Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- From: mikea <mikea@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 08:31:57 -0500
Peter Corlett <abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in <honfcs$pmr$1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
SteveD <usenet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
Admittedly, if they came up with a real showstopper, there might be some
interest. The problem is when they severely and consistently underestimate
the amount and type of cowbell actually required to generate said
interest. And ignore unsubtle hints as to what the correct answer is.
One called me with the other day. He had a fairly unexciting contract role
that seemed much the same as I'm currently doing. I pointed out I was
already gainfully employed. They enquired about my day rate, and I gave it.
Then, with the usual large balls that their industry has, I was told that it
was too much and I'd need to be "flexible", and the figure they had in mind
was about a 30% cut.
Right, so you want me to leave my current client to go and work for you for
less money and a longer commute? And that's the *upsides* to the job?
That's well past arrogance and into severe, possibly even _extreme_,
stupidity. "[T]oo much"? Who gets to say that? Them, no. Your current
employer, maybe.
--
The biggest technical reason that spam is a problem is that send anything-
from-anywhere is a no-longer-valid trust model for the Internet. It's not
the ONLY reason, and the biggest social reason is that spammers get suckers.
-- Bruce Gingery
.
- References:
- Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- From: SteveD
- Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- From: Peter Corlett
- Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- Prev by Date: Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- Next by Date: Re: Helldesk ticket of the month
- Previous by thread: Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- Next by thread: Re: You're not really serious, are you?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
