Unemployment No Handicap to Frank N. Stein

You would think that a resume from Frank N. Stein, claiming Boris Karloff as a mentor, would be a tipoff to look a little more closely. Yet six recruiters were so impressed with Frank’s credentials they sought to invite him for an interview.

To their chagrin, it was Mark Mehler who answered the phone, breaking the news that Frank N. Stein was this year’s Mystery Job Seeker and purely a figment of the imagination of recruitment consultancy CareerXroads.

“Oh my,” was the usual response, said Mehler. “For the most part they took it very well.” Of course had any of the eager recruiters read through the resume they would have discovered the truth about Frank.  Clearly stated on the second page was the disclosure that Frank was fictional. “Congratulations if you have read this far as most recruiters will not,” was the closing line.

As many laughs as CareerXroads’ 12-year-old Mystery Job Seeker project produces (at least for some), there’s a serious purpose to it. It tests the responsiveness of leading companies to the candidates they solicit through their online career sites. As this year’s Mystery Job Seeker report notes, “It is a dissection of the most fundamental aspects of corporate recruiting: the initial interactions between job seekers and employers, including the submission and processing of résumés.”

This year, Mehler and his partner, Gerry Crispin, had an additional objective. They wanted to see what difference it would make if Frank was unemployed. None, as it turned out.

“For six recruiters to call is, for us, an amazing number after being unemployed for more than a year.,” said Mehler in an email. “No employee referrals, no friends to carry Frank’s resume in, just a cold, black hole.”

His resume doesn’t hint at why he lost his job as a senior corporate recruiter for Johnson & Johnson, but it forthrightly discloses he has been out of work for a year, during which he turned down several offers, then took six months to bicycle across country.

Despite this, as many recruiters were interested in Frank as were in previous mystery job seekers. Notes the report, “This is a remarkable number and debunks the notion of a résumé black hole for those who apply for a job without referrals or other outside help. It offers proof that a well-crafted résumé can draw a recruiter’s notice.”

Article Continues Below

2015 Mystery job seekerWith the help of a cadre of professional recruiter volunteers, Frank applied online to the 100 companies named to Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For. The volunteers evaluated the ease and time it took to make the application, what kind of communication the companies conducted with Frank, even if only to acknowledge receipt, and other aspects of the candidate process.

On the positive side, the report notes that 90 percent of the companies did send an acknowledgment. The flip side, though, is that two thirds of them never provided closure. The lack of much two-way communication, defined by CareerXroads as “one full exchange of communications between job seeker and employer following the employer’s acknowledgement of receiving the application,” earned most companies a zero or close to it.

The volunteers also “scored about half the companies a zero or barely above for how they presented content, including their use of social media.”

By no means was the process entirely negative. The report notes that over the dozen years of mystery job seeking, the 100 Best Companies have improved their application process, made navigating their career sites easier, and just about half provided career content and information the evaluators rated at least a “good experience.”

John Zappe is the editor of TLNT.com and a contributing editor of ERE.net. John was a newspaper reporter and editor until his geek gene lead him to launch his first website in 1994. He developed and managed online newspaper employment sites and sold advertising services to recruiters and employers. Before joining ERE Media in 2006, John was a senior consultant and analyst with Advanced Interactive Media and previously was Vice President of Digital Media for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group.

Besides writing for ERE, John consults with staffing firms and employment agencies, providing content and managing their social media programs. He also works with organizations and businesses to assist with audience development and marketing. In his spare time  he can be found hiking in the California mountains or competing in canine agility and obedience competitions.

You can contact him here.

Topics

24 Comments on “Unemployment No Handicap to Frank N. Stein

  1. If we are basing our opinions on what is shown here, there is nothing ‘well-crafted’ about the resume inasmuch as it says nada about time to fill nor number of positions filled during any one time period.

    I’d say this exercise is more about looney tunes corporate recruiters than applicants and process. There is nothing showing in the above resume excerpt that warrants a phone call.

    This also suggests the recruiters who called ‘Frank’ had had no success in generating their own candidates and were relying on advertising to generate applicants. As anyone in executive search will tell you, candidates recruited are more of a sure bet than someone applying online.

