XPost: rec.arts.sf.written, rec.arts.sf.science   
   From: jclarkeusenet@cox.net   
      
   In article <52e48c42$0$52786$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, dtravel@sonic.net   
   says...   
   >   
   > On 1/25/2014 1:18 AM, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > > In article <52e34a9d$0$52778$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, dtravel@sonic.net   
   > > says...   
   > >>   
   > >> On 1/24/2014 5:17 PM, J. Clarke wrote:   
   > >>> In article , robban@clubtelco.com   
   > >>> says...   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> On 25/01/2014 7:21 am, John F. Eldredge wrote:   
   > >>>>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:10:39 +1300, Your Name wrote:   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>>> Yep, I've done and be in numerous surveys too, and they're all   
   > >>>>>> completely worthless due to many varying reasons, mostly thanks to the   
   > >>>>>> idiotic and misleading way the "results" are reported.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>> My pet peeve with surveys is that the correct answer to a question is   
   > >>>>> often "none of the above", yet very few surveys allow this as a choice.   
   > >>>>> Online surveys, in particular, usually won't let you save the results   
   > >>>>> until you have chosen one of the answers the survey-writer supplied.   
   > >>>>>   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> Very true. I do a lot of online surveys, and in the box most of them   
   > >>>> provide for comments, I find myself writing time and time again "In   
   > >>>> Question X, you forced me to lie because...".   
   > >>>   
   > >>> It's not just surveys.  I was helping somebody fill out an employment   
   > >>> application for a major hotel chain the other day and at one point it   
   > >>> has a section on previous employment and for each one it wants "reason   
   > >>> for leaving", with the choices being "Terminated, Promoted, Resigned,   
   > >>> Laid Off".  There's no option for "Still employed at this job" and it   
   > >>> won't submit the application until you pick one of the four.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> In the previous section, dates of employment, there's an option "to   
   > >>> present" that one would expect to disable the "reason for leaving"   
   > >>> requirement, but it doesn't.   
   > >>>   
   > >> And why would a company want to hire someone who has already proven they   
   > >> are disloyal enough to look for another job while they already have one?   
   > >   
   > > Because they need workers?  I'm sorry, but looking for another job when   
   > > you already have one is not evidence of "disloyalty" in the US.   
   > >   
   > >>    (Keep in mind that the person tossing out applications is probably   
   > >> thinking "why would we hire anyone so bad they don't already have a   
   job?".)   
   > >   
   > > In the US right now being out of work is not evidence of anything but   
   > > that one is out of work.   
   > >   
   > You clearly haven't looked for a job in the last five years.   
      
   OK, tell us of what other personal characteristic being out of a job is   
   evidence, since you seem to think that you know.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)