Ryan Arko

I was asked to go on a trip from Fort Worth to Houston with my her and another coworker.

I am a non-exempt hourly employee.

We took a flight that left DFW Tuesday night and arrived in Houston an hour later.

She paid for the tickets and lodging.

We attended a convention and a couple lengthy seminars relating to our business. Thursday night, we were supposed to go home but the flight was grounded for weather and canceled. So she rented a car and we drove the five hours back.

My boss says she doesn't have to pay me because the trip wasn't manditory and she paid for everything.

I'm not seeing what she's talking about in the language of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Is she right? Does she get to refuse paying me for hours worked?

I am having a hard time getting the right answer. My boss asked me months ago if I wanted to represent my business at a convention and I said yes.

We left by plane Tuesday night and arrived at the city the same night. She paid for the tickets.

Thursday night we were to return, but the plane was grounded for weather and the flight ultimately canceled. So she rented a car and we drove the five hours home, arriving Friday morning.

She says that she doesn't have to pay because she paid for food and lodging and that the trip wasn't mandatory.

I see websites mention the Fair Labor Standards Act that she HAS to pay for hours worked on this trip.

Anyone know the case? Anyone know the actual law regarding this?

I've been tasked with updating a WooCommerce inventory that isn't in our small company's computer network for online orders. My boss doesn't want to make allotments of inventory for online sales so I have to keep the numbers updated daily.

Our inventory uses Quickbooks so I was wondering if it was possible to make reports of daily merchandise sales instead of running full inventory reports each day.

Yes, I intend full inventory reports each week but doing them each day seems inefficient. Is there a less time consuming way? Is it possible to print out daily transactions?

Jehovah's Witnesses are to be politically neutral and not participate in government or government actions.

Is it a violation of faith to knowingly sign a petition whose goal is to change legislation that does not affect your ability to continue in your faith?

Could you offer examples or citations for your answer? And please, if you drop the jw dot org as a reference, could you make sure it answers the question?

Any relevant help is appreciated. Thank you.

I'm writing this for a friend (we'll call Bee) who works with my wife. She works for one business but also runs her own business outside of work.

When her boss, the owner of the business my wife works at, found out she was running a business, she told Bee that she was the cancer of the business.

She's been pressuring Bee to sign a no-compete contract for months and Bee keeps refusing.

Today, she told Bee that she prays to God (she proselytizes to her employees all the time) that Bee gets stabbed in the back so she'd know how it feels after Bee stabbed her in the back.

Bee is her most successful employee and she has it in her head that she'll steal her customers. Bee has had numerous grievances with working for this woman and decided to run her own business in a field she's spent over a decade in.

So my question is this: are any of these things worth taking as a serious matter to her lawyer? Or is this all within the realm of Texas employment law.

I'm asking here because I've come up empty online and she hasn't asked her lawyer yet because if it's nothing, she'll spend an arm and a leg to hear it's nothing.

I've heard of 529 plans and Gerber and other things like that. I would like to put money in to something that has a decent return. Where should I go with her college finances?

So, if you're Christian, you fell for the Leviticus trap. 76 bans by God and you use one to support an anti-gay marriage claim while violating 30 any given day or at least 50 in your life.

And you will then go around being caught by using Romans or 1 Corinthians to show that even the New Testament (though never Jesus) supports you.

See, if the New Testament overrides the Old Testament, then Jesus spoke about love and understanding and peace and patience while Paul, a man who never met Jesus, just quoted the Old Testament. And you can give the "I hate the sin, not the sinner" line until you're blue, but you tell people online and offline "one man, one woman" and "not Adam and Steve." And that becomes an attack on the sinner while also spitting in the face of your messiah.

If the Old Testament counts, then there isn't a Christian alive (save the Colonial faiths) that is seeing salvation.

See, you cut your hair and shave. Most eat pork. Most eat shellfish. If you ever held a basketball, baseball, or football, you touched the carcass of an unclean animal. If you wear a tie, it's the two fabrics violation, which holds to women who wear any dress or skirt or blouse with a print or embroidery or lace.

Many of you with jobs work the Sabbath and Ol' Leviticus says you should be put to death.