    1. “As anyone in executive search will tell you, candidates recruited are more of a sure bet than someone applying online.”

      And as no one in executive search has ever presented any actual objective evidence to support this assertion, it’s as much BS as the article’s claim that these six nimrod recruiters calling this person means there’s no bias against the unemployed.

      1. Mmmmm, it does not take a survey to confirm that common sense suggests that until you have verified the contents of a received online application/resume, you know more in advance when calling target professionals since the required research to know the target is worth calling has been done….. in advance. A check of a LI profile and any other online sources to confirm or cross-check details and a research call in advance to find out the good or bad buzz about someone you intend to call/recruit tells you more than what you see only from looking at an application.

        Maybe what I said deserves a ‘duh’, instead of a challenge.

        1. No, it deserved a challenge, and what I said is true. Common sense is a load of BS, try counting the number of things which used to be considered common sense or common knowledge that are known to be complete nonsense. You’ll never stop counting. Provide EVIDENCE that candidates that are ‘recruited’ are more of a sure bet than ones who apply, or just admit it’s your opinion and there is no evidence backing it.

          The problem with recruiting is that it’s dominated by Sales! types who routinely fling lore based and completely unsubstantiated statements like the one you rattled off around as if they were fact, when in fact they are not. How a candidate is sourced has never been linked to performance by any objective study I have ever seen in more than ten years of looking. How a candidate is sourced is a small part of the hiring function, the majority of it taken up by interviews, perhaps pre employment testing, both technical and psychological, and then the offer and on-boarding. There is no reason any of the ‘required research’ couldn’t be done on a candidate that applied before calling them, the same as would be done with a recruited candidate, unless of course there’s some biological compulsion I’m not aware of that requires recruiters to forego those steps on applicants.

          Or, in other words and put shortly, there’s no evidence to support what you said, and it doesn’t stand up to even the barest scrutiny.

          1. Medieval,

            You have taken what I said too far down the road.

            Of course, in neither case do we ‘know’ in advance how the process will end.

            However, all I was saying was that when I contact a person to recruit him/her, I already know a few things that tell me I’m on the right track (because I did my homework prior to calling that person) whereas were I looking at a resume received by say, an ATS, I only know what the resume/application says.

            That’s all I was saying. That someone I call -after doing my research in advance- is more of a ‘sure thing’ than looking at an ATS-produced resume.

            I can see why you are challenging what I said and can see why you are having heartburn with it but regardless of the absence of surveys and polls, it has been my experience that recruiting who I want to send on interviews is more of a sure thing than working off of a stack of ATS-produced resumes/applications.

            I could take this a step (in another direction) farther by saying that as is well-known to be true, the bulk of resumes/applications received via an ATS are generally from people not qualified for the advertised position.

            By doing my own recruiting, 95% or better of the people I recruit are going to be qualified to fill my client’s position. Better odds than running an ad.

            Going back to what I said, “…As anyone in executive search will tell you, candidates recruited are more of a sure bet than someone applying online…”

            Perhaps now the linkage becomes more obvious to you.

            So you can get some sleep, I’ll add that my assertion is based on my experience. Not opinion…..experience.

            Not sure how you can debate that but I’m willing to bet you will find a way.

            In any case, we are done here.

            -30-

          2. Having used both approaches in corporate and agency settings, on net I see no difference in results. The differentiation has come from the vetting/hiring process. When recruiting you can do some before seeing the resume, with an applicant you do it after you see the resume. But, there need be no difference in the due diligence applied to either sourcing method.

            Opinion and experience are the same thing, and neither is evidence, and our profession relies too much on soft ‘experience’ based lore and arguments already. When I was in corporate I was pressured to turn over searches for that very reason you mention, which I did, only I bet my direct manager that, despite whatever rhetoric the recruiting firm gave us, the first resumes he’d see would invariably include one or more of the first resumes we saw from a posting. And that’s exactly what happened every single time over the course of several years until finally I got them to drop using agencies altogether. So, I’ve heard and read all this before in some form or another in the marketing materials and hype of every agency I’ve ever had to work with, Paul.

