K-1 vs. CR-1/K-3 - US/Ukraine

[Ronnie]

As to the K1/K3 relative speed, nice to see that you modified your post to be more accurate but in the future please note whenever you modify a post so these misunderstandings don't happen.

Wow, Scott!  Very clever!  I stand accused and convicted! 

But before I'm hauled off in handcuffs to your purgatory for deceitful scoundrels, I would like to ask one question (just like the guilty guy always did at the end of Perry Mason):

How did you realize I actually went back in time to modify my post?  (You see, there is a time stamp on modifications/edits).  I thought when I buried my time machine deep in the desert, I'd destroyed all the evidence and committed the perfect crime! :selfharm:

[ScottinCrimea]

Wow, Scott!  Very clever!  I stand accused and convicted! 

But before I'm hauled off in handcuffs to your purgatory for deceitful scoundrels, I would like to ask one question (just like the guilty guy always did at the end of Perry Mason):

How did you realize I actually went back in time to modify my post?  (You see, there is a time stamp on modifications/edits).  I thought I when I buried my time machine deep in the desert, I'd destroyed all the evidence and committed the perfect crime! :selfharm:

I meant to say that you should note WHAT you modified or why.

[Admin]

Guys,

The software automatically records when an edit to a post is made, and by whom. Beyond that, we installed a feature that enables the person editing to include a small notation to state what was edited - but it is not mandatory.

Also, IIRC, the software is set so that edits are only able to be made for a period of 12 hours - after which, only an Admin or Moderator can edit a post.

- Dan

[Ronnie]

Does that mean I've been falsely accused?  Bailiff, bring you're handcuff key!

[Admin]

Does that mean I've been falsely accused?  Bailiff, bring you're handcuff key!

Not sure. I don't read all the messages any longer, and certainly do not recall what was posted pre-edits.

The 'issue' (such as it is), is that is can be seen as manipulative *if* (and I am NOT accusing anyone of this) there is active revisionist history.

To insure it doesn't happen, members should simply be sure to use the "Quote" or "Insert Quote" options when replying to someone else's post.

- Dan

PS. It *is* considered courteous to include a "Reason For Edit" breadcrumb, so that others are not left wondering what was edited and why.

[Ronnie]

Not sure. I don't read all the messages any longer, and certainly do not recall what was posted pre-edits.

The 'issue' (such as it is), is that is can be seen as manipulative *if* (and I am NOT accusing anyone of this) there is active revisionist history.

That would be the issue if it weren't for the time stamps.  If "A" writes.."The sky is orange" and "B" says, "You're wrong!", then "A" realizing his error, goes back and edits his original post to say substituting Blue, then claims he never said, "orange" then that would be "revisionist" and in my book, quite dishonest.  That's exactly what Scott charged me with doing in his reply #19. 

His charge might have had legs were it not for the fact that my orginal post still reads, "last edited yesterday at 4:35am" which is 14 minutes after the item was posted initially.

Scott first challenged my original comment 17 hours later at 9:39pm that day in Reply #19.  Then today, at 4:20 am, I quoted what I said to illustrate that he misread and subsequently then, misrepresented what I had said.

Scott, rather than own up to his error, accused me of going back to Reply #15 and revising my original words.  Had I done that, the "last edited time stamp would have reflected a time later than his Reply #19.  Of course it doesn't as anyone can see even now.

[Admin]

That would be the issue if it weren't for the time stamps.  If "A" writes.."The sky is orange" and "B" says, "You're wrong!", then "A" realizing his error, goes back and edits his original post to say substituting Blue, then claims he never said, "orange" then that would be "revisionist" and in my book, quite dishonest.  That's exactly what Scott charged me with doing in his reply #19. 

His charge might have had legs were it not for the fact that my orginal post still reads, "last edited yesterday at 4:35am" which is 14 minutes after the item was posted initially.

Scott first challenged my original comment 17 hours later at 9:39pm that day in Reply #19.  Then today, at 4:20 am, I quoted what I said to illustrate that he misread and subsequently then, misrepresented what I had said.

Scott, rather than own up to his error, accused me of going back to Reply #15 and revising my original words.  Had I done that, the "last edited time stamp would have reflected a time later than his Reply #19.  Of course it doesn't as anyone can see even now.

I honestly do not know what the 'issue' is/was/or will be.

I am merely trying to clarify how our board software is configured. In my earlier post, I failed to mention there is a 90-second 'grace' period in which a member can change their post, and the "Last Edit" message will not appear.

FWIW

- Dan

[Ronnie]

Dan,
The only issue is a false accusation, for which Scott has not yet apologized.

[Admin]

Dan,
The only issue is a false accusation, for which Scott has not yet apologized.

Ronnie,

These kinds of things are SO easy to misinterpret - and they become SO overblown if we are not careful.

My suggestion - to all - is not to take this 'stuff' so seriously.

FWIW

- Dan

[Ronnie]

That's why I tried to make it light-hearted with my "time machine" scenario.  However, impugning someone's integrity is not really a laughing matter when it's your integrity that's questioned.

[ScottinCrimea]

Ronnie,  What was the nature of your modification?

[Ronnie]

Scott,
Your question is an indication that you've missed the whole point of my time-line.  Here it is in a nutshell.

