back to article Ladies in tech, have you considered not letting us know you're female?

It's one of the most pervasive problems in tech: ingrained sexism that sees women looked over for promotion or often not given a job in the first place. Fortunately, someone has arrived at the perfect solution and this time it's someone worth listening to: an old rich white guy. John Greathouse is a California-based venture …

Page:

  1. Crazy Operations Guy

    Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

    "Nothing is my problem, it's everyone else's."

    1. itzman

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      "All my problems are down to my being unfairly oppressed".

    2. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      Tomfoolery aside, in my experience anybody with any sense recruits based on the substance of the resume and your conduct at interview. If there are dinosaurs out there using other methods you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

      1. Pompous Git Silver badge

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        in my experience anybody with any sense recruits based on the substance of the resume and your conduct at interview. If there are dinosaurs out there using other methods you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

        Call me a dinosaur then. Some years ago interviewed several women for a position and only one really stood out. Presented well. Knew all the right words and even managed to get them all in the right order. Owner of the business wanted to hire her on the spot and I urged caution until we had talked to her referees. All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again.

        1. tskears

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          >> All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again.

          So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system.

          Oh... that's right, Men don't play the system. They're all totally honest and upstanding, and you know that when you hire them you'll receive twelve hours work for eight hours pay.

          >> Call me a dinosaur then.

          You're a dinosaur.

          1. Kurt Meyer

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            @ tskears

            The Pompous Git said: "All her referees said they would never rehire the lazy bitch again."

            That is one applicant.

            You said: "So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system."

            That is an entire gender.

            One person /= an entire gender.

            That's called putting words into someone's mouth. It is a common tactic of the imbecilic, when they have no argument to refute a statement.

            Oh... that's right, you're not interested in reason, or logic, you're fighting against oppression.

            What do you do for a living when you're not posting fuckwitted nonsense on the Reg?

            I ask because I want to make sure that whatever organization would employ someone so berift of basic intelligence as you seem to be, never receives any of my time or money.

          2. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            So the entire female gender is condemned because this one example had learned how to play the system.

            Are you mad? I said nothing about the entire female gender. [Feminine is a gender BTW and female is a sex]. She had manifestly not learnt how to play the system. Had she done so, then her referees would have been friends set up to verify she was all she claimed to be. They weren't. They were genuine ex-employers who had been burned when they employed her. Clearly she either thought we wouldn't contact her referees, or so delusional that she had done a perfect job before being sacked for laziness/incompetence.

            More than happy being a dinosaur; some people dig my bones ;-)

          3. Terrance Brennan

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            I don't believe his intent was to say all female applicants were horrible. I believe he was saying you needed to look at other factors than just the CV and interview. Checking references can provide good information on any and all applicants, not just female ones.

            Anyone who ignores an applicant based on their own prejudices is going to miss out on good people. Anyone who ignores the fact than any and all classes of applicants can contain some wankers is going to hire some crap people.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          This doesn't ring true.

          1) most references are curated by the candidate and thus they don't use negative ones

          2) it isn't strictly legal to torpedo someone's chances that highly. It's why 'no comment' is pretty damaging.

          Yes, a reference can tip you off, but not in the terms you put. At best I think you're grossly inflating it.

          Plus, I should mention... If most of the other candidates were women, then why didn't you hire one of the runners up who DID check out?

          1. Kurt Meyer

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            @ DrLifecandy

            "Plus, I should mention... If most of the other candidates were women, then why didn't you hire one of the runners up who DID check out?"

            How do you know he didn't? Why do you make that assumption based on no visible evidence?

            The Pompous Git tells the story of one applicant, who wasn't hired. That's it, that is his entire post

            Why do you, and others, feel the need to extrapolate your own outcomes onto his post? You are making a guess, which says more about your own bias than anything else.

            Christ, this entire thread might be entitled "Logic and Reason's Excellent Adventure."

          2. Pompous Git Silver badge

            @ drlifecandy Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            This doesn't ring true.