            Our profession needs to drop the rhetoric and start investigating reality more closely, and relying on actual research methods which give reproducible results. Sources like ‘everyone knows’ and ‘common practice’ and ‘in my experience’ hold no weight with me, and shouldn’t with anyone.

            As for your rifle/shotgun analogy, it begs the question and I could easily call Texas Sharp Shooter. Without objective evidence to back up your claim, it’s as likely as anything else. Nor am I saying that lack of evidence is your fault, but out entire profession is killing itself with BS like this, and is hostile to actual information and objective reality, and that can’t last.

          3. Hi, Medieval…..

            Two things- I rarely advertise; I’ve done so for a couple of retained searches way back when. So I have no comparison data.

            My comment was based, as I said, on my own experience and not on comparative data. I feel I have more control of what I reap when I do my own recruiting. I target individuals and know in advance -to some degree- that I am going to be recruiting someone who closely matches my client’s requirements when it is I who is doing the picking vs. depending on the vagaries of ad response.

            I appreciate what you say, I understand what you have said about your own experience and next time, I’ll preface what I have to say with something like, “…with regard to my own experience…” [whether that works for you or not].

            I take pride in my ability to recruit (the old fashioned way) and ‘pick my own people’ which has led me to believe that when I am recruiting, I am totally focused on the client’s needs and do not have to suffer the time consuming exercise of reading through a stack of advertised-produced resumes/applications.

            Simply said, I have better/one hundred percent control of what I reap when I am recruiting vs. advertising.

            And how you can discount ‘what works for me’/’in my experience’ is unfathomable since I certainly ought to know, especially after all these twenty-five plus years in executive search, how the business shows up for me.

            What works for you, what works for me, etc., etc.

            And, please, exclude me from your ‘….BS is killing our profession’ since my objective proof is having retained search candidates still on the job, fourteen years later. And excluding the one time when final candidate selection was not in my control, I’ve never -never- had a failed hire in all these twenty-five plus years in Executive Search. I’ve never had to replace a hired candidate.

            So “…in my experience…” has weight, whether you are buying or not.

            I think your time is better spent spraying RAID on Millennial recruiters who are better at making noise than filling searches.

            Do I really have to remind you how many times you and I have had to apologize to a HA for the last call they received from another ‘recruiter’?

            Go pick on one of the newbies- there are lots to choose from.

            Paul……

          4. “So ‘…in my experience…’ has weight, whether you are buying or not.”

            It has weight with some people, but I’ve met too many people who base blatantly wrong headed and even counter productive practices on their ‘experience.’ I would trust you to recruit successfully based on experience and past performance. When it comes to determining the cause of a good hire, I want data, not opinion, no matter how much experience is behind it.

  2. If we are basing our opinions on what is shown here, there is nothing ‘well-crafted’ about the resume inasmuch as it says nada about time to fill nor number of positions filled during any one time period.

    I’d say this exercise is more about looney tunes corporate recruiters than applicants and process. There is nothing showing in the above resume excerpt that warrants a phone call.

    This also suggests the recruiters who called “Frank” had had no success in generating their own candidates and were relying on advertising to generate applicants. As anyone in executive search will tell you, candidates recruited are more of a sure bet than someone applying online.

    It is also possible the lack of ‘two-way communication’ was because the corporate recruiters woke up to the fact “Frank’s” resume was not remarkable, after all.

    For Career Xroads to form assessments in the vacuum of feedback and lack of follow-up is not forming assessments, it is guesswork.

    Not very scientific.

    1. “As anyone in executive search will tell you, candidates recruited are more of a sure bet than someone applying online.”

      And as no one in executive search has ever presented any actual objective evidence to support this assertion, it’s as much BS as the article’s claim that these six nimrod recruiters calling this person means there’s no bias against the unemployed.

      1. Mmmmm, it does not take a survey to confirm that common sense suggests that until you have verified the contents of a received online application/resume, you know more in advance when calling target professionals since the required research to know the target is worth calling has been done….. in advance. A check of a LI profile and any other online sources to confirm or cross-check details and a research call in advance to find out the good or bad buzz about someone you intend to call/recruit tells you more than what you see only from looking at an application.

        Maybe what I said deserves a ‘duh’, instead of a challenge.

        1. No, it deserved a challenge, and what I said is true. Common sense is a load of BS, try counting the number of things which used to be considered common sense or common knowledge that are known to be complete nonsense. You’ll never stop counting. Provide EVIDENCE that candidates that are ‘recruited’ are more of a sure bet than ones who apply, or just admit it’s your opinion and there is no evidence backing it.

          The problem with recruiting is that it’s dominated by Sales! types who routinely fling lore based and completely unsubstantiated statements like the one you rattled off around as if they were fact, when in fact they are not. How a candidate is sourced has never been linked to performance by any objective study I have ever seen in more than ten years of looking. How a candidate is sourced is a small part of the hiring function, the majority of it taken up by interviews, perhaps pre employment testing, both technical and psychological, and then the offer and on-boarding, making the significance of it’s influence on the person’s subsequent performance highly questionable because it is one factor among many, with no discernible direct link to subsequent performance. There is no reason any of the ‘required research’ couldn’t be done on a candidate that applied before calling them, the same as would be done with a recruited candidate, unless of course there’s some biological compulsion I’m not aware of that requires recruiters to forego those steps on applicants.

          Or, in other words and put shortly, there’s no evidence to support what you said, and it doesn’t stand up to even the barest scrutiny or thought. But, it sounds nice and would potentially sway a busy CEO to use an agency because he was too busy spinning in place trying to catch his own ass to think for more than five seconds.

          1. Medieval,

            You have taken what I said too far down the road.

            Of course, in neither case do we ‘know’ in advance how the process will end.

            However, all I was saying was that when I contact a person to recruit him/her, I already know a few things that tell me I’m on the right track (because I did my homework prior to calling that person) whereas were I looking at a resume received by say, an ATS, I only know what the resume/application says.

            That’s all I was saying. That someone I call -after doing my research in advance- is more of a ‘sure thing’ than looking at an ATS-produced resume.

            I can see why you are challenging what I said and can see why you are having heartburn with it but regardless of the absence of surveys and polls, it has been my experience that recruiting who I want to send on interviews is more of a sure thing than working off of a stack of ATS-produced resumes/applications.

            I could take this a step (in another direction) farther by saying that as is well-known to be true, the bulk of resumes/applications received via an ATS are generally from people not qualified for the advertised position.

            By doing my own recruiting, 95% or better of the people I recruit are going to be qualified to fill my client’s position. Better odds than running an ad.

            Going back to what I said, “…As anyone in executive search will tell you, candidates recruited are more of a sure bet than someone applying online…”

            Perhaps now the linkage becomes more obvious to you.

            So you can get some sleep, I’ll add that my assertion is based on my experience. Not opinion…..experience.

            Not sure how you can debate that but I’m willing to bet you will find a way.

            In any case, we are done here.

            P.S. And by the way, what I’ve said here is a reflection on why employers often prefer to turn a search over to a headhunter vs. running ads and having an in-house recruiter sifting resumes, looking for and hoping to find qualified candidates/applicants.

            Executive Search is shooting a rifle whereas running ads is using a shotgun, hoping to get lucky.

            -30-

          2. Having used both approaches in corporate and agency settings, on net I see no difference in results. The differentiation has come from the vetting/hiring process. When recruiting you can do some before seeing the resume, with an applicant you do it after you see the resume. But, there need be no difference in the due diligence applied to either sourcing method.

            Opinion and experience are the same thing, and neither is evidence, and our profession relies too much on soft ‘experience’ based lore and arguments already. When I was in corporate I was pressured to turn over searches for that very reason you mention, which I did, only I bet my direct manager that, despite whatever rhetoric the recruiting firm gave us, the first resumes he’d see would invariably include one or more of the first resumes we saw from a posting. And that’s exactly what happened every single time over the course of several years until finally I got them to drop using agencies altogether. So, I’ve heard and read all this before in some form or another in the marketing materials and hype of every agency I’ve ever had to work with, Paul.

            Our profession needs to drop the rhetoric and start investigating reality more closely, and relying on actual research methods which give reproducible results. Sources like ‘everyone knows’ and ‘common practice’ and ‘in my experience’ hold no weight with me, and shouldn’t with anyone.

            As for your rifle/shotgun analogy, it begs the question and I could easily call Texas Sharp Shooter. Without objective evidence to back up your claim, it’s as likely as anything else. Nor am I saying that lack of evidence is your fault, but out entire profession is killing itself with BS like this, and is hostile to actual information and objective reality, and that can’t last.

          3. Hi, Medieval…..

            Two things- I rarely advertise; I’ve done so for a couple of retained searches way back when. So I have no comparison data.

            My comment was based, as I said, on my own experience and not on comparative data. I feel I have more control of what I reap when I do my own recruiting. I target individuals and know in advance -to some degree- that I am going to be recruiting someone who closely matches my client’s requirements when it is I who is doing the picking vs. depending on the vagaries of ad response.

            I appreciate what you say, I understand what you have said about your own experience and next time, I’ll preface what I have to say with something like, “…with regard to my own experience…” [whether that works for you or not].

            I take pride in my ability to recruit (the old fashioned way) and ‘pick my own people’ which has led me to believe that when I am recruiting, I am totally focused on the client’s needs and do not have to suffer the time consuming exercise of reading through a stack of advertised-produced resumes/applications.

            Simply said, I have better/one hundred percent control of what I reap when I am recruiting vs. advertising.

            And how you can discount ‘what works for me’/’in my experience’ is unfathomable since I certainly ought to know, especially after all these twenty-five plus years in executive search, how the business shows up for me.

            What works for you, what works for me, etc., etc.

            And, please, exclude me from your ‘….BS is killing our profession’ since my objective proof is having retained search candidates still on the job, fourteen years later. And excluding the one time when final candidate selection was not in my control, I’ve never -never- had a failed hire in all these twenty-five plus years in Executive Search. I’ve never had to replace a hired candidate.

            So “…in my experience…” has weight, whether you are buying or not.

            I think your time is better spent spraying RAID on Millennial recruiters who are better at making noise than filling searches.

            Do I really have to remind you how many times you and I have had to apologize to a HA for the last call they received from another ‘recruiter’?

            Go pick on one of the newbies- there are lots to choose from.

            Paul……

          4. “So ‘…in my experience…’ has weight, whether you are buying or not.”

            It has weight with some people, but I’ve met too many people who base blatantly wrong headed and even counter productive practices on their ‘experience.’ I would trust you to recruit successfully based on experience and past performance. When it comes to determining the cause of a good hire, I want data, not opinion, no matter how much experience is behind it.

            EDIT: Also, to add something, I do not mean these to be stings at you personally. Our profession is rife with this kind of thing. Statements offered as fact with no backing, or sometimes at most anecdotes or ‘experience,’ which often don’t even stand up to the barest scrutiny. Like the active vs passive nonsense that pervades recruiting. To date there hasn’t been one single shred of evidence presented to show one source is ‘better’ than the other, or that candidates produced passively are somehow ‘better’ than ones produced via applications. It’s just some form of accepted wisdom with no data or factual backing to it whatsoever. And it also doesn’t stand up to the barest scrutiny or critical thought. If a previously ‘passive’ candidate starts looking for work and is now ‘active,’ does that mean they will now produce lower quality work? Has their entire experience and all results they’ve achieved to date been discounted now simply because they’re looking for a different job? It’s nonsense, but it’s repeated ad nauseam throughout the recruitosphere as if it’s gospel. And I think the often blind adherence to unsupported lore and questionable passed on wisdom is a massive part of the roots of the problems in our field, and also a massive part of what’s holding this field back from progress. And it’s attributable in large part to Sales! people and their mentalities and psychology, which is why I always say we need to get the Sales! out of recruiting and start dealing more with verifiable reality.

  3. This proves nothing, it’s a case study, a badly done one at that, and with no controls whatsoever. That this passes muster for ‘evidence’ of anything in our industry is proof that it’s dominated by sales! people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking or writing about. Because it’s only sales! people who can can find one flower in an otherwise barren field of cow twinkies and claim that makes it a garden.

