• Schnapple (unregistered) in reply to Dave
    Dave:
    TRWTF is having a child and not supporting that child. Maybe if more men took their responsibilities as fathers and men more seriously, we'd have fewer screwed up kids.
    While it may not apply in this situation (19 mostly 1-2 month jobs in 9 years says a lot), I'm going to go to bat and say that it's entirely possible for someone to fall behind on their child support payments because they've been laid off. The courts are very unforgiving about this, depending on what state you're in (thinking in terms of the USA here). I've read reports of people who have been laid off, been without work for months due to a crappy economy, and been told by the courts that it doesn't matter - they had better find some way to shit the money or they're going to jail. Nevermind that they're broke and can demonstrate how they've been laid off. Nevermind that the mother has gone on to marry someone financially secure so the child is in no danger.

    That said, the reason the courts are so harsh in this area is that it would be entirely possible, and easy, to just get yourself fired and then draw welfare and have no way to support your kids. Some would rather do that than give money to their ex which they hate.

  • Darth Inmate (unregistered)

    EDI...when last we met, I was but the inmate, now I am the master!

  • gil (unregistered) in reply to Billy The Squid
    Billy The Squid:
    His girlfriend was mad at him at one point, called the cops to "teach him a lesson", and while dealing with it all, he lost his job. Set him up to fail once people found out he was charged with "domestic assault" and "abuse" (it was all a crock, she was eventually proven to have lied, got a fine, slap on the wrist)..
    Couldn't he sue her for compensation for lost income?
  • Disgruntled Former Employee (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    Dave:
    TRWTF is having a child and not supporting that child. Maybe if more men took their responsibilities as fathers and men more seriously, we'd have fewer screwed up kids.
    While it may not apply in this situation (19 mostly 1-2 month jobs in 9 years says a lot), I'm going to go to bat and say that it's entirely possible for someone to fall behind on their child support payments because they've been laid off. The courts are very unforgiving about this, depending on what state you're in (thinking in terms of the USA here). I've read reports of people who have been laid off, been without work for months due to a crappy economy, and been told by the courts that it doesn't matter - they had better find some way to shit the money or they're going to jail. Nevermind that they're broke and can demonstrate how they've been laid off. Nevermind that the mother has gone on to marry someone financially secure so the child is in no danger.

    That said, the reason the courts are so harsh in this area is that it would be entirely possible, and easy, to just get yourself fired and then draw welfare and have no way to support your kids. Some would rather do that than give money to their ex which they hate.

    Meanwhile, their ex who is also on welfare is getting extra state dollars because she has custody of the kid. That's good, because she needs the extra money to buy cigarettes. No need to use that money for groceries because the kid can eat at school for free.

  • Pants (unregistered) in reply to Larry
    Larry:
    TRWTF is prison.

    TRWTF is going to prison for being poor. The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support. What a terrible person. How dare he not have money. We'll fix that by locking him up until he has some.

    The other WTF is the commenters talking about how a guy jailed for not paying child support is probably going to steal or blow shit up.

  • gil (unregistered) in reply to Pants
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
  • Herby (unregistered)

    Yes, hiring and interviews. I interviewed for a company that had big ideas and wanted some help in developing their product. It was to be shown on TV and all that (they even produced a TV ad). Well it all sounded good, and I was going through an agency who was passing on offers to me. They were a small startup, and the "original" software was a bunch of scripts that ran on an embedded Linux box (it wasn't too bad but did have some limitations. I had some experience on the hardware platform (Mini-ITX, which works quite well) they had prototyped it on, but I also understood the cost ratios of equipment to selling price and wondered how they were going to sell it for the price point they had selected. Also it was to be a consumer product, and I asked a relative how they presently do the task they were about to simplify, and she replied that it was pretty easy with her current PC hardware, and that her 5 year old daughter (at the time) could do the task at hand. So, with my market research (OK product, but terrible market), I said I was interested. Then I got the offer, and at $48k (I suspect that people right out of high school could get this), I politely declined. They said that there would be a raise "immediately" as they didn't want to pay the agency too much of a fee. The next counter offer was $60k (a little bit better, but I was making $40/hr ($80k by my rough calculation), and I declined that as well. Lastly they wanted me as a consultant, and I declined that as well, feeling that they weren't going to be in business for very long and being paid would be a BIG hassle.