            1) most references are curated by the candidate and thus they don't use negative ones

            2) it isn't strictly legal to torpedo someone's chances that highly. It's why 'no comment' is pretty damaging.

            You seem to lack comprehension skills. I wrote referees, not references. A reference can be quite easily cobbled together by the applicant and I make no doubt many are. What an applicant cannot do is be the person at the other end of the telephone answering my questions.

            If it's illegal to contradict a job applicant's claims these days then I'm truly glad that I'm retired.

            All of the other applicants were women. It's very rare for blokes to apply for a job as a receptionist regardless of the other duties required in the provided example. And of course we hired one of those other women. Just how fucking stupid do you think we were?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        in my experience anybody with any sense recruits based on the substance of the resume and your conduct at interview. If there are dinosaurs out there using other methods you probably don't want to work for them anyway.

        Then you're possibly as arrogant and/or ignorant as the article author. Even the most enlightened and liberal of us, no matter how much they may deny it, have subconscious biases of one form or another, whether it be against women, indians, gays, veterans, vegans, white men, etc. The only way to be truly fair, is to not give your unconscious brain a chance to activate its prejudices - a blind audition.

        1. 45RPM Silver badge

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          @AC "The only way to be truly fair, is to not give your unconscious brain a chance to activate its prejudices - a blind audition."

          I don't necessarily disagree - but then you have to mandate that all CVs are purged of anything which gives away the authors sex (regardless of what sex, religion, nationality, sexuality the author is). Little things like Name, Educational History, Hobbies could be a giveaway, and perhaps even the Address might provide a hint. It's not a bad idea, per se, but I don't think that its workable - at least, not without rendering the CV (an important first step before interview) essentially useless.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            "It's not a bad idea, per se, but I don't think that its workable"

            You don't use CV's, you use application forms and separate the personal details from the qualifications and experience sections. Scoring is therefor blind, and while skills and education ight drop hints (someone going to a girls college is most likely to be a girl, after all), as it's the grade that's marked, and marking is reviewed by sample, you can get into a lot of trouble if you're not being fair.

            This system has worked for us for near 20 years.

            At interview: That's a different matter. However, even there we have an approach that's fairly open and equal: Three interviewers, one of whom is from HR and scoring is done against pre selected questions. Technical tests are marked blind (candidate number only) to ensure no bias there.

            AKA if you apply yourself, you can make it work.

        2. Terrance Brennan

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          Bullshit! I do not doubt many people who hire are biased and let that affect their decisions; but, don't give me that bullshit that no one can overcome their built-in bias. I have been involved in hiring and have always looked at all applicants from the view of having to rely on them and their work; not, who would I like to go to the members only club with (even if I had been a member of any club other than flunkies united). Is this person going to make my job harder or easier. Will their performance make my hiring decision look good or daft? The best hire I ever made was a female engineer who was selected over several male applicants based on her resume and interview performance. Once hired she proved me right and did great work with minimal supervision. Intelligent people separate their personal feelings from work decisions. I do not have to like anyone I work with or for, or who works for me; we all just have to do our jobs in a professional manner and carry our own weight. Get on with the program.

          The point of this rant is not that there is not bias in hiring; but, that it is not inevitable.

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

            but, don't give me that bullshit that no one can overcome their built-in bias.

            So I'm told, but I have trouble with that concept. Another word for "bias" is "discrimination"; that is you make a choice in favour, or against certain things. Personally, I have always discriminated against men , inanimate objects, jellyfish etc when it comes to having sex. I have only ever been turned on by women. Though there was a particularly attractive vacuum cleaner in a catalogue once...

        3. Elf

          Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

          *Raises Hand* I have lived on the West Coast of America most of my life an thus I am tolerant of most cultures, colors, sexual orientations, political backgrounds &c. ... and I freely admit to hating Vegans.

      3. Evil Auditor Silver badge

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        @MyffyW

        I guess then that your recruitment decisions are taken by some sort of machine without human intervention in the decision-making process? No? Then it's just as prone to bias as the dinosaurs have been doing all along.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      "Nothing is my problem, it's everyone else's."

