note:
>> > > >
>> >>> We have received your application to be considered for this
>> >>> position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
>> >>> self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire; however,
>> >>> there were a sufficient number of best qualified military spouse
>> >>> candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse Preference. By
>> law, >>> best qualified military spouses who comply with competitive
>> >>> recruitment procedures are entitled to initial selection
>> >>> consideration.
>> > > >
>> >>> If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
>> >>> Employment Information Center at or 800-378-4559.
>> > > >
>> >>> Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
>> >>> theDepartment of the Navy.
>> > > >
>> >>> PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
>> >>> GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
>> >>> opportunity announcement for this position.
>> >>> ---------
>> > > >
>> >>> It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for the
>> >>> job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled for an
>> >>> interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I turned down to
>> >>> be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is however very simular.
>> > >
>> > > Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need Bruce
>> > > to explain it.
>> >
>> > It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know
>> > how it works.
>> >
>> > You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
>> > qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
>> > candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
>> > interview, it then rolls down to others.
>>
>> I DO need Bruce to explain it to me. I DO!
>
>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.

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

jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> 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

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.

--

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>>
>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> > >
>> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
>> > > news >> >>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> > > >
>> >>> > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>>>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >>> > >
>> >>>>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
>> >>>>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > >
>> >>>>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
>> >>different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having
>> to >>uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new
>> schools >>again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new
>> job. I had to >>retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an
>> high paying job >>when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The
>> employer knows that >>you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of
>> us had to make do with >>minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time
>> at best. >>>>> > > >
>> >>>>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around
>> in >>a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods
>> could >>be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly
>> different than >>here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of course
>> but many were >>not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much in the way
>> of Mexican food. >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference
>> higher >>>>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't
>> know that, >>too >>> > > bad.
>> >>>>> > >
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I
>> don't >>>>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring
>> preferences >>when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She worked
>> at K-Mart. >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can
>> sure >>>>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not
>> the >>>>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't
>> look >>for >>> > Mexican food.
>> >>>>> >
>> >>>>> > Jill
>> >>> > >
>> >>>>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She lacked
>> >>>>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a military
>> >>>>> spouse.
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot
>> of >>> > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension
>> (assuming >>> > they're still in business when she hits official
>> retirement age). >>> >
>> >>> > Jill
>> > > >
>> >>> Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know
>> about.
>> > >
>> > > No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
>> > > listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
>> > > >
>> >>> Here's a turn down letter I got:
>> > > >
>> >>> Notification
>> >>> Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
>> >>> From: USA Staffing
>> >>> Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
>> >>> ST-10040679-17-MS
>> >>> Dear Carol xxxxx,
>> > > >
>> >>> This refers to the application you recently submitted to this
>> office >>> for the position below:
>> >>> Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
>> >>> Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
>> >>> Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
>> >>> Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>> > > >
>> >>> Your rating is:
>> >>> Eligible for the following position or positions:
>> >>> €¢ GS-0343-13
>> > > >
>> >>> The following is your referral status for the position or
>> positions >>> to which you applied:
>> >>> €¢ You have not been referred to the hiring manager for position
>> >>> GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >>> Please Note:
>> > > >
>> >>> We have received your application to be considered for this
>> >>> position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
>> >>> self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire; however,
>> >>> there were a sufficient number of best qualified military spouse
>> >>> candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse Preference. By
>> law, >>> best qualified military spouses who comply with competitive
>> >>> recruitment procedures are entitled to initial selection
>> >>> consideration.
>> > > >
>> >>> If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
>> >>> Employment Information Center at or 800-378-4559.
>> > > >
>> >>> Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
>> >>> theDepartment of the Navy.
>> > > >
>> >>> PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
>> >>> GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
>> >>> opportunity announcement for this position.
>> >>> ---------
>> > > >
>> >>> It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for the
>> >>> job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled for an
>> >>> interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I turned down to
>> >>> be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is however very simular.
>> > >
>> > > Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need Bruce
>> > > to explain it.
>> >
>> > It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know
>> > how it works.
>> >
>> > You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
>> > qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
>> > candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
>> > interview, it then rolls down to others.
>>
>> I DO need Bruce to explain it to me. I DO!
>
> 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.

