• Anonymous Coward (unregistered) in reply to Cujo

    Your punctuation suggests you're not American...

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Norman Diamond:
    How about the first nations, who're a fucking minority in their own country, because your family invaded and in the space of just 20 generations you've mostly wiped out those who were there for 10,000 generations?
    This is a highly racist idea. To say that the "white people" invaded and kicked out the "native Americans", and that the "native Americans" rightly owned the place because they were here first, only makes sense if you take it for granted that the only thing that matters about a person is the color of his skin.
    I didn't say anything about colour. Maybe I had a hidden agenda concerning the languages the tribes spoke, or what species of skins they wore, but I didn't say anything about their own skins.

    Red vs. White is a new year's singing competition. (Japan's flag has the same colours as Canada's.)

    Jay:
    I was born in New York State. When the British came to New York, they ultimately forced out the previous inhabitants, the Iroquois Indians.

    But the Iroquois certainly had NOT been there for 10,000 generations or anything remotely approaching that. They conquered the land from the Algonquins. I frankly don't know when the Algonquins arrived or who they supplanted, but the Hopewell were there before them, maybe others in between.

    So reds racistly murdered reds -- just as whites racistly murdered whites in Europe, yellows racistly murdered yellows in Asia, blacks racistly murdered blacks in Africa, and what colour would you use in identifying the races of the Mid-East?

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward:
    Your punctuation suggests you're not American...
    Of course not. He said he lives in Vancouver.
  • Hannes (unregistered) in reply to Captain Oblivious
    Captain Oblivious:
    Hannes:
    Anyway: I highly doubt that you will find any valid sources for "500 years ago", since no one bothered to do statistics back then.

    Yeah, because the Romans weren't taking censuses since at least 475BCE, for taxation purposes.

    And of course the French and British weren't doing it 500 years ago. Or the Germans. Or the Chinese or Indians, for that matter.

    So, do you have an "official" statistic that we can use? If so, just link to it. If not, maybe you should just shut up.

  • Piskvor (unregistered) in reply to huasg

    "Oh, it was the photocopier's fault, not mine, nossir, not at all!"

  • Captain Oblivious (unregistered) in reply to Hannes
    Hannes:
    Captain Oblivious:
    Hannes:
    Anyway: I highly doubt that you will find any valid sources for "500 years ago", since no one bothered to do statistics back then.

    Yeah, because the Romans weren't taking censuses since at least 475BCE, for taxation purposes.

    And of course the French and British weren't doing it 500 years ago. Or the Germans. Or the Chinese or Indians, for that matter.

    So, do you have an "official" statistic that we can use? If so, just link to it. If not, maybe you should just shut up.

    Google it.

    And don't blame me because you feel dumb after saying something dumb.

  • AnalogQueen (unregistered) in reply to Jay

    Great sum up. Another thing that just makes me wince is when multi-cultis demand we not identify a person based on skin color yet at the same time they demand we identify their culture and give them special recognition based only on their skin color!

    Case in point: at a call center I worked at colleague asked me to grab file from "that woman over there" Which woman..? "that one, standing by Dave's desk" who..? "the woman in orange shirt" OOOOohhhh.. the black woman..? I suppose "black woman" was an insult of some kind- don't think the black woman would think so however

    next week "African American Appreciation Day" or some sort

    but of course, we aren't allowed to address them or "notice them" in any sort of way

  • RJ (unregistered) in reply to ochrist
    ochrist:
    But did they hire him?

    Nope; I don't like being dicked around. Found someone better not long after anyway. :-)

  • RJ (unregistered) in reply to BillR

    Not quite, we found plenty of developers. They were mostly just rubbish at it. Nothing wrong with high standards.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Keyboard Goop
    Keyboard Goop:
    snoofle:
    article:
    The recruiter drone told RJ this was standard procedure: they got a substantially higher commission for placing a female candidate.
    So fraud is standard procedure? I hope they have blackballed this recruiter/firm!

    No, of course not. Fraud is the only procedure recruiters use.

    Not all recruiters are unethical. Those that do this ruin the reputation for all the professionals in the business.

  • Kent Dorfman (unregistered)

    Except that Chinese women do not take their husband's last name when they get married.

  • Ronny (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL

    I was working in IT for recruitment company for a while and there are actually good reasons for wanting Word format.

    (1) They use standard tools that extract skills and other information from your resume for insertion into the database. (2) They need an editable format so they can remove your contact details when forwarding the resume to their client, so the client doesn't do an end-run and contact the candidate directly. (It's not only recruiters who are occasionally scumbags.) (3) They're almost all completely ignorant of the complicated bits of IT and editing text in something other than Word is akin to rocket science for them.

    One of the most frequent requests we would get was to convert from PDF (or some other standard) to Word. PDF being designed as a write-only format, this wouldn't always work well. If pressed, we would print the PDF to an image and OCR it.

  • Mike (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL

    While not necessarily lying a did have a recruiter essentially ask for a rewrite and a browse before passing my resume along. That said it was for a different type of project than the first one I applied to through them. Not lying about my abilities but definitely crafting the "interests" section to imply I'm more interested in the types of things they want versus what I had on my stock/resume for the first position.

    Just smart marketing I guess but still. I wish you could be blunt and say "this job is a 90% match to what I want. I'll probably be willing to do it for 2-3 years and then I hope you have something else more interesting for me to do because I like you otherwise as a company." 2-3 years is about average from what I've experienced people just don't stay for 10+ years much anymore I don't know why in the interview process you have to pretend that you will.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Kent Dorfman
    Kent Dorfman:
    Except that Chinese women do not take their husband's last name when they get married.
    Some do.
  • (cs)

    Submit the female one first, see if they interview. If they don't but they interview the male one you know there was sexual prejudice.

    I was told about someone with an Asian name who submitted an application for a job and was turned down, then sent in an identical CV with an English name and got called in.

    Instead decided to take up a discrimination claim which was settled. Of course one might offer "hiring" as an alternative to the payment.

  • (cs) in reply to Doppleganger
    Doppleganger:
    (Generally the worst I had personally seen was rewritten resumes that outright lied. Hint, it's a bad sign when you ask the candidate about something on their resume and they ask to see the resume that was sent to you.)

    And this is exactly why I always send my CV out as a PDF

Leave a comment on “The Old Switch n' Bait”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article