From: Mxsmanic on
dgs writes:

> This doesn't make sense.

What part of "mostly in computers" seemed nonsensical to you?

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Mxsmanic on
Keith W writes:

> And if they fail to do the research and give wrong advice
> they can be sued for malpractise.

You're half right. If they give wrong advice they can be sued for
malpractice--although very often in law there is way to objectively
identify right or wrong advice.

> They dont go on memory.

They depend almost entirely on memory when advising clients under
normal conditions.

> You think lawyers who dont tell their clients about
> case law are failing them !

No, I do not. In fact, I said virtually the opposite.

> You have a strange idea there.

It was your inference, not my idea.

> Jury trials are a minor part of the practise of law. 90%
> of lawyers work on civil law cases and contractural disputes
> where precedence is vital.

Precedence is important in law, but that doesn't mean that lawyers
cite it explicitly when dealing with clients.

Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: JohnT on

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> wrote in message
> Martin writes:
>> I note his website asks for money. Does this make him a beggar or a
>> professional?
> So does the Web site of Doctors without Borders. What does that make
> them?

A Registered Charity, which does Humanitarian work?


From: JohnT on

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)> wrote in message
> dgs writes:
>> This doesn't make sense.
> What part of "mostly in computers" seemed nonsensical to you?

The part where you claim or infer professional expertise. Most of your
utterances are total nonsense, not least because you snip regardless of


From: Jordi on

Tchiowa wrote:
> Jordi wrote:
> > Bollox. That's sweatshop reasoning, presence does not correlate with
> > productivity except in extremely manual and low-tech jobs. We've come a
> > long way from that.
> Earning something is "sweatshop reasoning"?????
> Experience in fact correlates directly with productivity. In all jobs.

Wrong, that's 1900's vintage thinking.

> > Of course, there are still people saying the Earth is flat, but the
> > general convention is not.
> Yes. Which is why your theory of "hard work causes stress" is
> considered laughable.

That's yet another misconception of yours. It's not hard work what
causes stress, but excessive work.

> > > If you work for a year and change jobs then work for another year then
> > > jump and work for another year you may have worked for 3 years but for
> > > your current employer you have only worked one year so you get one week
> > > vacation.
> >
> > I already knew I was right, you don't need to prove it any more.
> Except that proves you wrong.

In what respect?

> > > Not magic. Maturity.
> >
> > And I tell you again. There's something about statistics: you need to
> > be able to interpret them.
> >
> > You have one chart telling you people average 10 jobs between 18 and
> > 38. Then you have another chart telling you how many times people get
> > unemployed on a given age.
> And it goes down *DRAMATICALLY* with age, does it not? Put the stats
> together and the answer is quite obvious. As I said, it's not magic,
> it's maturity.

70,1% of Americans aged 33-38 have been on their job for less than 5
years, among them, 54,0% have been less than 2 years, and 38,7% less
than 1 year.

Of course, those % increase with younger ages.

As I said before, better brush up your Statistics there was no way you
could infere your conclusions from the 1st given charts. And, of
course, those numbers are consistent with the experience of other US

> You missed that and now you're grasping at straws. This is the point
> where you say "I missed that part of the chart, sorry, I was wrong" and
> leave it at that.

Would you please say that again?

> > Luckily, the latest trends in business management call for not having
> > people in their desks for more time than strictly necessary. Motivation
> > nowadays is much more than just salary.
> And what better motivation than increasing the amount of your vacation
> in payment for company loyalty and staying on the job? And what worse
> way of motivating people than saying that their pay and vacation has
> nothing to do with performance and time on the job?

Who talked about pay here? Vacation is not something you earn, it's a
way to keep your employees rested and productive. That's the reason
behind paid vacation and the 2-day weekend.