 | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Calum Tsang wrote:
> >
> > Let me start with the disclaimer that I am on the NXT MDP, though I'm probably
> > the least active member due to personal commitments right now.
>
> Well, I'm sorry, but I have to ask - if you have so many other commitments, why
> did you apply? I'm sure there's many others who would have loved to participate,
> and have more time to contribute.
>
> Note: Certain members of the community will probably berate me for concentrating
> on just one point in your post, saying it confirms a flaw in my personality or
> something. So be it.
Berate you? Not me, at any rate, although I can't speak for anyone else. But I
DO find it interesting how you hone in on just one point so often.
I do think in this case it's an interesting point, though. To widen it out a
bit, it certainly does show that LEGO do not always evaluate candidates for
things quite the way we expect they would.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Calum Tsang wrote:
> > >
> > > Let me start with the disclaimer that I am on the NXT MDP, though I'm probably
> > > the least active member due to personal commitments right now.
> >
> > Well, I'm sorry, but I have to ask - if you have so many other commitments, why
> > did you apply? I'm sure there's many others who would have loved to participate,
> > and have more time to contribute.
>
> I do think in this case it's an interesting point, though. To widen it out a
> bit, it certainly does show that LEGO do not always evaluate candidates for
> things quite the way we expect they would.
Well unfortunately there was no "What are your current personal commitments"
question on the application, so LEGO had no way to evaluate that information.
Surely it makes more sense, and is much easier for the applicant to evaluate it,
and make the decision to apply (or not) accordingly?
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > I do think in this case it's an interesting point, though. To widen it out a
> > bit, it certainly does show that LEGO do not always evaluate candidates for
> > things quite the way we expect they would.
> Well unfortunately there was no "What are your current personal commitments"
> question on the application, so LEGO had no way to evaluate that information.
> Surely it makes more sense, and is much easier for the applicant to evaluate it,
> and make the decision to apply (or not) accordingly?
I could easily be misremembering the application, it was a while ago, but I do
seem to recall some questions about the time that would be spent doing various
things.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ross Crawford wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> > > I do think in this case it's an interesting point, though. To widen it out a
> > > bit, it certainly does show that LEGO do not always evaluate candidates for
> > > things quite the way we expect they would.
>
> > Well unfortunately there was no "What are your current personal commitments"
> > question on the application, so LEGO had no way to evaluate that information.
> > Surely it makes more sense, and is much easier for the applicant to evaluate it,
> > and make the decision to apply (or not) accordingly?
>
> I could easily be misremembering the application, it was a while ago, but I do
> seem to recall some questions about the time that would be spent doing various
> things.
Hmmm, I don't. But hey, memory can play tricks sometimes.
ROSCO
| | | | | | |