    At last check, they still have their web site up (I just checked) and even have a big testimonial from a celebrity as well. I don't see the item outside of the web site (I kept an eye out), so I don't believe there are much in sales. So, it was for the best.

    SIGH a simple lesson, learned (thankfully NOT the hard way!).

  • Comrade Wayne (unregistered) in reply to gil
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

  • (cs) in reply to frits
    frits:
    boog:
    frits (unregistered):
    boog (unregistered):
    <snip/>
    <snip/>
    It's times like these I wish I didn't have this impostor lurking about.
    I'm pretty sure that guy is responsible for about 50% of the article comments anymore.
    That guy, or he and a circle of approximately 3 other guys all in the same high school computer lab.
  • Paul F (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    jasmine2501:
    Yes, all of those questions are illegal - not illegal to ask though. You can ask anything you want in an interview, but there's a whole class of stuff you aren't supposed to use to make the hiring decision. However, if you asked it, the assumption is that you're going to use the information, and that it might influence your decision in some subtle way even if it's not 'officially' used in a hiring decision. You are much better off not asking. And yes, if someone asked me any of those questions they would be hearing from a lawyer.
    You'd honestly try to litigate? That's ridiculous, I'd just move on to the next interview and forget about it. What would be the charge? Would you try to sue them for money or what? Forgive me, I don't really understand the US culture of litigation, but I don't see you could legitimately claim for compensation so what's the point? What's your endgame?

    As HR at our company taught us, if you are publicly traded and 3 years later your stock shoots up, a person who feels improper factors used in the hiring decision was made could target you. In the US, it is a Bad Idea to leave any sort of opportunity for litigation. Even if the grounds are bogus, often it is cheaper to settle than to let it go to court.

    This particular example is very egregious and you could be successfully sued for discriminating on marital status, and in some states (sadly only a handful), sexual orientation. The company in this story would actually deserve that.

    Individually, yes, it would be ridiculous for me, the competent applicant, to just move on. However, as a company, you need to be very careful to minimize your attack surface for the opportunists.

  • Someone (unregistered) in reply to Q
    Q:
    TRWTF is all you punks hating on anyone who's ever been to jail.
    The best way to ensure that criminals have an incentive to reform is to guarantee that they will never be able to gain employment again. Because if they do get a job then they're immediately going to steal everything they can, but as long as they're unemployed they will have no reason or opportunity to steal.

    This is simple logic, as understood by every "strong on crime" politician promising to make the world safer for innocent babies.

    Q:
    WTF makes you all think every person who's ever been incarcerated will just up and steal data and wreck businesses, or make welding mistakes. The two aren't related.
    Well, if you had a choice between hiring a criminal and hiring a law-abiding author of the worst of the WTFs to show up on this site, wouldn't you want to hire the law abiding citizen?
  • Dave (unregistered) in reply to Pants
    Pants:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is prison.

    TRWTF is going to prison for being poor. The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support. What a terrible person. How dare he not have money. We'll fix that by locking him up until he has some.

    The other WTF is the commenters talking about how a guy jailed for not paying child support is probably going to steal or blow shit up.

    I agree that getting sent to the pokey for non-payment of child support hardly qualifies you as a hardened criminal. However, if I were hiring someone for an IT gig, the liability of hiring someone who came to you via Dice.com (Jail Edition) would weigh on my mind. If you hire someone who steals all of your customer data, that's bad. But imagine the field day the lawyers would have if they found out you hired someone who sent you a resume from jail. As a hiring manager, unless there was some amazing talent that this person brought to the table, the cons (ahem) would outweigh the pros.

  • frits (unregistered) in reply to Dave

    LOL at "Dice.com (Jail Edition)"

  • Parker Bros. (unregistered) in reply to boog
    boog:
    frits:
    boog:
    frits (unregistered):
    boog (unregistered):
    <snip/>
    <snip/>
    It's times like these I wish I didn't have this impostor lurking about.
    I'm pretty sure that guy is responsible for about 50% of the article comments anymore.
    That guy, or he and a circle of approximately 3 other guys all in the same high school computer lab.
    PMS much? Just because you're registered doesn't give you a monopoly on commonly-used handles. We all know the difference, as it is indicated by "(unregistered)" next to their names.
  • gilhad (unregistered) in reply to Larry
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.

