hypothetical question

On Jan 31, 11:54 am, Cane <CaneU....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 11:52, darsy <dar....RemoveThis@sticky.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
> > that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
> > candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
> > person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
> > previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give them
> > an interview?
>
> definitely, just for the look on her face when she walks in.

heh. And if you were to reject the CV, what reason would you give the
agency/HR?

--
d.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Jan 31, 12:05 pm, Wicked Uncle Nigel <w...@wicked-uncle-
nigel.me.uk> wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, darsy
> <dar....TakeThisOut@sticky.co.uk> typed
>
> >say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
> >that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
> >candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
> >person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
> >previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give them
> >an interview?
>
> LOL.
>
> An HR officer's husband writes:
>
> You should interview her, if she fits the role. Best practice would be
> for you to have someone else conduct all the interviews. If you don't
> you expose yourself to the risk of a discrimination claim.

from someone who doesn't get an interview for a contract position? Oh
please, I reject around 80-90% of the CVs I see.

> And you probably weren't that memorable a shag anyway.

after this hypothetical break-up, the hypothetical person started
catching the other bus, if that gives you an idea.

--
d.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Jan 31, 12:10 pm, Ace <see....DeleteThis@ifrance.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:52:01 -0800 (PST), in
> <19c8d383-d134-468d-aa0d-7e0b8c113....DeleteThis@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> darsy <dar....DeleteThis@sticky.co.uk> wrote:
> >say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
> >that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
> >candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
> >person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
> >previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give them
> >an interview?
>
> Depends whether there's a chance of a shag, shirley?

she used to have a fashion model style figure - it's a look that suits
17-year-olds just fine. At 37 she probably looks like a shrivelled
flat-chested hag.

--
d.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On 31 Jan, 13:56, darsy <dar....DeleteThis@sticky.co.uk> wrote:

> > >say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
> > >that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
> > >candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
> > >person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
> > >previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give them
> > >an interview?
>
> > Depends whether there's a chance of a shag, shirley?
>
> she used to have a fashion model style figure - it's a look that suits
> 17-year-olds just fine. At 37 she probably looks like a shrivelled
> flat-chested hag.

As opposed to the opinionated, orange sphere that you blossomed
into
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Jan 31, 2:03 pm, Wicked Uncle Nigel <w....TakeThisOut@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk>
wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ
> <n....TakeThisOut@champ.org.uk> typed
>
> >On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:05:09 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel
> ><w....TakeThisOut@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >>An HR officer's husband writes:
>
> >>You should interview her, if she fits the role. Best practice would be
> >>for you to have someone else conduct all the interviews. If you don't
> >>you expose yourself to the risk of a discrimination claim.
>
> >>And you probably weren't that memorable a shag anyway.
>
> >I ask yourself how your missus knows this, IIWY.
>
> She says she can't remember.

I don't remember meeting your missus, only your cat.

--
d.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Jan 31, 2:08 pm, Cane <CaneU....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 Jan, 13:56, darsy <dar....TakeThisOut@sticky.co.uk> wrote:

> > she used to have a fashion model style figure - it's a look that suits
> > 17-year-olds just fine. At 37 she probably looks like a shrivelled
> > flat-chested hag.
>
> As opposed to the opinionated, orange sphere that you blossomed
> into

heh.

--
d.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Jan 31, 2:15 pm, Champ <n... RemoveThis @champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:56:03 -0800 (PST), darsy <dar... RemoveThis @sticky.co.uk>
> wrote:

> >she used to have a fashion model style figure - it's a look that suits
> >17-year-olds just fine. At 37 she probably looks like a shrivelled
> >flat-chested hag.
>
> An, er, enthusiast of skinny women writes...
>
> Perhaps, but not necessarily.
>
> It really depends how her skin has aged, which is down to genetics and
> environment. Did she/does she smoke?

she certainly used to. I haven't seen her in 10 years, so don't know
about now.

--
d.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On 31 Jan, 14:57, Wicked Uncle Nigel <w....DeleteThis@wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk>
wrote:

> >>> It really depends how her skin has aged, which is down to genetics and
> >>> environment. Did she/does she smoke?
>
> >>she certainly used to. I haven't seen her in 10 years, so don't know
> >>about now.
>
> >Ah. If she still smokes, I'd expect the initial signs of
> >cat-bum-mouth to be apparent.
>
> Visual signs, or the smell?

Taste.
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, darsy
<darsyx DeleteThis @sticky.co.uk> typed
>say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
>that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
>candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
>person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
>previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give them
>an interview?

LOL.

An HR officer's husband writes:

You should interview her, if she fits the role. Best practice would be
for you to have someone else conduct all the interviews. If you don't
you expose yourself to the risk of a discrimination claim.

And you probably weren't that memorable a shag anyway.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (Fallen apart) Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single"
Norton 850 Commando Kawasaki GTR1400
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, darsy
> <darsyx RemoveThis @sticky.co.uk> typed
>> say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
>> that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
>> candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
>> person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
>> previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give
>> them an interview?
>
> LOL.
>
> An HR officer's husband writes:
>
> You should interview her, if she fits the role. Best practice would be
> for you to have someone else conduct all the interviews. If you don't
> you expose yourself to the risk of a discrimination claim.
>
> And you probably weren't that memorable a shag anyway.

If you, as the likely manager of a candidate have personal issue with an
applicant a simple "no thanks" is sufficient. Especially through an agency.

"I know this person and don't like them" is perfectly ok.

--
Hog
'03 ST4S '96 Bastard12 '89 R100RS '81 XS650 '78 RD400
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 03:52:01 -0800 (PST), in
<19c8d383-d134-468d-aa0d-7e0b8c113fe5.TakeThisOut@b2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
darsy <darsyx.TakeThisOut@sticky.co.uk> wrote:

>say you were recruiting, and reviewing a few CVs, and came across one
>that looked like a good fit for the role, though the name of the
>candidate was strangely familiar. On checking, it turns out that this
>person is someone who you'd relieved of her virginity some 20 years
>previously and subsequently messily broke up with. Would you give them
>an interview?

Depends whether there's a chance of a shag, shirley?

--
_______
..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (b.rogers at ifrance.com)
\`\ | /`/ DS#8 BOTAFOT#3 SbS#2 UKRMMA#13 DFV#8 SKA#2 IBB#10
`\\ | //'
`\|/`
`
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:05:09 +0000, Wicked Uncle Nigel
<wun DeleteThis @wicked-uncle-nigel.me.uk> wrote:

>An HR officer's husband writes:
>
>You should interview her, if she fits the role. Best practice would be
>for you to have someone else conduct all the interviews. If you don't
>you expose yourself to the risk of a discrimination claim.
>
>And you probably weren't that memorable a shag anyway.

I ask yourself how your missus knows this, IIWY.
--
Champ
I don't know, but I been told, you never slow down, you never get old
ZX10R | GPz750turbo | GSX-R600 (race)
neal at champ dot org dot uk
 >> Stay informed about: hypothetical question