I understand that but... Wouldn't the spouse have to be qualified to do that
job? Example, here we have GS positions with the Coast Guard for radar. How
many spouses would be able to do that?

I think the reason that this wasn't a known fact anywhere that I lived was
because there just weren't any or very few positions available for GS to
begin with.

"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!

"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> 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
>
> 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.

At this point, we're all going to need Bruce to slog through and sort out
this mess!

"U.S. Janet B." > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2017 12:42:59 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>>Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>>
>>> "cshenk" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
>>> > > news >>> >>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> > > >
>>> >>> > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>> >>>>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>>>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
>>> >>>>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>> >>>>> > >
>>> >>>>> > > >
>>> >>>>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
>>> >>different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having
>>> to >>uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new
>>> schools >>again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new
>>> job. I had to >>retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an
>>> high paying job >>when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The
>>> employer knows that >>you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of
>>> us had to make do with >>minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time
>>> at best. >>>>> > > >
>>> >>>>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around
>>> in >>a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods
>>> could >>be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly
>>> different than >>here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of course
>>> but many were >>not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much in the way
>>> of Mexican food. >>>>> > >
>>> >>>>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference
>>> higher >>>>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't
>>> know that, >>too >>> > > bad.
>>> >>>>> > >
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I
>>> don't >>>>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring
>>> preferences >>when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She worked
>>> at K-Mart. >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can
>>> sure >>>>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not
>>> the >>>>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't
>>> look >>for >>> > Mexican food.
>>> >>>>> >
>>> >>>>> > Jill
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>>>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She lacked
>>> >>>>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a military
>>> >>>>> spouse.
>>> >>> > >
>>> >>> > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot
>>> of >>> > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension
>>> (assuming >>> > they're still in business when she hits official
>>> retirement age). >>> >
>>> >>> > Jill
>>> > > >
>>> >>> Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know
>>> about.
>>> > >
>>> > > No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
>>> > > listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
>>> > > >
>>> >>> Here's a turn down letter I got:
>>> > > >
>>> >>> Notification
>>> >>> Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
>>> >>> From: USA Staffing
>>> >>> Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
>>> >>> ST-10040679-17-MS
>>> >>> Dear Carol xxxxx,
>>> > > >
>>> >>> This refers to the application you recently submitted to this
>>> office >>> for the position below:
>>> >>> Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
>>> >>> Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
>>> >>> Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
>>> >>> Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>>> > > >
>>> >>> Your rating is:
>>> >>> Eligible for the following position or positions:
>>> >>> . GS-0343-13
>>> > > >
>>> >>> The following is your referral status for the position or
>>> positions >>> to which you applied:
>>> >>> . You have not been referred to the hiring manager for position
>>> >>> GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> >>> Please Note:
>>> > > >
>>> >>> We have received your application to be considered for this
>>> >>> position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
>>> >>> self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire; however,
>>> >>> there were a sufficient number of best qualified military spouse
>>> >>> candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse Preference. By
>>> law, >>> best qualified military spouses who comply with competitive
>>> >>> recruitment procedures are entitled to initial selection
>>> >>> consideration.
>>> > > >
>>> >>> If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
>>> >>> Employment Information Center at or 800-378-4559.
>>> > > >
>>> >>> Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
>>> >>> theDepartment of the Navy.
>>> > > >
>>> >>> PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
>>> >>> GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
>>> >>> opportunity announcement for this position.
>>> >>> ---------
>>> > > >
>>> >>> It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for the
>>> >>> job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled for an
>>> >>> interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I turned down to
>>> >>> be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is however very simular.
>>> > >
>>> > > Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need Bruce
>>> > > to explain it.
>>> >
>>> > It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know
>>> > how it works.
>>> >
>>> > You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
>>> > qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
>>> > candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
>>> > interview, it then rolls down to others.
>>>
>>> I DO need Bruce to explain it to me. I DO!
>>
>>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.

Correct. No such jobs were ever available where I was at.