    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married. We live together for more then 10 years like that and we will live so untill the death will separate us. We just think we do not need papers confirming our love signed by state authority. Especially when you can recall such papers later and divorce if you wish so. So no guaranties from state anyhow.

  • ÃÆâ€â„ (unregistered) in reply to Disgruntled Former Employee
    Disgruntled Former Employee:
    Schnapple:
    Dave:
    TRWTF is having a child and not supporting that child. Maybe if more men took their responsibilities as fathers and men more seriously, we'd have fewer screwed up kids.
    While it may not apply in this situation (19 mostly 1-2 month jobs in 9 years says a lot), I'm going to go to bat and say that it's entirely possible for someone to fall behind on their child support payments because they've been laid off. The courts are very unforgiving about this, depending on what state you're in (thinking in terms of the USA here). I've read reports of people who have been laid off, been without work for months due to a crappy economy, and been told by the courts that it doesn't matter - they had better find some way to shit the money or they're going to jail. Nevermind that they're broke and can demonstrate how they've been laid off. Nevermind that the mother has gone on to marry someone financially secure so the child is in no danger.

    That said, the reason the courts are so harsh in this area is that it would be entirely possible, and easy, to just get yourself fired and then draw welfare and have no way to support your kids. Some would rather do that than give money to their ex which they hate.

    Meanwhile, their ex who is also on welfare is getting extra state dollars because she has custody of the kid. That's good, because she needs the extra money to buy cigarettes. No need to use that money for groceries because the kid can eat at school for free.
    Clearly the way to solve this is more welfare. Let's just give everyone 10 years of unemployment compensation, and let them choose installment payments or one lump sum payment.

  • (cs) in reply to Parker Bros.
    Parker Bros.:
    PMS much?
    No, I'm fine, but you go ahead:
    Parker Bros.:
    Just because you're registered doesn't give you a monopoly on commonly-used handles. We all know the difference, as it is indicated by "(unregistered)" next to their names.
    Lighten up there, scooter. If you'd actually read the discussion to which you're replying, nobody is claiming any rights on commonly-used handles. I made mention of my impostor, but if you go back and read my full comment, you'd see it was nothing more than a harmless joke.
  • Nick (unregistered)

    I think the guy just wanted to make sure his employees have families and won't browse porn and jerk off on their workplace

  • Spike (unregistered) in reply to Billy The Squid
    Billy The Squid:
    ... Employers didn't ask him "Have you been convicted", part of the screening was "Have you been charged with an offense".

    I gotta call bullshit on this, every employment application i have ever filled out in my life has it worded with "convicted." Never once have i found it the other way.

  • phreno (unregistered) in reply to An English Gentleman
    An English Gentleman:
    JJ:
    Inb4 some European comments with "TRWTF is calling it a résumé instead of a CV!"
    I'm not going to be the first to say it but since you mentioned it, don't you think it's weird that we use a latin term and you use... a French term??!! I thought the yanks hated the French and everything about them? Freedom Fries and all that rubbish? Plus there's another bonus to using a latin term - you sound smart saying it. You guys love to make yourselves sound smarter than you really are, right?

    </troll> - at least I'm honest about it!

    sigh

    It seems that half of the comments on here are explaining English language constructs to... An English Gentleman?!?

    Ok, here goes: The usage is ironic, because it's a French word describing work history. Get it? Those wacky cheese-eating surrender monkeys don't work, for crissakes! The whole fucking country shuts down for several months two or three times a year, and the only reason anyone can get it up to organize any significant effort is to riot for some more of that internet money, guy.

    Except the Cheesemakers. They kick ass.

    But then, they're really cultural descendants of nomadic Arabs. Minus the trying to blow you up parts.

    Much in the same way that English Gentlemen are really cultural descendants of Normands.

    You know, the French.

  • Nick (unregistered)

    Except the Cheesemakers. They kick ass.

    And those who make the wines and cognacs :)

  • Schnapple (unregistered) in reply to gilhad
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.

    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married. We live together for more then 10 years like that and we will live so untill the death will separate us. We just think we do not need papers confirming our love signed by state authority. Especially when you can recall such papers later and divorce if you wish so. So no guaranties from state anyhow.