      In this case, it's your fault for being a woman, not his fault for being an insensitive idiot who cannot get the blood to the right brain as soon as he identifies "hmmm, woman". Fool. It reminds me of this saying that it's better to be a fool in silence than to open your mouth and confirm it.

      What will it take for people to realise what I've known for years: diversity is actually beneficial? It's not just gender, by the way, there's race, skin, hair colour, dress sense, background - provided you have a management style that can turn the inevitable sparks into something positive it's almost causing shareholder harm if you don't actively set out to get mixed teams. The only thing they must share is dedication and enthusiasm for whatever they need to do, and that is explicitly the job of leadership. Yes, LEADERSHIP, not management. You manage kit, you lead people.

      Anyway, Guinness :)

      1. Tom Paine

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        I recently departed from a very large global American banks. One of the ones you'd have heard of, The effort put into diversity, with internal support groups for women, BME and LGBT staff was really significant; it was a management appraisal criteria, an d senior management spent a lot of time takling about it. It wasn't just talk. Pretty sure the others take similar attitude. You can see for yourself if you take a trip to Canary Wharf and lig about Canada Place people watching for a while. Now whatever else global megabanks are, warm-hearted charitable organisations ain't one of them They do stuff like that out of self-interest. Having people from many different backgrounds contributing to teams and decision making helps to reduce groupthink and improves the quality of decision making. Which is handy, as it's the morally right thing to do, as well.

        1. CAPS LOCK

          "a very large global American bank"

          Hmm, I'd be wary of asserting that because banks do it it must be right. After all banks don't have a prefect track record in decision making. In fact I would go as far as to say that they are robber barons.

      2. Elf
        Pint

        Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

        This man's Guinness is on my tab, bartender.

    4. a_yank_lurker

      Re: Typical attitude from the unoppressed...

      Anyone who has any sense tries to recruit the best available person regardless of whatever. If you do not you end up with at best some marginally competent drones run by the dimmest of PHBs. That is a recipe for disaster.

  2. Fan of Mr. Obvious
    Facepalm

    TMI

    The quotes would have been interpreted much differently if I did not have an image of John being a rich, white, egotistical, man. Feels like I cannot un-see him.

  3. tfewster
    Thumb Up

    I haven't read the full article (paywall), but the extract sounded quite reasonable, even with the sarky comments from El Reg. Present a professional image, and you'll be treated as a professional. Post a "duckface" photo on LinkedIn and expect derision. (Yes, my profile photo shows my Movember 'tach, so I'm clearly not professional either). If you're going to stress your differences, make sure you explain how that difference brings benefits to $POTENTIAL_EMPLOYER

    I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind - if you can do the job, you get my respect. If not, excuses about it being harder for a woman or a black man in a white mans world don't go very far.

    Thumbs up for Jo, Sam, Wil, Nic and a number of other women I've worked with. Including the awesome Diane, who can beat most men in most fields.

    1. Trilkhai

      Did you read the article? He recommended obliterating all signs that the person is female — using initials if the woman has a feminine name, not having any photos online, and so forth. There's a huge gap between "don't look like an unprofessional hoochie-coochie girl" and "don't show any signs you're female."

      1. JLV

        I read the article on two levels, despite El Reg doing its best to make the guy sound like an ass.

        1) his suggestions are a bit daft and frankly condescending. You shouldn't have to un-gender yourself to work in IT - you should just be good at it.

        2) but they also seem like they came from someone who did perceive a wrong and was making suggestions. For example, the classical musician blind testing - which I had heard of - it was probably very suitable for that field.

        Take github - would it make sense to stick to gender-neutral moniker? The original article may make you think about that strategy, whether you choose to do so or reject it. Could small adjustments to job sites help?

        His contribution is a data point, no more, no less. For all the righteous self-back patting from all the enlightened commentards who would never ever discriminate, we still do seem to have a diversity problem. Its causes are complex and not easy to solve and it seems churlish to me to burn the guy at the stake just for opening his mouth with what seems like a well-intentioned but awkwardly presented suggestion.

