At 2002/01/21/15:57 -0600 Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:48:43 -0800 (PST)
> From: ken roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Your job posting on jobs.perl.org
>
> Dave,
> There are currently 21 programmers making a min
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
> Actually, I just got another warning about these guys off the list.
>
> Dave, we really should make that list ...
added as docs/killfile in CVS.
-dave
/*==
www.urth.org
we await the New Sun
==*/
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vicki Brown wrote:
> >> First I wanted to say thanks for having a great service!!!
> >>
> >> Second I wanted to make a small suggestion. Back in Sept I started up a
> >> contract with QCI (just posted a new listing). I along with 4 other
> >
> >I am cc'ing the jobs-discuss
At 05:16 PM 1/21/02 -0500, Drew Taylor wrote:
>When I spoke with Scott a few minutes ago, he certainly didn't give the
>impression he had 21 programmers. He did mention getting 5 people, 2 of
>which worked out and the rest didn't (with the implication that they
>weren't any good.) Quoting him,
At 15:30 -0600 1/21/02, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>
>Actually, I don't want jobs posted at all that aren't for actual money. I
>think Ask and Uri would agree with me there.
That's OK by me. I could be convinced wither way as long as there's a policy.
>
>However, this was posted
>a long itme back (3-4
At 03:57 PM 1/21/02 -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>Are any of these 6 supposed programmer on this list? Anyone want to
>confirm that they are actually getting paid. If someone does I might even
>apologize to this fool.
Dave,
I was offered compensation strictly in stock from Scott Jarnagin (um, usi
At 13:41 -0800 1/21/02, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Rob wrote:
>
>> First I wanted to say thanks for having a great service!!!
>>
>> Second I wanted to make a small suggestion. Back in Sept I started up a
>> contract with QCI (just posted a new listing). I along with 4 other
At 16:58 -0500 1/21/02, Casey West wrote:
>Plus, if I any of my employers ever fired for stupidity, I'd be out of
>a job quite a while ago. I make stupid mistakes all the time, or am I
>the only person I know who will admit that? ;-)
I once thought I'd made a stupid mistake, but then I realize
When I spoke with Scott a few minutes ago, he certainly didn't give the
impression he had 21 programmers. He did mention getting 5 people, 2 of
which worked out and the rest didn't (with the implication that they
weren't any good.) Quoting him, those two are now working part-time for him
at wh
> "DR" == Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DR> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Casey West wrote:
>> I don't think it matters much now. With a reply like his, there's no
>> way I'd want to step foot in his office, or log in to his boxes. He's
>> a fool for losing his temper and I can bet
> "DR" == Dave Rolsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DR> Are any of these 6 supposed programmer on this list? Anyone want to
DR> confirm that they are actually getting paid. If someone does I might even
DR> apologize to this fool.
DR> Dave,
DR> There are currently 21 programmers mak
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Casey West wrote:
> I don't think it matters much now. With a reply like his, there's no
> way I'd want to step foot in his office, or log in to his boxes. He's
> a fool for losing his temper and I can bet it wouldn't be the last
> time.
Good point.
> Plus, if I any of my
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 03:57:36PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
:
:Are any of these 6 supposed programmer on this list? Anyone want to
:confirm that they are actually getting paid. If someone does I might even
:apologize to this fool.
I don't think it matters much now. With a reply like his, ther
At 01:20 PM 1/21/2002 -0800, Vicki Brown wrote:
>In a return message I discovered that "additional money part time" isn't
>quite what they are offering:
>
>At 13:10 -0800 1/21/02, Vicki Brown wrote:
> >We appreciate you response to our recently posted ad for programmers, we are
> >looking for mot
Are any of these 6 supposed programmer on this list? Anyone want to
confirm that they are actually getting paid. If someone does I might even
apologize to this fool.
-dave
-- Forwarded message --
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 13:48:43 -0800 (PST)
From: ken roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Rob wrote:
> First I wanted to say thanks for having a great service!!!
>
> Second I wanted to make a small suggestion. Back in Sept I started up a
> contract with QCI (just posted a new listing). I along with 4 other
> engineers had nothing but problems regarding funding.
> "VB" == Vicki Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VB> --_-1200474465==_ma
VB> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
vicki,
please no html mail. :)
VB> In a return message I discovered that "additional money part time" isn't
VB> quite what they are off
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Vicki Brown wrote:
> At 13:10 -0800 1/21/02, Vicki Brown wrote:
> >We appreciate you response to our recently posted ad for programmers, we are
> >looking for motivated, talented individual who are willing to work for a 30
> >evaluation period for company stock. We are a priv
Title: Re: scam warning (redux)
At 14:18 -0800 12/27/01, Paris Sinclair wrote:
>I recently responded to a posting from Sean Robinson at
CreateAMag
>Incorporated for "an independent contractor." Now, where
I come from, when
>you hire a "contractor" you're expected to be able
to pay them. ...
At 1
> "ABH" == Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ABH> I don't want to make it easier for people to reply to the job
ABH> posters. The posters are getting plenty of unclued replies as it is
ABH> already. I like to think that if we make the job seekers at least
ABH> read the co
geez, reality check please. There are 1800 people on the list.
Telling all of them to be careful with the reply button is much
worse than Uri and I getting a few misguided messages in our inboxes
a week. IMO and all.
Starting a discussion about it here will at most get me to
unsubscribe. :-)
21 matches
Mail list logo
