Please tell me HOW what I said (that you have quoted) has ANYTHING to do with what you said. Seriously, you people have serious reading comprehension problems, or you're soooo driven by an agenda that you read something and get a totally different response than what was intended. I've reread what you've written twice and I'm completely lost.FederalRepublic wrote:
Do you really believe what you type?IRONCHEF wrote:
Yeah, cuz they get sooo much to begin with... Blue states (where the intelligent people live along the coasts where there's reality and an actual threat) have already been ganked by no "rich" child left behind and the military gets the contact data for all students in return for the funds they do get...so they can hussle the non-white inner city kids with lies and distorted promises. I believe there's other blackmails the government puts on public schools as threats to pull funding. It's nice the SF school districts stood up to their shit. I believe other big city school districts are doing it too.kr@cker wrote:
then i guess they don't want anymore federal money, huh?
Oh, and states provide the majority of school funding.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation … a06-09.cfm
"The previous study noted the significant difference between the national recruit high school graduation rate of 98 percent and the national youth graduation rate of 75 percent."
For the layman - The military's recruits are smarter than the rest of the population.
"In 2004, 92.1 percent of active-duty officer accessions held baccalaureate degrees or higher.[5] From 2000 to 2005, between 10 percent and 17 percent of active-duty officer accessions held advanced degrees, and between 35 percent and 45 percent of the active-duty officer corps held advanced degrees.[6] This indicates that officers continued their education during the course of their military service."
Care to look up the general population and get back to us?
Poll
Should they ban JROTC?
| Yes! It has no place in schools. | 13% | 13% - 18 | ||||
| No! They are banning a reasonable activity. | 54% | 54% - 72 | ||||
| What is JROTC??? | 31% | 31% - 41 | ||||
| Total: 131 | ||||||
Our goal is to take away as many proactive, constructive activities as possible so that way our friends to the far left can blame everyone else but themselves for their offsprings delinquent behavior. We need more theives and drug dealers out on the streets and we arent going to get them if they are in an honorable, self esteem building environment. Geez people, wake up. Thugs are people too.
Malloy must go
deez...what does what you just said have to do with San Francisco's school board banning jrotc in their schools?
Think about it. I was employing sarcasm. I am so disgusted with San Fran I have nothing to contribute but flamage, so I put that instead.IRONCHEF wrote:
deez...what does what you just said have to do with San Francisco's school board banning jrotc in their schools?
Malloy must go
P.S. the Niners suck too.
Malloy must go
JROTC looks good on college aps in the US. I did it and learned alot. And got my nose broken. Overall, its a good class for curriculum.
Recruiters on site I disagree with.
Recruiters on site I disagree with.
Well look at it this way, if you can.deeznutz1245 wrote:
Think about it. I was employing sarcasm. I am so disgusted with San Fran I have nothing to contribute but flamage, so I put that instead.IRONCHEF wrote:
deez...what does what you just said have to do with San Francisco's school board banning jrotc in their schools?
The US Military has access to all the school kids' contact data so they can recruit them actively. This is part of being a public school in return for funding. Fine. With the advent of the Iraq war, many have questioned the legitimacy of this practice since it seems predatory and many parents wish to protect their kids from the obvious bullshit lies they are told by recruiters filling quotas at any expense (I have a cousin who is a marine recruiter in Seattle...it's in his best interest to do what it takes to get warm bodies to sign on the line, he is told).
Still, fine. Our country still needs military regardless of the cause of our wars.
But what the problem is, is that unless you are dumb, San Francisco has a large gay/lesbian population...just like other big cities and little cities across the country, but no other cities are known for it as much as San Francisco. So now the crux...Gays and Military are not a good combination according to city council and school board members in San Francisco. And because of the "don't ask don't tell" policy the military employs, it puts SF decision makers in a delimna..."Stand up to this horrible, intolerant, and bogus practice by yanking military programs from schools? Or lay down and (excuse the pun) take it in the ass?"
San Francisco, pulled a popular, and productive program from their schools to serve a greater purpose..to tell the intolerant US Military that it's not ok to advertise their intolerance in San Francisco.