        Ladies, if you bristle at his "hide yourself " suggestion - I agree with you. But there might still be some insights to glean.

    2. Colin Millar
      FAIL

      "If you're going to stress your differences"

      Er - being a woman, being black, being disabled - somehow it is stressing your differences by merely presenting yourself as you are? Of course if all these people would just refrain from making such weird lifestyle choices instead of being the default white male hetero we could all go and happily live in a Fritz Lang nightmare.

      1. Steven Roper

        "If you're going to stress your differences"

        As an employer, I'm not interested in your sexual or ethnic differences. I'm not employing you because you're white or black or female or genderqueer, I'm employing you because I want someone who can read and write PHP, Perl, Python, Java and Javascript, or someone who can use Photoshop, InDesign, Scribus or Gimp. Where your ancestry originates or how you use your bedgear simply isn't germaine to these requirements.

        In fact, if you go to lengths to indicate your differences, I'm less likely to consider you, not because of racism or sexism or homophobia, but because your pointing out these differences suggests to me that you're a special snowflake, who plays the victim card when things don't go your way and are likely to cause problems within my team the moment someone slips up in their speech to the slightest degree. I don't need my cohesive and cheerful team constantly tiptoeing on eggshells wondering if an "outdated" word or "microaggressive" look is going to cost them their job.

        On the other hand, if your CV simply illustrates your skill set and what your worth is to my team then you'll get an interview, and if you turn out on the day to be an Aboriginal or woman or whatever it won't affect my decision to employ you one bit - if your skills are the best out of the applicants and you come across as fairly easygoing and relatable to my team, you'll get the job, end of.

        Finally, if I see gender studies or sociology on your CV, it goes straight in the bin and you don't even get a phone call, much less an interview. People who study these subjects are almost universally SJWs, and the worst ones are the white males out to virtue-signal their support for political correctness. I don't need toxic gender/race politics destabilising my team and destroying my productivity, thank you very much.

        1. craigb

          "the worst ones are the white males out to virtue-signal their support for political correctness"

          Perfectly said.

          Can I forward my CV as you sound like the sort of PHB I would want to work for.

        2. Pompous Git Silver badge

          I don't need my cohesive and cheerful team constantly tiptoeing on eggshells wondering if an "outdated" word or "microaggressive" look is going to cost them their job.

          ... if your skills are the best out of the applicants and you come across as fairly easygoing and relatable to my team, you'll get the job, end of.

          Precisely. You can even be lacking some technical skills (teachable stuff) and still get the job if you seem like you want to work and get on well with everyone else.

          Finally, if I see gender studies or sociology on your CV, it goes straight in the bin and you don't even get a phone call, much less an interview.

          When you have 3-400 applicants for one position, you're always looking for a reason to reject applicants so there's a manageable number at the interview stage.

          1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge

            Precisely. You can even be lacking some technical skills (teachable stuff) and still get the job if you seem like you want to work and get on well with everyone else.

            Exactly. Skills are easier to fix than attitude.

        3. 45RPM Silver badge

          @Steven Roper

          Well said that man. And perfectly good reasons for trimming down the CV count too (well, if too many CVs come in then it's impractical to give them all an equal amount of attention). Other causes for filing in the round shiny cabinet of infinite capacity (as long as it's emptied every day) are hobbies which include religious activities, frequent misspellings and claiming to be an expert 'in Microsoft' (Microsoft what!?) but laying out the CV using spaces and tabs rather than the layout tools provided.</rant>

          1. Pompous Git Silver badge

            @45RPM Don't know why that got downvoted but have an upvote from me!

          2. Tom Paine

            >Other causes for filing in the round shiny cabinet of infinite capacity (as long as it's emptied every day)

            >are hobbies which include religious activities,

            >

            So you illegally discriminate on religious grounds? Interesting. Where do you work, again?

          3. Dr Stephen Jones

            @45RPM

            So demonstrating your lack of gender bigotry by demonstrating religious bigotry.

            Well done.