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 00:08:01 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

>
>"cshenk" > wrote in message
...
>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> 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.
>
>At this point, we're all going to need Bruce to slog through and sort out
>this mess!

Lol. Jill and cshenk would have to take me out of their killfiles
first.

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.


--

Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "cshenk" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > >
> >>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> >>> Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> > > >
> >>> >
> >>>>"cshenk" > wrote in message
> >>> > news > >>>>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >>> > >
> >>>>> > On 11/1/2017 6:42 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>>>>>> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>>>> > On 10/30/2017 8:35 PM, cshenk wrote:
> >>>>>>> > > Julie Bove wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>> > > >
> >>>>>>> > > > It is difficult for then spouse and children but in
> >>>>different >>> > > > ways. Yes, there is the worry but also having
> >>to >>uproot and >>> > > > move repeatedly. Children starting new
> >>schools >>again and >>> > > > again. Spouses having to find a new
> >>job. I had to >>retire from >>> > > > mine. And it's hard to find an
> >>high paying job >>when you have >>> > > > a military spouse. The
> >>employer knows that >>you might leave >>> > > > at any time. Most of
> >>us had to make do with >>minimum wage or >>> > > > worse, part time
> >>at best. >>>>> > > >
> >>>>>>> > > > Then having to make new friends, finding your way around
> >>in >>a >>> > > > new city, finding medical, stores, etc. Even foods
> >>could >>be a >>> > > > challenge. Food on Cape Cod is vastly
> >>different than >>here. >>> > > > Some things were the same of
> course >>but many were >>not. >>> > > > Different brands, not much
> in the way >>of Mexican food. >>>>> > >
> >>>>>>> > > Yes. It is difficult. But you had a GS hire preference
> >>higher >>>>> > > than a disabled Navy retired vet. If you didn't
> >>know that, >>too >>> > > bad.
> >>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Carol, the difference is Julie was not in the military. I
> >>don't >>>>> > know if she knows or cares about military hiring
> >>preferences >>when >>> > it comes to grade or disability. She
> worked >>at K-Mart. >>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > My mother, the military spouse, never had to work but I can
> >>sure >>>>> > relate to the constantly moving as a child. No fun.
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Can't speak to the different brands thing. I was a kid, not
> >>the >>>>> > spouse who did the shopping. I do know my mother didn't
> >>look >>for >>> > Mexican food.
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> > Jill
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>>>> Jill, we all 'get it' that Julie was never military. She
> lacked >>>>>>> knowlege that she might have better oppotunties as a
> military >>>>>>> spouse.
> >>>>> > >
> >>>>> > Maybe she didn't want to. From what I recall she worked a lot
> >>of >>> > years at K-Mart, long enough to be entitled to a pension
> >>(assuming >>> > they're still in business when she hits official
> >>retirement age). >>> >
> >>>>> > Jill
> >>> > >
> >>>>> Maybe not, but she had some chances that sadly she didnt know
> > > about.
> >>> >
> >>> > No Carol, I didn't. We did have a bulletin board with all job
> >>> > listings on it. There were rarely any listings.
> >>> > >
> >>>>> Here's a turn down letter I got:
> >>> > >
> >>>>> Notification
> >>>>> Date: 9/5/2017 10:50:47 AM
> >>>>> From: USA Staffing
> >>>>> Subject: Notice of Results and Referral for PROGRAM ANALYST,
> >>>>> ST-10040679-17-MS
> >>>>> Dear Carol xxxxx,
> >>> > >
> >>>>> This refers to the application you recently submitted to this
> >>office >>> for the position below:
> >>>>> Position Title: PROGRAM ANALYST
> >>>>> Pay Plan/Series/Grade: GS-0343-13
> >>>>> Hiring Office: 00076 NAVAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND
> >>>>> Location: Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach, Virginia
> >>> > >
> >>>>> Your rating is:
> >>>>> Eligible for the following position or positions:
> >>>>> €¢ GS-0343-13
> >>> > >
> >>>>> The following is your referral status for the position or
> >>positions >>> to which you applied:
> >>>>> €¢ You have not been referred to the hiring manager for
> position >>>>> GS-0343-13 in Dam Neck Naval Facility, Virginia Beach,
> Virginia >>> > >
> >>> > >
> >>>>> Please Note:
> >>> > >
> >>>>> We have received your application to be considered for this
> >>>>> position. You received an eligible best rating based on your
> >>>>> self-assessed responses to the assessment questionnaire;
> however, >>>>> there were a sufficient number of best qualified
> military spouse >>>>> candidates that are entitled to Military Spouse
> Preference. By >>law, >>> best qualified military spouses who comply
> with competitive >>>>> recruitment procedures are entitled to initial
> selection >>>>> consideration.
> >>> > >
> >>>>> If you have any questions regarding this notice, contact DON
> >>>>> Employment Information Center at or
> 800-378-4559. >>> > >
> >>>>> Thank you for your interest in Federal employment with
> >>>>> theDepartment of the Navy.
> >>> > >
> >>>>> PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS EMAIL MESSAGE. IT IS AUTOMATICALLY
> >>>>> GENERATED. For additional information, please refer to the job
> >>>>> opportunity announcement for this position.
> >>>>> ---------
> >>> > >
> >>>>> It turns out none of the spouses had actual qualifications for
> the >>>>> job so now they are on second set and I am being scheduled
> for an >>>>> interview. Note this isnt the same job as the one I
> turned down to >>>>> be a GS9 teaching the person the job. It is
> however very simular. >>> >
> >>> > Not even sure what the gibberish even means. I think I need
> Bruce >>> > to explain it.
> > > >
> >>> It's ok Julie. It's unfortunate more military spouses do not know
> >>> how it works.
> > > >
> >>> You do not need Bruce to explain it. What it means is equally
> >>> qualified candidates were not interviewed because military spouse
> >>> candidates had to be interviewed first. If all of them fail at
> >>> interview, it then rolls down to others.
> > >
> > > I DO need Bruce to explain it to me. I DO!
> >
> > 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.
>
> I understand that but... Wouldn't the spouse have to be qualified to
> do that job? Example, here we have GS positions with the Coast Guard
> for radar. How many spouses would be able to do that?
>
> I think the reason that this wasn't a known fact anywhere that I
> lived was because there just weren't any or very few positions
> available for GS to begin with.