    I think he was commenting on how "family friendly" is often synonymous with "family values" and how a number of people who insist on "family values" often have beliefs that are incompatible with the concept of having a child out of wedlock.

    But yeah the insistence on kids/children to be considered for employment is just weird. The desire for the person to have procreated, regardless of martial status, is just sort of creepy.

  • phreno (unregistered) in reply to Nick
    Nick:
    >> Except the Cheesemakers. They kick ass.

    And those who make the wines and cognacs :)

    Yeah, I was gonna toss a nod to the fermenters, but considering the generally haughty attitude and the fact that Washington makes a better Pinot and Oregon makes a better Cab, I figured I'd revoke their license to fonz...

    Still, a nice Beaujolais is nice.

    XD

  • Client (unregistered) in reply to DaveK
    DaveK:
    How to reply to assholes:

    "We expect all of our employees to have a family, and since you don't now, I need to know when you plan on having one."

    "Hey, could be any day now, since I started banging your wife!" <walks out>

    I'd much rather do this:

    "We expect all of our employees to have a family, and since you don't now, I need to know when you plan on having one."

    "Oh, of course. I left my personal planner at home. Do you think you could send me a letter with these questions and I can fax the response back to you? Great, what's your fax number here?"

    <one week later>

    "From the Law Offices of Black, Black, and White...

    The letter you sent violates...

    ... our client is willing to settle this matter out of court for $250,000 ..."

  • Ajtacka (unregistered) in reply to Comrade Wayne
    Comrade Wayne:
    gil:
    Pants:
    The article even mentions that he's in jail because he can't pay child support.
    The article doesn't actually mention that. The article mentions that he *doesn't* pay child support.
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    How is that the right way? Sure, take a kid from a poor but loving family, dump them in a childrens' home with neglected, abused or otherwise problem children. Spend much more on 'raising' that child than the average parent spends on their kid. Then, when the kid grows up, spend even more money keeping the now-adult locked up because they never learned how to function properly outside of an institution.

    Or, you know, help the parent find work that pays enough to raise the kid properly, and in the meantime use some of the money that would've gone to the home, and help the parent out a little.

  • ÃÆâ€â„ (unregistered) in reply to Ajtacka
    Ajtacka:
    How is that the right way?
    You get rich American couples to adopt them, that's how. All the first-generation young Russians I know that live in the US either defected with their parents or were adopted. If you can't defect, put your child in an orphanage and hope for the best.
  • Your Name * (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    The Judge:
    Q:
    TRWTF is all you punks hating on anyone who's ever been to jail.

    WTF makes you all think every person who's ever been incarcerated will just up and steal data and wreck businesses, or make welding mistakes. The two aren't related.

    Discriminatory losers.

    TRWTF is people who have a rosy picture of prison.

    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?

    For instance, getting behind on child support. So we stick them in jail, but don't reduce the child support unless they have money for a lawyer, so they're even more fucked.

    Then, when they get out, they get to deal with pontificating blowhards who wonder why they don't get a decent job already.

    I remember reading a great case a few years back where a man who was more than likely on the way to debtors prison went to court to appeal and get his child support payments lowered (they were consuming 95% of his income) and the judge increased his payments instead of lowering him, telling him to not be lazy and get another job (he already had three).

    So not everyone is just being an irresponsible jackass. Sometimes the system fails. shock horror

  • (cs)

    I think we need Alice's Restaurant as the background music to today's WTF.

  • Steve-O (unregistered) in reply to gilhad
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.

    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married. We live together for more then 10 years like that and we will live so untill the death will separate us. We just think we do not need papers confirming our love signed by state authority. Especially when you can recall such papers later and divorce if you wish so. So no guaranties from state anyhow.

    But if you have sex/kids out of wed-lock, God hates you. It's true. He told me.

  • BabbyFormer (unregistered) in reply to gilhad
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?
  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to gilhad
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.

    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married. We live together for more then 10 years like that and we will live so untill the death will separate us. We just think we do not need papers confirming our love signed by state authority. Especially when you can recall such papers later and divorce if you wish so. So no guaranties from state anyhow.

    Let me put this as kindly as possible: you're a goddamned idiot if you're planning to stay with this woman for the duration but not get married. What happens if you go to the hospital? You aren't family, she won't be making those decisions. If you die, she's out on her ass, even if you both pay the mortgage. Seriously, what the hell?