            1. 45RPM Silver badge

              @Dr Stephen Jones

              Damn straight. But I’m including ‘Atheism’ as a pseudo-religion here too. In my experience, and I accept that others may have had more positive experiences, anyone who feels that they need to mention their belief system is likely to be inclined to try to ram it down your throat. And that could be disruptive to the team dynamic - whether the system that they’re trying to ram is Christian, Atheism, Judaism, Islam - whatever. I’m delighted for an applicant to be one of those things, and I might even be happy to discuss (politely) over a beer / tea / coke whatever - but I’m not happy for it to be such a defining feature of their character that they feel it merits mention above less divisive interests such as cycling / tennis / painting / football / writing poetry / playing in a band etc.

              Similarly, I wouldn’t be very interested in someone who puts their politics or sexual preferences front and centre. I mean, we all have a belief system / political viewpoint / sexual preference - but that doesn’t mean we should be sharing them freely in a work context.

            2. tiggity Silver badge

              Gender is something people cannot choose (albeit these days various medical treatments can make apparent gender appear different)

              As for religion, although many people indoctrinated from an early age (with obvious implications e.g. classic Jesuits quote) it is an optional belief set, not something "forced on you" by genetics (though obviously family / community pressures can massively reinforce such beliefs - I speak as someone who was brought up with a particular religion heavily promoted by all family members).

              If you are interviewing for a position where objective analysis of data is required then strong religious beliefs in a candidate would be a sign that candidate is happy to belive in something for which there is no evidence and thus may be seen as an indicator of unsuitability for the post.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Amen!

          Thank you Steven, you show that there are still rational managers out there, and I would be more than happy to work for you with the work environment you have established! =)

        5. Don Dumb
          Facepalm

          @Steven Roper - "I see gender studies or sociology on your CV, it goes straight in the bin and you don't even get a phone call, much less an interview. People who study these subjects are almost universally SJWs,"

          Citation Please......

          1. Tom Paine

            He don't need no stinkin' evidence, he's got his common sense, dammit!

            Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME.

              It may be a tad too generic, but I must admit I agree with that one. Overall you have two types of people: those who put in some effort to fit in, even if they don't have the easiest of personality, and those who are constantly seeking for the next reason to be annoyed/upset or otherwise disturb the team spirit and atmosphere you need to have to make not only people productive but also reasonably happy at their place of work.

              I am happy for people to speak their minds (as a matter of fact, I actively encourage sensible, work focused debate to the point of occasionally taking an adversarial position myself) but people whose main interest is finding something to argue/fight/moan/preach about are unwelcome and are in the main unlikely to be offered a permanent position.

              Come to think of it, it should make for a lovely, Monty Python-alike sketch getting a few of those types together..

              1. Steven Roper

                "Come to think of it, it should make for a lovely, Monty Python-alike sketch getting a few of those types together.."

                Go onto Youtube and look up "trigglypuff" if you haven't seen it already. You've got a university lecture hall with a moderate feminist, a right-leaning gay man, a rabid SJW in the audience and a bunch of MRAs all in one place. Don't forget the popcorn!

            2. Steven Roper

              "Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME."

              As does using words that end in "-ist" and "-phobic" followed by "bigot" to describe anyone who doesn't share one's mindset, in mine.

            3. Dr Stephen Jones

              @Tom Paine

              "Using the expression "SJW" pretty much signals "I'm a dick" IME."

              SJW is a derisory term for the self-righteous, smug and intolerant personalities who attach themselves to some Left Wing political causes. Tom Lehrer wrote a song about them. Look it up.

              I suspect you hate the phrase SJW because it's a truthful and accurate description of your personality, too.

              This is just a wild guess based purely on intuition... and on your posting history.

        6. Tom Paine

          As an employer, I'm not interested in your sexual or ethnic differences

          You're mugging yourself then.

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/25/meritocracy_is_bad_it_leads_to_massive_entrenched_inequality.html

          1. Steven Roper

            "You're mugging yourself then. ...meritocracy_is_bad_it_leads_to_massive_entrenched_inequality.html"

            Ok, let's rock.