You saw that my post, which contains the paragraph in question was edited.  But did you see the date/time stamp as to the last edit?  It was 14 minutes or so after I originally uploaded my post. 

Now you come along some 17 hours later and read my post.  You misread what I wrote, and asked for evidence of my opinion that k1s are processed faster than k3s..that was not what I said and I wrote a reply with the pertinent paragraph quoted.   Then you accused me of of going back and changing my original words subsequent to reading your request for evidence because you saw my post had been modified.  You didn't take note of the fact that my post was LAST modified some 17 hours before you even read it or responded to it!

What you have done then, is demonstrated that you misapprehended the clear wording of my paragraph.  Then when it was illustrated again what I wrote and your misapprehension made obvious, you tried to cover your very forgiveable mistake by accusing me of returning to the post and changing it, which I could only have done with the aid of a time machine because the "lasted edited" timestamp is there in plain view.  You threw my integrity under the bus to protect your ego...not nice.

(FWIW I edited it to add the last paragraph giving the link to the 9th Circuit website)

[Admin]

Ronnie,

FWIW, my observations of your participation here is that you are above-board, forthright, and almost never break into mud-slinging. You focus on the issues, and are passionate about your position.

I, for one, appreciate that.

- Dan

[ScottinCrimea]

Ronnie, I apologize if it came across that I was in any way questioning your integrity.  It was never my thought that you had modified your post in response to mine but that it had been modified between the time I read it and the time I responded.  I'm sorry if it appeared otherwise.

I read and reread your post to be sure I was responding appropriately and to be honest was quite surprised when your subsequent post showed that you had stated something different.  I was confident enough of your integrity and so unwilling to concede that perhaps senility was approaching that I PM'd Dan to ask about the modifications to your post before responding.  He will attest that I was vouching for your integrity as well.

Some of the confusion on my part was the fact that I had read your post before the modification, then left my computer running and connected to RWD and had not returned until several hours later, so unless the site refreshes automatically, I would still be reading your post prior to the modification.  In that case, you can understand my confusion and wish to know the nature of the modification despite the time stamp.

I the future I will be more diligent in providing quotes, both for my own clarification and the benefit of others.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

[Ronnie]

Hi Scott and Thanks Dan,

Scott, I will accept your apology with your explanation that you read and reread my post within a few minutes of my original posting (2:30 AM your time, I believe) and then left your computer running for the next 17 hours and when you can back to the still open screen you wrote your reply to my post.  Then you were surprised when later you saw me quoting "new" words that essentially reversed what you had read earlier. I will give you all that for the sake of friendship. 

Further, (and this is really reaching) I will concede that during those 14 minutes between my first and last edit, I not only added the link to the 9th circuit but noticed a word or two in the paragraph in question that conveyed the opposite meaning of what i intended and corrected it.  There is a miniscule chance that actually happened so I can't say there is zero chance.

What is more likely IMO is that you read the post in it's entirety where i said that K1s get a head start on K3 due to the prerequisites that the K3 has to go through that the K1 does not; such as marriage and filing the I-130 and waiting for a NOA receipt.  None of this items are present when preparing to file the K1.  So while I said that I saw no reason for a difference in processing times from the time they are filed I maintained and still maintain that the K1 route will get the lady to the US quickest.  It is very likely that you absorbed my overall tone in favor of K1 and applied that to the narrow question of processing speed of K1 vs K2 visa petitions which are the same petition I-129F. 

[ScottinCrimea]

Hi Scott and Thanks Dan,

Scott, I will accept your apology with your explanation that you read and reread my post within a few minutes of my original posting (2:30 AM your time, I believe) and then left your computer running for the next 17 hours and when you can back to the still open screen you wrote your reply to my post.  Then you were surprised when later you saw me quoting "new" words that essentially reversed what you had read earlier. I will give you all that for the sake of friendship. 

This is not so unusual as implied.  My schedule is pretty erratic so I am online at all hours of the day and night.  Just check out some old posts and you can see this is the case.  I rarely turn off my computer and it is often kept open to an internet site should I leave and then not get back to it for awhile

Further, (and this is really reaching) I will concede that during those 14 minutes between my first and last edit, I not only added the link to the 9th circuit but noticed a word or two in the paragraph in question that conveyed the opposite meaning of what i intended and corrected it.  There is a miniscule chance that actually happened so I can't say there is zero chance.

Thanks for granting me this small concessionas it gives me a little something to hold onto in believing that Alzheimer's is still a little ways off.

What is more likely IMO is that you read the post in it's entirety where i said that K1s get a head start on K3 due to the prerequisites that the K3 has to go through that the K1 does not; such as marriage and filing the I-130 and waiting for a NOA receipt.  None of this items are present when preparing to file the K1.  So while I said that I saw no reason for a difference in processing times from the time they are filed I maintained and still maintain that the K1 route will get the lady to the US quickest.  It is very likely that you absorbed my overall tone in favor of K1 and applied that to the narrow question of processing speed of K1 vs K2 visa petitions which are the same petition I-129F. 

\I haven't discounted this possibility either but I felt pretty sure at the time that I had also taken this into consideration

At any rate, these misunderstandings happen.  Time to move on.

Scott