  • Your Name * (unregistered) in reply to gil
    gil:
    Billy The Squid:
    His girlfriend was mad at him at one point, called the cops to "teach him a lesson", and while dealing with it all, he lost his job. Set him up to fail once people found out he was charged with "domestic assault" and "abuse" (it was all a crock, she was eventually proven to have lied, got a fine, slap on the wrist)..
    Couldn't he sue her for compensation for lost income?

    Actually that can be quite hard... Not the proving the loss of income, etc. He was proven "not guilty" in court of the assault, it never said the assault didn't happen. This along with some messed up protection laws that have gotten out of hand, can in some states, prevent the defendant from suing for damages on the off chance he really did assault her and just wasn't caught for it.

    Though, it is a different matter if it was (somehow) proven to have been impossible for the assault to have taken place.

  • (cs) in reply to tinny
    tinny:
    … if a candidate has spent time at Her Majesty's pleasure, then …
    I'm pretty sure Her Majesty doesn't pleasure anyone in Idaho.
  • (cs) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    gilhad:
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married. We live together for more then 10 years like that and we will live so untill the death will separate us. We just think we do not need papers confirming our love signed by state authority. Especially when you can recall such papers later and divorce if you wish so. So no guaranties from state anyhow.
    Let me put this as kindly as possible: you're a goddamned idiot if you're planning to stay with this woman for the duration but not get married. What happens if you go to the hospital? You aren't family, she won't be making those decisions. If you die, she's out on her ass, even if you both pay the mortgage. Seriously, what the hell?
    There may also be substantial tax advantages to being married; check your applicable tax codes for details.
  • gilhad (unregistered) in reply to Franz Kafka
    Franz Kafka:
    gilhad:
    I live with my GF and we are not married. ...

    Let me put this as kindly as possible: you're a goddamned idiot if you're planning to stay with this woman for the duration but not get married. What happens if you go to the hospital? You aren't family, she won't be making those decisions. If you die, she's out on her ass, even if you both pay the mortgage. Seriously, what the hell?

    When i went to hospital, she cames to me without any problems as well as my mother did. When she was in hospital i had no problems too. Just signed paper at the hospital, that she should get full access to all info (as well as other papers like that i do understand the treatment and so on). No problems was here. Mortgage is written to her and we could pay it any moment we want in cash, but it is better for us to let it go its way and use those money other way. But the mortgage leftover is smaller, than i/her have on my/her respective accounts. Anyway if she would die, i would inherite and vice versa. We do not live in USA, so maybe the law is different here from what you are used to. (And if there would be some obstacles, we can marry if we want get some kind of papers just for that purpose. No one of us just see it needed just now.)

  • gilhad (unregistered) in reply to Steve-O
    Steve-O:
    But if you have sex/kids out of wed-lock, God hates you. It's true. He told me.

    But my invisible friend told me, that your invisible friend is only imaginary, so i should not rely on what he tells you until he came and tell it to me too :)

  • jingle jangle (unregistered) in reply to anarchist

    What he actually meant was that he knew gay people made the best employees because they didn't have the family commitments that required them to keep certain home hours, but because of US law couldn't actually ask the question explicitly so attempted to finesse it from him through the back door (as it were).

  • Dan Neely (unregistered) in reply to phreno
    phreno:
    Much in the same way that English Gentlemen are really cultural descendants of Normands.

    You know, the French.

    Except that they're not. The Normans were a group of Vikings (Norsemen) who conquered part of France and after a few generations decided it was hopelessly fubar as a long term base and decided to conquer somewhere with a better grade of peasant to oppress.

  • Prevention (unregistered) in reply to BabbyFormer
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?

    You know what condoms are?? Or birth control pills? Vasectomy? There are many ways to prevent having children, and I hope you are employing at least 2 of them.

  • (cs)
    While hiring a welder on a work-release program is one thing, hiring an IT professional and giving them access to your systems is another.

    I don't understand this. So he is an ex (err current) con, why not give him access to your system? The point of prison is to rehabilitate people. Once they are out of jail, they are supposed to be rehabilitated and are able to rejoin society.

    Are you guys saying ONLY excons steal and embezle? Or only excons can write messed up code? Or ONLY excons will write code to syphon off the extra .1 cents?