There are 7 here open that seem to require no more than an associates
in accounting.

--

On 11/4/2017 7:32 PM, cshenk wrote:
> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> 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
>
> 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.
>
I didn't redirect anything. Julie did. Then you did by talking about
how she could/should whatever have gotten a better job as a military
spouse. She said she couldn't get Cabot cheese.

Jill

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?

Jill

jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> 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?
>
> Jill

What gives you the idea we may not have any? I said some. You are the
one radicallizing the numbers. It could even be a guy who's passing it
to a wife who's not a member here or a guy with a grandchild in that
situation passing it on.

Why do you object to basic job chances being mentioned that others may
way tto know about? It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff here.

--

On 11/6/2017 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
> jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> 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?
>>
>> Jill
>
> What gives you the idea we may not have any?

What gives you the idea there are a lot of people here who are concerned
about the GS vs whatever status in the USN who read and post to RFC?

>You are the one radicallizing the numbers.

Spelling correction: Radicalizing. LOL

> It could even be a guy who's passing it
> to a wife who's not a member here or a guy with a grandchild in that
> situation passing it on.
>
Passing what on?!

> Why do you object to basic job chances being mentioned that others may
> way tto know about? It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff here.
>
Object? I don't. Uh... we were talking about shopping for cheese.

Jill

jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 11/6/2017 7:15 PM, cshenk wrote:
> > jmcquown wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> > > Jill
> >
> > What gives you the idea we may not have any?
>
> What gives you the idea there are a lot of people here who are
> concerned about the GS vs whatever status in the USN who read and
> post to RFC?
>
> > You are the one radicallizing the numbers.
>
> Spelling correction: Radicalizing. LOL
>
> > It could even be a guy who's passing it
> > to a wife who's not a member here or a guy with a grandchild in that
> > situation passing it on.
> >
> Passing what on?!
>
> > Why do you object to basic job chances being mentioned that others
> > may way tto know about? It's not like we don't have enough OT
> > stuff here.
> >
> Object? I don't. Uh... we were talking about shopping for cheese.
>
> Jill

LOL, it's called thread drift. Happens all the time here.