But here's the big kicker. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say anything about gay marriage. Or gay people. It just says men having sex is gross. Old Testament or New Testament, nothing supports your claim gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

So, when you are all, at best, grievous daily sinners, why do you feel you, have the right to quote scripture to support an idea that doesn't exist in said scripture?

What place is it of yours to look down your nose at anyone?

I can cite 1 Corinthians too. Why do you judge outside the congregation? Let God iudge those outside the congregation and worry about those inside.

This is an explicit direction from your God.

I'm under the impression that a religious artifact from native americans tends to be viewed as pagan.

But I'm not going to speculate, I'd like the official stance. Please provide references.

...that do not live with them?

April 15th Watchtower Study Edition for 2012 highlights the importance of being steadfast in having no connections with disfellowshipped ones. The end of that particular article highlights that it is God's decree to not associate with disfellowshipped ones.

But here on Yahoo Answers, there are many who call themselves Witnesses who say this is not the case. That they are allowed to associate with disfellowshipped family they don't live with.

This is a bit of a contradiction. So what is the official stance? Please provide references.

A little statue of a man in a closet surrounded by candles and incense. Is this acceptable according to your principals and beliefs?

Not bashing. Just want to know. 10 points to whoever answers the question with references.

I'm trying to find the part that deals with regulation and limitation of ammunition capacities. I'm also having difficulty finding where it specifies that ALL arms are within individual citizen's rights.

See, I want to believe that taking away assault rifles infringes on my 2nd Amendment rights, but without the language in the document, I find it difficult to feel offended by a tyrannical government. All it says is "the right to keep and bear arms." But a call to arms in the middle ages didn't mean guns or bows. It meant weapons.

And it meant weapons throughout the second World War. But currently, I can't carry a sword in public. Nor can I carry grenades. It's illegal for me to carry a crossbow in public. I cannot carry a firearm of any type onto the property of most banks and gas stations.

But assault weapons are worth rioting?

I'm not looking for wisea$$ answers. But I'll get them.

I am looking for one person to show me where in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution it dictates the type of arm or the regulation of ammunition. 49% of the country believes it's in there. I just want one individual person of that 390,000,000 to show me indisputably where.

Bonus: Since the Brady Bill currently forbids the Government from keeping a registry of gun buyers and their firearms, and supplemental laws forbid and ensure the legal mandated destruction of background checks within 24 hours, show how Obama's plans are for a registry as many gun supporters and the NRA president claim.

Criticize me if you'd like, but this is your chance to provide indisputable proof of your claims in an organized manner that future readers could examine and potentially side with.

You claim there is evil in gun control, please prove it with more than speculation.

As help to you so you don't accidentally make the erroneous claims Fox News and the NRA make, not a single study between 1994 and 2004 (the assault ban timeline) could definitively conclude for or against the results of the ban.

Whenever someone references a website JWs don't agree with (JWN, JWFacts, etc.), these websites are typically discredited. The claim is that they are full of people who spread lies. The two options for anyone critical of the WTS are 1)an exWitness who wants to slander the Organization or 2)someone who knows nothing about JWs.

But here's the issue, when Bill Bowen of Silent Lambs.org said the WTS creates policies that protect child molestors inside the Organization, he was labeled an Apostate spreading lies. The membership of JWN (www.jehovahs-witness.net) have been claiming the WTS protects pedophiles and blames the victims for years. They were labeled Apostates or people who don't know anything about the WTS or JWs.

But in June 2012 in California, the court found the WTS guilty of making policy that protected a known pedophile and allowed him to go on service alone with 9 year old Candace Conti, who he raped over two years.

There is a $3Billion class action lawsuit in Australia being prepped containing over 6000 JW children who were molested and saw their abuser protected.

These are claims that have been discredited for years by JWs. And now they have legal precedent, meaning there was enough evidence to prove it.

So that means those Apostates weren't spreading lies. That means those who don't know knew more than the JWs discrediting them.

Doesn't that mean the JWs lied about the Apostates and others?

Here is the fact you all seem to avoid:

God cannot be proven or disproven. An invisible entity that exists in a different realm and no measurable qualities CAN NOT be proven or disproven. It's a truth that surpasses common sense and logic. So why do so many of you think you can scientifically prove God exists? The opposite is exactly true for Atheists in that they can't disprove God.