    I don't get it, if he was qualified, why not give him a chance? Yeah, it doesn't sound like he was qualified, but that wasn't really the point.

    A good lawyer will have a field day with any insurance company that balks because you hired an excon.

  • (cs) in reply to boog
    boog:
    frits:
    boog:
    The Judge:
    Q:
    TRWTF is all you punks hating on anyone who's ever been to jail.

    WTF makes you all think every person who's ever been incarcerated will just up and steal data and wreck businesses, or make welding mistakes. The two aren't related.

    Discriminatory losers.

    TRWTF is people who have a rosy picture of prison.

    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?

    Personally, when I see those guys in orange jumpsuits on the side of the freeway, I try to hit them with whatever beverage I have on-hand. Try it! It's fun, and as long as it's not hot coffee, it's not even against the law!
    Let my son know the next time you visit McDonalds. I've instructed him to urinate in your orange juice.
    I'm on my way to work, while this guy gets to meander around all day in the sunshine. I figure covering him in sticky liquid is a good way to even the score.

    If you think he's having such a great time, why aren't you knocking on the door of your local prison asking to be let in?

    Right. Because you don't really think he's having a great time. You just hate your shitty life and have an unrequited need to feel superior to others.

  • (cs) in reply to The Judge
    The Judge:
    People are put in jail because they are unable to live within the rules of society. If someone breaks society's rules (and does it so that it warrants a penalty worse than simple probation or a fine), what makes you think they can exist within a business environment?
    Nelson Mandela called. He says you're being overly simplistic in your theory about just what you can infer of someone's character from the mere fact of their having been incarcerated.
  • (cs) in reply to The Daily WTF
    The Daily WTF:
    When it comes to commenting, I am the master!

    Actually, the irony is as thick as maple soup

    Maple Soup would definitely be TRWTF.
  • Duck Anonymousse (unregistered) in reply to JJ
    JJ:
    Inb4 some European comments with "TRWTF is calling it a résumé instead of a CV!"

    TRWTF is Europeans claiming they're submitting CVs, when no one really wants a CV. A CV should be dozens of pages by the time you're 40.

    Captcha: incassum I play the lottery every day, just incassum lucky.

  • Adam (unregistered) in reply to Salami

    Seriously? Did you wiki that? Hopefully someday you get laid. LAID

    BTW, love the website.

  • Dittybop (unregistered) in reply to Spike
    Spike:
    Billy The Squid:
    ... Employers didn't ask him "Have you been convicted", part of the screening was "Have you been charged with an offense".

    I gotta call bullshit on this, every employment application i have ever filled out in my life has it worded with "convicted." Never once have i found it the other way.

    I've seen it...it happens.

  • The Typinator (unregistered) in reply to Ajtacka
    Ajtacka:
    Comrade Wayne:
    In Soviet Russia, child supports you!

    Seriously, in Russia we take care of this the right way. You can't support your kid, it gets taken away.

    How is that the right way? Sure, take a kid from a poor but loving family, dump them in a childrens' home with neglected, abused or otherwise problem children. Spend much more on 'raising' that child than the average parent spends on their kid. Then, when the kid grows up, spend even more money keeping the now-adult locked up because they never learned how to function properly outside of an institution.

    Or, you know, help the parent find work that pays enough to raise the kid properly, and in the meantime use some of the money that would've gone to the home, and help the parent out a little.

    In Soviet Russia, sarcasm fails to recognize you!

  • (cs) in reply to BabbyFormer
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?

    Ask you're parents, lol. </yahoo_answer>

  • BabbyFarmer (unregistered) in reply to Prevention
    Prevention:
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?
    You know what condoms are?? Or birth control pills? Vasectomy? There are many ways to prevent having children, and I hope you are employing at least 2 of them.
    You is know what internet meme is?
  • MotherMaker (unregistered) in reply to frits
    frits:
    BabbyFormer:
    gilhad:
    Larry:
    TRWTF is he went ahead and asked about kids after the guy already said he wasn't married.
    I live with my GF and we are not married. We talked about having childs, but we decided not to. But having child is possible even without being married.
    You is now how is babby formed?
    Ask you're parents, lol. </yahoo_answer>
    You'r mom showed me.

Leave a comment on “The Interesting Resume, The Insecure Resume, and More”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article