On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:03:44 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 22:12:08 -0400, HarryKrause
wrote:

Jack Goff wrote:
?
I have hired a guy that is not well spoken, but is *very* intelligent,
and is one of our top performers. We have another that is not
visually pleasing, but is very effective at his job.

You're not too "well-spoken" yourself, bubba. Check the proper usage of
"that" and "who."

I'm an engineer, not a writer. I know the usage, and would have
caught it on a careful proofread. This NG is not that important.

I have a couple of simple tests for the few people I hire from time to
time and for the writers I help clients hire.

Your "test" may work for writers, but that's about it. It's no
definitive indication of anything, and gives you but a cursory glance
at their reading, speaking, and writing abilities. Again, no real
indication of actual intelligence, reasoning ability, etc.

Maybe you can dodge reality and point out another typo or grammar rule
I violated?


I only pointed it out because you made an issue about being "well-spoken."

Negative. I pointed out that one does not need to be well spoken in
order to be intelligent, or proficient at a job. You guys are the
ones that seem to be fixated on being well spoken, or not.