--

On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:15:18 -0600, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Why do you object to basic job chances being mentioned that others may
>way tto know about? It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff here.

Ok, I'm going to understand this, knowing that OT means "off topic".
"It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff." So we do. So we do have
enough off topic stuff here. So that's why you add some more. I see.
Huh?

"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?

On 11/6/2017 5:51 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:15:18 -0600, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> Why do you object to basic job chances being mentioned that others may
>> way tto know about? It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff here.
>
> Ok, I'm going to understand this, knowing that OT means "off topic".
> "It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff." So we do. So we do have
> enough off topic stuff here. So that's why you add some more. I see.
> Huh?
>


Can you just LEAVE?

Forever!

"Casa de los peregrinos" > wrote in message
news
> On 11/6/2017 5:51 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 18:15:18 -0600, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>
>>> Why do you object to basic job chances being mentioned that others may
>>> way tto know about? It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff here.
>>
>> Ok, I'm going to understand this, knowing that OT means "off topic".
>> "It's not like we don't have enough OT stuff." So we do. So we do have
>> enough off topic stuff here. So that's why you add some more. I see.
>> Huh?
>>
>
>
> Can you just LEAVE?
>
> Forever!

Nooooo! I NEED him!

CALL OR TEXT or watsapp ....+17546663823

Wickr id............miken

Email :

hello we are leading suppliers of pharmaceutical product meds online we operate on daily and retails basis and very reliable and our product are 100% top quality am ready to supply on large and smaller orders and i am looking in building a strong business relationship with potential client around the world i do world wide delivery and delivery is guarantee.

see price list offer and pm me or you can get me on whatsapp


FOR ZOLPICLONE 7.5MG SMALLER ORDER

250 tabs..........................‎£90
500 tabs...........................‎£150
1000 tabs.........................‎£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs........................£850
15000 tabs........................£1200
25000 tabs........................£1500


FOR DIAZEPAM SHALINA BRAND

diazepam 10mg 500pills £100
diazepam 10mg 300pills £70
diazepam 10mg 1000pills £150
diazepam 10mg 5000pills £350
diazepam 5mg 1000pills £120
diazepam 5mg 5000pills £300
diazepam 5mg 10000pills £500
diazepam 10mg 10000pills £700


FOR ROCHE DIAZEPAMS 10MG SMALLER ORDER

250 tabs..........................‎£90
500 tabs...........................‎£150
1000 tabs.........................‎£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs........................£850
15000 tabs........................£1200
25000 tabs........................£1500

TEVA 10MG DIAZEPAMS SMALLER ORDER

250 tabs...........................‎£90
500 tabs...........................‎£150
1000 tabs.........................‎£250
2500 tabs.........................£350
5000 tabs.........................£500
7500 tabs.........................£700
10000 tabs.......................£850
15000 tabs.......................£1200
25000 tabs.......................£1500
...

ketamine £20 each vial/1g

ketamine powder each gram £25


FOR TRAMADOL APPLE FLAVOUR

tramadol 50mg 250pills £80
tramadol 100mg 300pills £90
tramadol 225mg 300pills £120
tramadol 50mg 500pills £130
tramadol 100mg 500pills £140
tramadol 250mg 500pills £150
tramadol 50mg 1000pills £200
tramadol 100mg 1000pills £220
tramadol 250mg 1000pills £250

FOR TRAMADOL BULK ORDER

tramadol 50mg 5000pills £450
tramadol 100mg 5000pills £550
tramadol 250mg 5000pills £700

i also have my delivery records all around the worlds and i providedated pictures with buyers name and my name CALL US OR TEXT ....+237663448705 email for detailsi supply more than the quantity listed,i give additional discount to more larger ordersi look forward in doing great business with reliable buyersthanks email for detailsbuds man.


CALL OR TEXT or watsapp ....+17546663823

Wickr id............miken

Email :