            If I understand that article correctly, its argument is based on equating establishing equality with the provision of charity. I fail to see how the end result of that is "mugging myself." Not only that, I find this whole premise problematic - to borrow one of your lot's buzzwords - on several fronts.

            First of all, equality of opportunity is not equality of outcome. I believe in equality of opportunity; the principle that every one deserves a fair go, and a helping hand on an individual basis if they're struggling, but how they use that to help themselves or not is up to them. On the other hand, equality of outcome is not only unjust in increasing the burden on those who do help themselves, it is patronising and demeaning to the very "minorities" you are claiming to support, because by giving them a "leg up" based on their putative lack of privilege, you are saying they aren't capable of making the grade on their own. It's like setting quotas for women in STEM overriding the required qualifications: doing that is tantamount to stating that women aren't as smart as men, so the entry requirements for them should be lowered so the poor dumb bimboes can get in and make up the numbers. If that in itself isn't sexism and misogyny, what is?

            And before you try to call out that last argument as a strawman, consider this: If a specific number of positions have to be set aside in a given field for women and/or blacks, and the entry requirements do remain constant, if the number of female or black applicants is less than the number of places set aside for them, one of three possible things has to happen: 1) those places remain vacant (unlikely because that's a waste of institute resources); 2) those places are filled by whites and/or males (which denies the quota altogether); and 3) women and blacks whose qualifications don't meet the entry requirements are now considered for those places (vis a vis my original argument.)

            Second, the article talks about the fact that we help blind people and amputees because they need help, despite their lack of "merit" in seeing or walking. But this is false equivalence. Being blind or crippled is a genuine setback, and organisations exist to provide the assistance these people need to participate in society - organisations I'm more than happy to support, I might add. But being female or black or gay isn't such an impediment; to imply that it is, is to engage in the very sexism and racism you people claim so desperately to want eliminated. If you want people to treat everyone as human beings, you first need to stop telegraphing the arbitrary labels and differences you use to separate everyone into "victim" and "oppressor" groups.

            Third, all this PC puff about gender and race privilege and inequality is really a divide-and-conquer distraction implemented by the ruling classes to keep everyone from focusing on the only real cause of privilege: wealth and class. People don't give you favours and preferential treatment because you're white and/or male; they give them to you because you're rich and powerful. A wealthy and powerful black woman like Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg packs a damn sight more privilege than the drunken white male derro sitting sacked-out in the gutter. The main reason all this gender/race politics has been accelerated in recent years, probably has much to do with popular uprisings like the Occupy movement coming very close to exposing the massive and ever-increasing wealth gap dividing our society. That's your privilege, right there. Notice how the Occupy movement started out being about the "99% and the 1%", before it became inundated by feminists, gay rights activists, black rights protestors, and the like, which shattered it? Perfect divide and conquer.

            So what you people don't realise when you push this gender/race privilege stuff is that you're playing right into the hands of the ruling class, distracting and disunifying the masses from addressing wealth inequality, which affects everyone regardless of gender or race.

            Finally, let's get back to why my employing people on merit isn't mugging myself: I'm not running a charity. I support certain charities, yes, but my business isn't one, and as it stands, can't afford to be one. I'm not in the business of virtue-signalling for diversity, I'm in the business of developing web applications, publishing and marketing solutions for small to medium enterprises. Employing Aboriginal genderqueer women with no training or experience doesn't make my business any money; employing human beings, of whatever "kind," capable of maintaining web applications and designing brochures and books does. Then I can use some of that money to help out people who need help.

            Mugging myself would be employing a load of deadweight for appearances and quotas over people who can actually do the jobs I need done.

        7. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          I'm afraid I discriminate against Java

          There, I wrote it.

          AC because of the over-engineered, strongly typed, statically bound, verbose hate mail I'd otherwise receive.

      2. Mr Dogshit

        Hey!

        Leave Fritz Lang out of this.

    3. Rich 11

      I truly believe I'm colour and gender blind

      I have no doubt that you do believe that. But does your belief match reality?

      Claiming an absolute in a subjective area is a fairly clear warning signal.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon