Re:Riot Games is violating California employment law
by hyperpape on Saturday June 11, 2016 @04:32PM
(#11885203)
I thought it was clear enough that I was making a general point about how tests can be applied, and illustrating it with an extreme example from the South.
In general, I think asking for clarification is better than being condescending.
Re:Riot Games is violating California employment law
by Turing_Machine on Saturday June 11, 2016 @04:36PM
(#11885216)
Got it. Of course, your mini-lecture about "not assuming good faith" wasn't condescending at all.
I spent a fair amount of time researching this urban legend earlier today. I wasn't "assuming" anything.
Re:Riot Games is violating California employment law
by hyperpape on Saturday June 11, 2016 @06:29PM
(#11885653)
Fair that it was abrupt of me to put it that way.
But to make clear what I was saying, I really should have responded to the parent, who says: "It's extremely hard to believe that even a malicious scientist could convince himself that a horse cannot be ridden into town."
My point being that a malicious test-giver could certainly deny that as a valid answer. I don't know that I believe that anecdote happened, but it is assuming good faith to think that it couldn't happen because no one would ever reject "horse" as an answer.
It has no connection whatsoever with the "South".