Will they stop my DLA if I get a job?

sniggings

clemmatis wrote: »

The meaning was clear.



I think you're trying to say you used sic correctly.



The proper way to use sic is as an indication that a passage has been quoted correctly, that any errors were not introduced by the person quoting it. But here, where -- for example, I can simply link to the post where you wrote



it is not needed.

Its secondary use is of course to sneer at other writers, and in this case, at fellow posters. And that use here is, IMO, pathetic.




"Bit said"? "..said you choose"?

And I refer you to my posts above

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54692831&postcount=19

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54692919&postcount=22

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=54692941&postcount=23

I didn't use the quote system though did I, so it was used correctly by me, as I retyped the quote out, so the error could have been seen to have been made by me, again as I said, I used it correctly, sic when used correctly can always be said to have been used only to sneer at the author, if you choose to see it what way, so be it.

You seem to want to miss the fact that my point was, I was taking the statement in question on face value, so linking past posts was a waste of your time, as I made the point I and others should not have to have a history of the OP to read one of their posts.

For someone who says they think it is wrong to sneer at a fellow poster you don't seem to include yourself in that.

You have called me pathetic twice now, when the fact is to link past posts when I made it clear one shouldn't have to have seen past posts is...how do you say? oh yeah pathetic.

clemmatis

sniggings wrote: »

I didn't use the quote system though did I, so it was used correctly by me, as I retyped the quote out, so the error could have been seen to have been made by me, again as I said, I used it correctly, sic when used correctly can always be said to have been used only to sneer at the author, if you choose to see it what way, so be it.

I do so choose.

For someone who says they think it is wrong to sneer at a fellow poster you don't seem to include yourself in that.

Yes I was sneering at you, I sneer at people who sneer at other people.

You have called me pathetic twice now, when the fact is to link past posts when I made it clear one shouldn't have to have seen past posts is...how do you say? oh yeah pathetic.

1. I'm happy to say, instead, that your use of sic was obnoxious.

2. I linked to my "past posts" in this thread in reply to your

Bit said you choose not to add anything else to the thread apart from being rude

,

bankhater_1965

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

So, you're fine with someone who is able to do a particular job being advised against it because his capability to do so would indicate that his eligibility for DLA may no longer apply?

I'm not. Because that is pretty much the definition of fraud.

i think its more of the individual choosing whats best for them physicaly .and financaily and not the state choosing for them which is a complete farse as i have experianced at first hand , whats wrong in that ?

lighting_up_the_chalice

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

i think its more of the individual choosing whats best for them physicaly .and financaily and not the state choosing for them which is a complete farse as i have experianced at first hand , whats wrong in that ?

Oh great. So I can walk 25 miles without any issues. But that's nothing to do with the state and I'll tell them I'm wheelchair bound when I apply for DLA because that's what's best for me?

Now THAT would be a farce.

bankhater_1965

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Oh great. So I can walk 25 miles without any issues. But that's nothing to do with the state and I'll tell them I'm wheelchair bound when I apply for DLA because that's what's best for me?

Now THAT would be a farce.

if the person in question feels that pysically or financaily they are better doing what they want to do regards to what the state wants them to do , so be it , they havent been awarded any benefits for nothing , they have to be assesed for certain benifits , its not easy to get them anymore , so if they have been given them by mistake , blame the goverment, and if thats the case they have no right to just take them away from people so they can fill there pot back up ready for there mp bonuses or towards there expenditures at the cost of the less well off or less active , just like the disabled peoples units that are closing all 54 of them

lighting_up_the_chalice

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

if the person in question feels that pysically or financaily they are better doing what they want to do regards to what the state wants them to do , so be it , they havent been awarded any benefits for nothing , they have to be assesed for certain benifits , its not easy to get them anymore , so if they have been given them by mistake , blame the goverment, and if thats the case they have no right to just take them away from people so they can fill there pot back up ready for there mp bonuses or towards there expenditures at the cost of the less well off or less active , just like the disabled peoples units that are closing

The example I gave wouldn't be a mistake. Rather an act of deceit.

bankhater_1965

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

The example I gave wouldn't be a mistake. Rather an act of deceit.

how would it be deciet ? if the person feels they carnt but the state says otherwise

sniggings

clemmatis wrote: »

I do so choose.



Yes I was sneering at you, I sneer at people who sneer at other people.



1. I'm happy to say, instead, that your use of sic was obnoxious.

2. I linked to my "past posts" in this thread in reply to your

,

by you need help :rotfl:

lighting_up_the_chalice

bankhater_1965 wrote: »

how would it be deciet ? if the person feels they carnt but the state says otherwise

Do you really have to ask....

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Oh great. So I can walk 25 miles without any issues. But that's nothing to do with the state and I'll tell them I'm wheelchair bound when I apply for DLA because that's what's best for me?

Now THAT would be a farce.

Bamber19

I can't believe anyone could read the post and interpret it in any way other than the clear English meaning which amounts to "Make sure your job doesn't involve doing things that you claim you can't do otherwise your DLA might end up being affected."

"make sure that what you will be doing soesnt contradict what you say are your care/mobility needs"

It was either very poorly worded or exactly as lighting suggests.