The question is not for non-San Franciscans to decide if it's right or wrong, or others who have NO IDEA why they did it to decide...it's up to that school board to risk tangling with kids and parents who love the program, and decide if it's best to send their message. I am guessing that the vote wasn't done in secret, that it didn't include public discourse, and since it's a phased withdrawal over two years, it seems as though that was a bargaining point made to honor current enrollees...this would suggest that it was discussed with parents and district residents. I haven't seen enough press to know for sure, but it's not like they just secretly pulled the plug on JROTC to screw over the kids.
Chef, it just hits a soft spot in me thats all. I have no evidence or links to provide, just emotion so dont consider it spam. Im just letting some out, thats all. I am a Marine and I love this country very much. I just think that sometimes people ( not you) have this anti military agenda and it hurts. Wanna know why? Some may look at a soldier and say he is willing to KILL for me and my freedom, and that either (A) bothers people or (B) humbles them. I just think what they really need to do is stop and think, that soldier is willing to DIE for me and my freedom. It doesnt matter how or why he/she became a soldier, it just matters that they are. I love each and every damn one of them so on a personal level it makes me proud when I see JROTC.
Malloy must go
By the way you write you obviously think Kerry was right saying all our troops are dumb and didn't do well in school. "Blue states (where the intelligent people live" Saying this like "no democrat will go for the army because we're smart and all that." Fact is, the military, in comparison to the general population is a lot smarter, has a lot more opportunities, and gets so much more done than the general public.IRONCHEF wrote:
Please tell me HOW what I said (that you have quoted) has ANYTHING to do with what you said. Seriously, you people have serious reading comprehension problems, or you're soooo driven by an agenda that you read something and get a totally different response than what was intended. I've reread what you've written twice and I'm completely lost.FederalRepublic wrote:
Do you really believe what you type?IRONCHEF wrote:
Yeah, cuz they get sooo much to begin with... Blue states (where the intelligent people live along the coasts where there's reality and an actual threat) have already been ganked by no "rich" child left behind and the military gets the contact data for all students in return for the funds they do get...so they can hussle the non-white inner city kids with lies and distorted promises. I believe there's other blackmails the government puts on public schools as threats to pull funding. It's nice the SF school districts stood up to their shit. I believe other big city school districts are doing it too.
Oh, and states provide the majority of school funding.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nation … a06-09.cfm
"The previous study noted the significant difference between the national recruit high school graduation rate of 98 percent and the national youth graduation rate of 75 percent."
For the layman - The military's recruits are smarter than the rest of the population.
"In 2004, 92.1 percent of active-duty officer accessions held baccalaureate degrees or higher.[5] From 2000 to 2005, between 10 percent and 17 percent of active-duty officer accessions held advanced degrees, and between 35 percent and 45 percent of the active-duty officer corps held advanced degrees.[6] This indicates that officers continued their education during the course of their military service."
Care to look up the general population and get back to us?
Also, if you were truly as smart as you think you are then you would have read the article and found "According to the 2004 Census ACS, 75.6 percent of the national adult population self-identifies as belonging to the racial category white alone. In both 2004 and 2005, 73.1 percent of recruits were classified as white alone."
That debunks your non-white statement too.
do what you wish, its just that everytime something controversial comes up, you seem to have "blame the government first" mentality. its just tiresome. everytime i see you post, you have a negative attitude. it just gets old.
and you spout off opinion like it is fact when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. for example,
"With the advent of the Iraq war, many have questioned the legitimacy of this practice since it seems predatory and many parents wish to protect their kids from the obvious bullshit lies they are told by recruiters filling quotas at any expense"
there's a difference between obvious bullshit lies and what recruiters tell prospective recruits. you can ask me ANY question you want and I'll tell you the complete and honest truth. And I can almost guarantee that its what a recruiter would tell you, with a few things left out. you're probably rolling your eyes right now at that last statement, but i can discuss it all day long if you want.
when a recruiter doesn't meet a quota, and yes there are quota's, nothing "bad" happens. they might receive a negative counseling statement or an ass chewing, but they aren't whipped and none of the recruits are EVER FORCED to sign the line. so tell your cousine not to worry. And, just to be clear, there is no "one bottom line" to sign on. The frickin' amount of forms you have to fill out and initial and everything are in the dozens if not cracking 100 pages.
as far as the ACTUAL military's (not JROTC) policy towards homosexuals, it basically reflects the similar policy of no women in direct-fire infantry jobs. the idea behind that (to my understanding) is that if a woman's life were in danger, the baser intinct of the man is to come to her rescue instead of focusing on the mission and therefore she becomes a liability to the mission and the other men around her. its based off instinct. conversely, if some homophobe had a homosexual in his squad and the gay person were to be caught in a life threatening situation, the homophobe would be LESS likely to help his gay squadmate out. so i find the policy very similar in that respect, just different means to it and its is less PC these days to exclude gays than women. weird huh?
and you spout off opinion like it is fact when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. for example,
"With the advent of the Iraq war, many have questioned the legitimacy of this practice since it seems predatory and many parents wish to protect their kids from the obvious bullshit lies they are told by recruiters filling quotas at any expense"
there's a difference between obvious bullshit lies and what recruiters tell prospective recruits. you can ask me ANY question you want and I'll tell you the complete and honest truth. And I can almost guarantee that its what a recruiter would tell you, with a few things left out. you're probably rolling your eyes right now at that last statement, but i can discuss it all day long if you want.
when a recruiter doesn't meet a quota, and yes there are quota's, nothing "bad" happens. they might receive a negative counseling statement or an ass chewing, but they aren't whipped and none of the recruits are EVER FORCED to sign the line. so tell your cousine not to worry. And, just to be clear, there is no "one bottom line" to sign on. The frickin' amount of forms you have to fill out and initial and everything are in the dozens if not cracking 100 pages.
as far as the ACTUAL military's (not JROTC) policy towards homosexuals, it basically reflects the similar policy of no women in direct-fire infantry jobs. the idea behind that (to my understanding) is that if a woman's life were in danger, the baser intinct of the man is to come to her rescue instead of focusing on the mission and therefore she becomes a liability to the mission and the other men around her. its based off instinct. conversely, if some homophobe had a homosexual in his squad and the gay person were to be caught in a life threatening situation, the homophobe would be LESS likely to help his gay squadmate out. so i find the policy very similar in that respect, just different means to it and its is less PC these days to exclude gays than women. weird huh?
Forgive me for the pride I take in being a member of the blue states. And I do think we're more intelligent than red state people....keeping in mind that you have the good people of oklahoma, arkansas, texas, kentucky, and mississippi in the red states! lol
And your reference to kerry had not crossed my mind..but Kerry is right in his assumption that if you are dumb you choose the military...i know i did. smart kids figure out how to get that money they need..dumb kids listen to lieing recruiters.
And yes, my blanket statement may be rude, but have you watched documentaries or programs that show interviews with soldiers? There's some stupid ass kids who can't carry a coherent conversation who are in charge of weapons of mass destruction. And in contrast, take a stroll down Telegraph Ave in Berekeley and interview some UC Berkeley kids. Then tell me there's no difference. And this isn't to say that ALL military personnel are idiots...some are probably among the brightest minds we have...Wes Clark is an example I can think of...some of my friends are exceptionally bright.
I guess my point is, military recruiters recruit from certain areas because they have greater success. Guess what those areas are?
And your reference to kerry had not crossed my mind..but Kerry is right in his assumption that if you are dumb you choose the military...i know i did. smart kids figure out how to get that money they need..dumb kids listen to lieing recruiters.
And yes, my blanket statement may be rude, but have you watched documentaries or programs that show interviews with soldiers? There's some stupid ass kids who can't carry a coherent conversation who are in charge of weapons of mass destruction. And in contrast, take a stroll down Telegraph Ave in Berekeley and interview some UC Berkeley kids. Then tell me there's no difference. And this isn't to say that ALL military personnel are idiots...some are probably among the brightest minds we have...Wes Clark is an example I can think of...some of my friends are exceptionally bright.
I guess my point is, military recruiters recruit from certain areas because they have greater success. Guess what those areas are?
I have lost any and all respect for you because of this post. You remind me of the guy on the south park episode, the one who lived in San Fransisco and smelled his own farts. Those "incoherent kids" of yours are willing to die for you and you sit here and shit on them. Fuck you.IRONCHEF wrote:
Forgive me for the pride I take in being a member of the blue states. And I do think we're more intelligent than red state people....keeping in mind that you have the good people of oklahoma, arkansas, texas, kentucky, and mississippi in the red states! lol
And your reference to kerry had not crossed my mind..but Kerry is right in his assumption that if you are dumb you choose the military...i know i did. smart kids figure out how to get that money they need..dumb kids listen to lieing recruiters.
And yes, my blanket statement may be rude, but have you watched documentaries or programs that show interviews with soldiers? There's some stupid ass kids who can't carry a coherent conversation who are in charge of weapons of mass destruction. And in contrast, take a stroll down Telegraph Ave in Berekeley and interview some UC Berkeley kids. Then tell me there's no difference. And this isn't to say that ALL military personnel are idiots...some are probably among the brightest minds we have...Wes Clark is an example I can think of...some of my friends are exceptionally bright.
I guess my point is, military recruiters recruit from certain areas because they have greater success. Guess what those areas are?
Malloy must go
Well, first, thank you for writing something. Second, how am I supposed to support my opinion with anything other than writing it? Is not my personal experience all I need to state my opinion?batman_psu wrote:
do what you wish, its just that everytime something controversial comes up, you seem to have "blame the government first" mentality. its just tiresome. everytime i see you post, you have a negative attitude. it just gets old.
and you spout off opinion like it is fact when you don't have a clue what you're talking about. for example,
"With the advent of the Iraq war, many have questioned the legitimacy of this practice since it seems predatory and many parents wish to protect their kids from the obvious bullshit lies they are told by recruiters filling quotas at any expense"
there's a difference between obvious bullshit lies and what recruiters tell prospective recruits. you can ask me ANY question you want and I'll tell you the complete and honest truth. And I can almost guarantee that its what a recruiter would tell you, with a few things left out. you're probably rolling your eyes right now at that last statement, but i can discuss it all day long if you want.
when a recruiter doesn't meet a quota, and yes there are quota's, nothing "bad" happens. they might receive a negative counseling statement or an ass chewing, but they aren't whipped and none of the recruits are EVER FORCED to sign the line. so tell your cousine not to worry. And, just to be clear, there is no "one bottom line" to sign on. The frickin' amount of forms you have to fill out and initial and everything are in the dozens if not cracking 100 pages.
as far as the ACTUAL military's (not JROTC) policy towards homosexuals, it basically reflects the similar policy of no women in direct-fire infantry jobs. the idea behind that (to my understanding) is that if a woman's life were in danger, the baser intinct of the man is to come to her rescue instead of focusing on the mission and therefore she becomes a liability to the mission and the other men around her. its based off instinct. conversely, if some homophobe had a homosexual in his squad and the gay person were to be caught in a life threatening situation, the homophobe would be LESS likely to help his gay squadmate out. so i find the policy very similar in that respect, just different means to it and its is less PC these days to exclude gays than women. weird huh?
"With the advent of the Iraq war, many have questioned the legitimacy of this practice since it seems predatory and many parents wish to protect their kids from the obvious bullshit lies they are told by recruiters filling quotas at any expense"
What factual support is needed to make this opinion legitimate? None. It is my opinion, and it is actually 100% true. Why is it true? Because I said "many" instead of giving a non-supported number or percentage. And what qualifies as many? More than one and less than all.
And guess what, I have a personal experience of having been LIED to plenty as a 17 and 18 year old by every branch of the military as they told me shit that I later found to be untrue. I still enlisted because I wanted to, but they still lied. And for what it's worth, 6 years ago, I talked with an army national guard recruiter because I wanted to join. I asked if they'd let me in even if I had controlled psoriasis, they lied and said I could. I also asked if I could be guaranteed that I'd not be called up to serve overseas and they lied and said I could be guaranteed thus.
I also have a very successful marine recruiter cousin who recruited in San Diego, Portland Oregon, and currently in Seattle Washington. He will gladly support my claims and dispute yours.
that should cover me needing to qualify my remarks.
Last edited by IRONCHEF (2006-11-16 12:04:47)
so did you report to basic training with psoriasis and then were released because of it?
and did you join the national guard with a no-deployment guarantee and then made to deploy?
im trying to understand how you came to understand that you were lied to.
and did you join the national guard with a no-deployment guarantee and then made to deploy?
im trying to understand how you came to understand that you were lied to.
lol, damn! how is it soooo hard to see the message I'm trying to get across????deeznutz1245 wrote:
I have lost any and all respect for you because of this post. You remind me of the guy on the south park episode, the one who lived in San Fransisco and smelled his own farts. Those "incoherent kids" of yours are willing to die for you and you sit here and shit on them. Fuck you.IRONCHEF wrote:
Forgive me for the pride I take in being a member of the blue states. And I do think we're more intelligent than red state people....keeping in mind that you have the good people of oklahoma, arkansas, texas, kentucky, and mississippi in the red states! lol
And your reference to kerry had not crossed my mind..but Kerry is right in his assumption that if you are dumb you choose the military...i know i did. smart kids figure out how to get that money they need..dumb kids listen to lieing recruiters.
And yes, my blanket statement may be rude, but have you watched documentaries or programs that show interviews with soldiers? There's some stupid ass kids who can't carry a coherent conversation who are in charge of weapons of mass destruction. And in contrast, take a stroll down Telegraph Ave in Berekeley and interview some UC Berkeley kids. Then tell me there's no difference. And this isn't to say that ALL military personnel are idiots...some are probably among the brightest minds we have...Wes Clark is an example I can think of...some of my friends are exceptionally bright.
I guess my point is, military recruiters recruit from certain areas because they have greater success. Guess what those areas are?
You read my words, and because of a preconceived notion that I'm somehow ANTI-AMERICAN or ANTI-MILITARY that I deserve only one response...hate and insults!! Does it make me anti-[whatever] because my opinions are blunt, even though they don't say i actually honor the members of the us military? Did I not pay my hommage on veterans day confessing my reverence for the us military? Daaaaaaumn!
I think some of you need a chill. And for what it's worth, did you see me lumping myself in with the "dumb kids" that enlisted? And is it not true that people without job prospects or university appeal often join the military? Ask 100 new privates why they joined...i guarantee you 80% or more will say they did it for the money, the training, the discipline..etc, etc... And if you ask them if they thought their recruiter was honest with them, you'll probably get a 50%/50% ration on that.
But nevermind, i'll just respect your sensitivities from here on. I've made my point. It's up to SF administrators to decide the fate of the jrotc programs in schools. I don't envy the decision making process they had being a very tough one I'll bet. And regardless of opinions against my words and aside of any rude comments I made, I do hold my country's military in high regards because they have offered freely to protect my family and I and my country's constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. And I do fault my leaders, both democrat and repbulican for the poor quality service they perform that does not meet the demands of their constituents. I'll also add my sincere apologies for those taken by my abrupt comments.
Well, if I remember correctly, when I talked to nat'l guard recruiters 6 years ago, i got conflicting information between a phone conversation and one in person at their office regarding psoriasis. I researched and found data that said pointed towards acceptance based on psoriasis, then the recruiter told me in person that he knows service members with it and eluded to the idea that if they don't know, they won't boot you. But on the phone, he had said it was not an issue. My dad, having put in 16 years in the us army had similar issues because the refusal of enlistees with psoriasis started during his career. Somehow this kept him from getting a commission making him a highly passed-over SGM. He also felt it was because he was filippino, but that's a different story.batman_psu wrote:
so did you report to basic training with psoriasis and then were released because of it?
and did you join the national guard with a no-deployment guarantee and then made to deploy?
im trying to understand how you came to understand that you were lied to.
As for the stateside guarantee, first off, it was my intention to join the guard if I could be stateside only because i am supporting my family on my income alone and would be guaranteed it even if deployed (state/federal laws and my lawfirm would match my full salary for several weeks). He said i could easily be kept from being deployed internationally even if I wasn't the sole income provider for my family. This was what made me know he was lieing to me because I found out later from a different recruiter that it was an impossibility to guarantee such a thing. And as we've seen with Bush, no family's condition or guarantee is sacred..he'll put you on the front line to die.
Anyway, it's quite hard to remember specifics. And suffice it to say, I was thorough in coming to this conclusion of being lied to and it's been backed up as recent programming I've seen on this topic show it as a pattern.
i completed my basic training in 1990, and was questioned about a 1" patch of psoriasis I had on my thigh. it took about 3 days before I was back home discharged.
SF School Board can do what they want. Why not take away another tool that will help children get ahead. One program that canhelp kids with no other real choice because of poverty, and they decide to take it away.
Better get some more "Care not Cash" applications ready for the kids that would've made something of themselves but can't now because they decided their politics were more important than the future of the children they want to "educate". Or indoctrinate, however you look at it. Ban the JROTC, and make them join the GLT coalition.
Can't have boys learning how to grow up to be masculine men now, can we? Teach them to wear dresses and embrace their feminie side.
Edit for spelling.
Better get some more "Care not Cash" applications ready for the kids that would've made something of themselves but can't now because they decided their politics were more important than the future of the children they want to "educate". Or indoctrinate, however you look at it. Ban the JROTC, and make them join the GLT coalition.
Can't have boys learning how to grow up to be masculine men now, can we? Teach them to wear dresses and embrace their feminie side.
Edit for spelling.
Last edited by Erkut.hv (2006-11-16 13:13:11)
It is not a good idea to compare present day enlistment standards with those of pre 1991. The rules change every few years and many are frequently waived during time of war (a congressman can do almost anything). There are good reasons for various medicial conditions preventing enlistment or comissioning, good reasons for both the military and the individual. Also it is possible to be in the military and contract a medical condition and not be discharged, that condition may be a bar to enlistment but not an automatic separation.IRONCHEF wrote:
Well, if I remember correctly, when I talked to nat'l guard recruiters 6 years ago, i got conflicting information between a phone conversation and one in person at their office regarding psoriasis. I researched and found data that said pointed towards acceptance based on psoriasis, then the recruiter told me in person that he knows service members with it and eluded to the idea that if they don't know, they won't boot you. But on the phone, he had said it was not an issue. My dad, having put in 16 years in the us army had similar issues because the refusal of enlistees with psoriasis started during his career. Somehow this kept him from getting a commission making him a highly passed-over SGM. He also felt it was because he was filippino, but that's a different story.batman_psu wrote:
so did you report to basic training with psoriasis and then were released because of it?
and did you join the national guard with a no-deployment guarantee and then made to deploy?
im trying to understand how you came to understand that you were lied to.
As for the stateside guarantee, first off, it was my intention to join the guard if I could be stateside only because i am supporting my family on my income alone and would be guaranteed it even if deployed (state/federal laws and my lawfirm would match my full salary for several weeks). He said i could easily be kept from being deployed internationally even if I wasn't the sole income provider for my family. This was what made me know he was lieing to me because I found out later from a different recruiter that it was an impossibility to guarantee such a thing. And as we've seen with Bush, no family's condition or guarantee is sacred..he'll put you on the front line to die.
Anyway, it's quite hard to remember specifics. And suffice it to say, I was thorough in coming to this conclusion of being lied to and it's been backed up as recent programming I've seen on this topic show it as a pattern.
i completed my basic training in 1990, and was questioned about a 1" patch of psoriasis I had on my thigh. it took about 3 days before I was back home discharged.
It is also not a good idea to trust a recruiter, lol, nobody can promise 100% a soldier will not be deloyed over seas, however if you are in the National Guard generally your entire Unit must be activated. Then they can do what they want with you. Bottom line if you don't want to be in harms way no problem but don't join the service. Law Firm? If you are a lawyer or other sort of professional you may be able to get stateside "guaranteed" assignments or at least non-combat area assignments. Not because you don't want to go but because they don't need you there lol
As for your Dad, I hope it wasn't anything to do with is race/ethnicity etc. that would suck. I sat on many, over a hundred, commissioning boards before 1993 and I never saw nor heard of race being an issue in our area. But medical and other factors were considered often.
If you actually took time to explain what it was, you wouldn't need the third option and then you could get some valid opinions...
he's only calling people stupid for being different than him, how can you all possibly be taking it as an insult?
His hypocrisy was pointed out and he didn't like it. ; )kr@cker wrote:
he's only calling people stupid for being different than him, how can you all possibly be taking it as an insult?
I'm also in JROTC, for the Navy. It is a good activity and shouldn't be banned. If, for some retarded made-up reason, you think it's anti-homo, just don't do it. Nobody's forcing you to do it (unless you're a discipline problem, lol).
I want to sign up in JROTC.
then ban all recruiters from campus. private and public sector.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Recruiters on site I disagree with.
We did. That was a ballot measure that passed last year.smtt686 wrote:
then ban all recruiters from campus. private and public sector.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Recruiters on site I disagree with.