So why the argument if God exists or not? It's like arguing if Hogwarts is real. Yes, it was written about. But you can't prove it does/doesn't exist.

The question at hand should be "Can you prove the Abrahamic God exists?" Because your scriptures give that God measurable qualities, it can be definitively proven/disproven.

So again, why are you so sure you can prove something that can't be proven when you can't prove something that is possible to prove?

You have an Atheist. We'll call her Emma.

You have a Christian. We'll call her Vero.

They are twins. They were born and raised by an agnostic family.

They are both hard workers. They are both popular. They are kind, caring, and are easy to love. They went off to college and hadn't seen each other for a decade. But they remained high quality people but grew strong in their individual beliefs.

Emma believes in science and looking for answers. She doesn't think love is any more than chemical reactions. She believes in abortion since the child isn't a person but deplores killing people for any reason.

Vero believes God did it all. She is against abortion because the child is a person but has no issue with people being killed with a good enough reason. As long as it isn't murder.

Take into account the views they have from their individual beliefs, take into account that they are great people.

Then take the Bible and God out of the equation.

Which one, according to their views on people and ethics, is a better person?

I wrote a question asking Jehovah's Witnesses to answer a question about their beliefs. With some of my friends on here, they asked the same question and it'd been collectively shot down by Jehovah's Witness users. You can see in my Q&A that it's a suppression tactic they use. I asked the question, and not a single community guideline was violated.

I specified it was important that it be answered by Jehovah's Witnesses only and stated that I didn't want it obscured by people the question wasn't directed at. By the community guidelines, it's considered "not answering according to the question." I said I would report those who violated this community guideline.

A user who was a level 7 Top Contributor answered, admitted he wasn't a JW (not answering according to the question), told me I could do nothing about it because he was level 7, and threatened to report me because they would believe him over me (bullying). I reported him anyway.

I don't know who reported my question because it was gone within 15 minutes of being posted. I appealed, told YA mods that my question didn't violate guidelines. Asked them why they couldn't tell me what guideline I violated. I told them I wanted to know why their moderating is lax.

It's been a week and I haven't received word one about my appeal. My question is still gone. They only took the 10 points instead of the 20 for a failed appeal. No emails saying yay or nay.

It took minutes for them to delete my question, so why is it taking over a week to get resolution? The last time my question was "reported as abuse" I schooled YA and my question was back up in 24 hours. So this isn't regular.

Does anyone know why YA could be procrastinating? My question is losing valuable time and users shouldn't be faulted for the lack of effort mods put into researching reports. The time it's taking isn't even a sufficient representation. It's taking over 672 times longer than it took to delete my question just to get an answer.

Any help would be appreciated.

Because many of you think Pascal's Wager is a good argument despite being heavily flawed...

If he can make something that exceeds himself, how is he a God that is worth worship when there is something greater?

If he can't make something that exceeds his own strength, then his power isn't infinite, and it could be assumed his knowledge and grace are limited as well.

So, Christians, can he make a rock so heavy even he can't lift it?

Atlantis existed only in the writings of a philosopher. It's general location and description were vetted by one man and carried through the secondhand tellings of a few.

Jesus had no birth record. The exact location of the inn and manger are never identified. His family dodged census workers so there are no living records. Nothing with his name attached to it. He has no work records. As a carpenter, there are no claims to things he may have built. There are no death records. Conveniently, the record depository that may have held other proofs of his documentable existence was destroyed. As the cherry on the sundae is there is no body. Even the shroud of turin in disputed by believers.

There is nothing that proves Jesus was a living man who walked the Earth at any point. There is nothing that says Atlantis was ever a real city with tangible buildings and roads.

But I'm told I need to believe Jesus came to earth, preached, died, and rose from the grave. If I were to say I believed Atlantis existed as a technologically superior city that errupted into flames, I would be criticized.

But wouldn't opening myself to the unprovable idea that Jesus existed mean I can accept other cryptids and myths were in fact real? There is no more evidence for one than the other.

If you believe in a God, here is your chance to prove once and for all your God exists. Atheists are continuously required to disprove God. It's impossible to prove/disprove God in general because God (in sense of a creator) has no quantifiable traits. If it's an invisible, intangible presense, it cannot be quantified without discrepencies.

But when a God is characterized in doctrine, it becomes quantifiable. It has falsifiable qualities. Weight. Color. Character. Motive. Atheists can disprove these Gods by contradictions. In the aspect of the Abrahamic God (Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah), His Word is infallable, so His Word is Truth. So Atheists look for contradictions in His Word and it's as easy as opening to Genesis to find contradictions.

But as tasked as Atheists are to prove a thousand times to a thousand people that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist, and they do, the goal posts are moved. The tactic is usually redirecting to a fallacy in an aspect of science. Kind of sounds like this:

Atheist: On Earth, we can observe light from stars 20 thousand lightyears away. It means the light had to travel at the speed of light for 20,000 years to reach Earth. There is no way the chronology of the Bible is accurate.

Abrahamic Believer: Well, carbon dating isn't 100% accurate.

It is exaggerated, but not by much.

So here it is. It's your Truth. Atheists can simply say "show me God" and the ball is in your court. It's your Truth, you prove it. I'm Agnostic and I'm saying show me God.

We have photos and footprints of Bigfoot. We have bodies of suspected Chupacabras. We have dead Archeologists from a Mummy's Curse. But not one single physical evidence of the possibility of God. Bigfoot is most likely a case of misidentification based on a hoax. But we have physical evidence of the possibility it does exist. Chupacabras are probably mutant dogs but we can go into a home in Texas and see one. The Mummy Curse is likely bacteria, but it was a kept promise that those who disturb the tomb would die.

Prove God exists by offering physical evidence of His person. If you accept, you post the proof here. If you can offer REAL tangible evidence YOUR God (no matter what religion, I will pick you as best answer, admit your God is real in the comments section, and actively promote your God in the R&S section of Yahoo Answers. If you can't, I will let others pick the Best Answer but it will stand that no one can prove their God is real.

...then why do you collectively ambush people on Yahoo Answers?

The Tactic:

A Jehovah's Witness user asks a question that provokes (antagonizes) non-Witnesses. The Witness asks a question directed at non-Witnesses, which means Jehovah's Witnesses by YA guidelines aren't allowed to answer. But they do. Example~ "Where is the proof the Watchtower Society was part of the United Nations?" This will be followed by a rant about slighting truth, Apostates and liars, and one or more quotes from Watchtower literature condemning the UN as the Beast.

A non-Witness will offer links to websites, including the UN press release regarding the WTS' membership, the Guardian Article that exposed it, and the WTS' own release that says they joined for a library card. According to Yahoo guidelines, that's a reasonable answer. But the asker will give it a thumbs down. The online members of his contact list will thumbs down the reasonable answer until it is, by default, not showing due to low user rating.

But an active Witness will answer the question that isn't directed to him. He will say something about Apostates and liars, persecution, and offer more Watchtower quotes. Mind you, any bible quotes will be included as part of the Watchtower quote. They clearly don't answer the question according to the question, and they don't try to. But the asker will give it a thumbs up and the asker's JW contacts will give it a thumbs up.

And then the asker picks as Best Answer a pro-Watchtower propaganda answer that doesn't at all answer "Where is the proof...?"

If you ARE Jehovah's chosen people, and you are so faithful in that idea, why do you feel the need to create ambush questions? Why do you feel you have to collectively snuff accurate answers?

My brother in law is a JW. One of the first things he said was that they were about Truth. The Watchtower founder Charles Russell wrote "the truth is the truth, even if it's from the devil." He didn't say it to mean people should worship Satan, but to show that truth is indisputable if it really is truth.

Just because you don't agree with a truth doesn't make it less true. In the UN example, there are dozens of questions on the UN and the WTS that play out on YA the way I presented. The Guardian in the UK broke the news the WTS was an NGO in the UN. The UN has their information on their website and issued a press release. The WTS released a BOE letter admitting they were an NGO in the UN for access to the UN library. Facts admitted by all sides.

But many of you JWs will take every effort to snuff that truth out of existense. You will report questions and answers you disagree with, even though they are supported by documented facts. You will gang up on non-Witnesses. You will ambush people.

All to hide truth.

If you're about truth, you don't hide it. If you represent "true" Christianity, you don't exhibit guerrilla warfare tactics to obscure access to truth.

So why do so many of you do it?