Jason "pull over and show me your ID" Kodish

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Earl Blacklock

unread,
Sep 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/3/96
to

In article <blacklock.2...@visia.net> <50g72e$4...@news.sas.ab.ca>,
dsim...@dws.ca (Dieter Simader) wrote:
>
> Actually Earl, I do agree with Jason on this one. Your requirements for a
> delivery person are really absurd. Follows right along with ads of the
> likes; 'looking for CA, must know Word Perfect'.
> Good luck in your hunt.

The advertisement was not, however, for a delivery person.
It was for a clerical person who would have, as one of that
person's responsibilities, the ability to hand-deliver a
package to several of our clients. In other words, he
focused on the physical requirement and assumed the entire
job was about that one, very small, part of the job.

This position was, as the ad stated, an entry level position
which gave applicants the opportunity to get in the door of
a growing national company. The three people I have hired
for this position are quite happy with the fact that they
got this position, because it will involve a wide range of
training and experience that will benefit them long after they
have left our company.

To agree with Jason "why read when you can rant" Kodish on this
one is, I'm afraid, to say that you would rather take his
erroneous assessment of a situation, and then support his
harassment of employers trying to post positions in the ab.jobs
news group. Is that what you are doing?

Of course, if you think accusing people, both by e-mail and
publicly, of criminal activity without a shred of evidence,
is right, then hey, go with Jason on this one.

By the way, what gave Jason the right to criticize what any
employer wants to see in a resume?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]

jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca

unread,
Sep 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM9/4/96
to

Earl Blacklock (blac...@visia.net) wrote:

: The advertisement was not, however, for a delivery person.


: It was for a clerical person who would have, as one of that
: person's responsibilities, the ability to hand-deliver a
: package to several of our clients. In other words, he
: focused on the physical requirement and assumed the entire
: job was about that one, very small, part of the job.

: This position was, as the ad stated, an entry level position
: which gave applicants the opportunity to get in the door of
: a growing national company. The three people I have hired
: for this position are quite happy with the fact that they
: got this position, because it will involve a wide range of
: training and experience that will benefit them long after they
: have left our company.

: To agree with Jason "why read when you can rant" Kodish on this
: one is, I'm afraid, to say that you would rather take his
: erroneous assessment of a situation, and then support his
: harassment of employers trying to post positions in the ab.jobs
: news group. Is that what you are doing?

For the people who agree with Jason Kodish, I think they are agreeing
with the idea that they can see how easily one could interpret your job
explanation as being a simple delivery job and not the wider scale that
it is. If you didn't beat this topic over and over saying how the job
was more than just a delivering packages, if I read the original job
description I probally would have assumed that it was just a flowery way
of saying "delivery guy". You stressed the phusical aspect of needing to
be able to walk about and deliver packages and glossed over the other job
duties. Then went into how you wanted an in depth detail of the person's
life for the job. I can see VERY easily how one could have
misinterpreted your original message. It's hardly worth getting all this
upset about..
Geez, why are there people out there that get so worked up everytime
Jason Kodish says something they don't agree with?

: Of course, if you think accusing people, both by e-mail and


: publicly, of criminal activity without a shred of evidence,
: is right, then hey, go with Jason on this one.

Take a pill man. It's not like Kodish was actively trying to convince
people that you are a drug dealer. He sort of implied it in a single
message. I would hardly call that harrasment.

: By the way, what gave Jason the right to criticize what any


: employer wants to see in a resume?

What gives you the right to criticize what someone else says?

### ./\. ### JASON POTAPOFF. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
### _|\| |/|_ ### Email: jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
### \ / ### "You got any toilet paper over there?"
### >______< ### "No."
### / ### "You got five ones for a five?"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages