ICT Developer and Administrator vacancy
 

See vacancy for ICT Developer and Administrator in Wolverhampton, West
Midlands: http://www.havenrefuge.org.uk/Vacancies/Vacancies.htm

Re: ICT Developer and Administrator vacancy
 

On 1 May 2007 14:47:25 -0700, elvirawilson@mail.ru wrote:

>See vacancy for ICT Developer and Administrator in Wolverhampton, West
>Midlands: <snip>

I like the idea of the place. But I won't work for spammers.

--
"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
--glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r

Re: ICT Developer and Administrator vacancy
 

<elvirawilson@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:1178056045.578706.78440@h2g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
> See vacancy for ICT Developer and Administrator in Wolverhampton, West
> Midlands: http://www.havenrefuge.org.uk/Vacancies/Vacancies.htm
>


Anyone with the credentials that you require won't bother responding to
an idiot that spams in newsgroups looking for talent. If the talent is
there, it's pretty easy to market it. If the talent is missing then you
get exactly what you deserved by spamming your offer here.

Re: ICT Developer and Administrator vacancy
 

Mara wrote:
>On 1 May 2007 14:47:25 -0700, elvirawilson@mail.ru wrote:
>
>>See vacancy for ICT Developer and Administrator in Wolverhampton, West
>>Midlands: <snip>
>
>I like the idea of the place. But I won't work for spammers.

If they're known spammers I agree. If the person who made that post just
wasn't aware of what "not to do" what's the diff? Looking at the site it needs
the help, it ought to be done in shades of ivory, beige, tan, and vanilla. :)

OTOH, maybe I just got sympathetic after reading this pome:
http://www.havenrefuge.org.uk/Resett...settlement.htm

--
Robb

Re: ICT Developer and Administrator vacancy
 

On Wed, 02 May 2007 00:42:29 +0000, Robb <-robb@shared-secrets.com> wrote:

>Mara wrote:
>>On 1 May 2007 14:47:25 -0700, elvirawilson@mail.ru wrote:
>>
>>>See vacancy for ICT Developer and Administrator in Wolverhampton, West
>>>Midlands: <snip>
>>
>>I like the idea of the place. But I won't work for spammers.
>
>If they're known spammers I agree. If the person who made that post just
>wasn't aware of what "not to do" what's the diff? Looking at the site it needs
>the help, it ought to be done in shades of ivory, beige, tan, and vanilla. :)
>
>OTOH, maybe I just got sympathetic after reading this pome:
>http://www.havenrefuge.org.uk/Resett...settlement.htm

I do agree with the premise of the site, because I've BTDT myself. But today
there's no excuse for not knowing about spamming - word of it is *everywhere.*
And in Usenet, as with all things online, it's the *user's* obligation to
educate him/her/itself *before* they attempt to use groups, etc.. And it would
take little to no effort to discover that spamming *isn't* the way to win
people's hearts. So, while I agree with the site and in fact I think there
should be more like it, I do not agree or condone their method of
"advertisement." Nor would I work for them - not only did they spam, they didn't
bother to learn about what they were doing first, and that's a bad business
model.

--
"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
--glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r