  4. This proves nothing, it’s a case study, a badly done one at that, and with no controls whatsoever. That this passes muster for ‘evidence’ of anything in our industry is proof that it’s dominated by sales! people who don’t have a clue what they’re talking or writing about. Because it’s only sales! people who can can find one flower in an otherwise barren field of cow twinkies and claim that makes it a garden.

  5. lol. ‘Medieval’ and Paul. So sorry you took the excellent article by John so seriously. Our (CareerXroads) intention was never ‘science’ but to lightly provoke firms that have managed to receive accolades as a place to work to step up and align their recruiting practices with their pride in how they treat their employees. We wanted to do it in a way that would attract public attention to the treatment of candidates. John has always been helpful but the audience we wanted to poke fun at required an approach that would reach the business press…and it does. Obviously, the ‘joke’ didn’t have a punch line to draw you in. My apologies.

    If its Science you are after (which by the way supports these anecdotal efforts over the last 12 years), I would send you to http://www.thecandes.org (TalentBoard) which over the last 5 years has gathered more than 200,000 completed surveys (60+ questions) of candidates from several hundred employers. The data is informing employers in North America and Europe (and this year, launched in Australia) and has been developed with the help some of the top survey design experts in the world- we have nearly 100 volunteers helping this non-profit movement to understand (scientifically) the recruiting practices that impact candidate attitudes and behaviors (statistically). Several academic articles will be published this year. We recently shared the data at the 2015 SIOP conference in Philly and one of the TA leaders of one of the largest employers in the country used our data as the core of his doctoral dissertation which he is defending this month. On the practitioner side we’ll have several hundred firms attending our second annual symposium (our first was in conjunction with ERE last year in Chicago) in September in Dallas where employers the practices they’ve adopted, maintained or changed as a result of the data.

    And so, while a 12 year effort to consistently mystery shop the 100 Best Companies in America with unusual characters may irritate some recruiters who missed the joke, it has added in a small way to the growing conversation based on data, not just opinion that is considering the value and the practice of how we treat all of our candidates…not just the ones we choose to hire. Hopefully our paths will cross sometime and we can have a conversation about how you can add to this issue as you are obviously as passionate about it as I am. Best.

    1. Once more, surveys are not science. That our profession regards them as such is indicative of what a low bar we set in all things. And the very real and obnoxiously self righteous prejudice against the unemployed is destroying people’s lives, so I tend to not take it so lightly.

      1. So I don’t feel left out…..

        IMO, surveys are used to justify a position. Even if the data gathered is based on misconception.

        If pilots were taught by the use of surveys, they would be constantly flying into the sides of fog-shrouded mountains.

        ‘What to do’ and ‘how to do it’ has to be based on what has actually worked in real-life situations. And I don’t mean for only as long as the duration of a placement guarantee.

        Huh. If scientists were using surveys, they would still be telling us the sun goes around the Earth.

  6. lol. ‘Medieval’ and Paul. So sorry you took the excellent article by John so seriously. Our (CareerXroads) intention was never ‘science’ but to lightly provoke firms that have managed to receive accolades as a place to work to step up and align their recruiting practices with their pride in how they treat their employees. We wanted to do it in a way that would attract public attention to the treatment of candidates. John has always been helpful but the audience we wanted to poke fun at required an approach that would reach the business press…and it does. Obviously, the ‘joke’ didn’t have a punch line to draw you in. My apologies.

    If its Science you are after (which by the way supports these anecdotal efforts over the last 12 years), I would send you to http://www.thecandes.org (TalentBoard) which over the last 5 years has gathered more than 200,000 completed surveys (60+ questions) of candidates from several hundred employers. The data is informing employers in North America and Europe (and this year, launched in Australia) and has been developed with the help some of the top survey design experts in the world- we have nearly 100 volunteers helping this non-profit movement to understand (scientifically) the recruiting practices that impact candidate attitudes and behaviors (statistically). Several academic articles will be published this year. We recently shared the data at the 2015 SIOP conference in Philly and one of the TA leaders of one of the largest employers in the country used our data as the core of his doctoral dissertation which he is defending this month. On the practitioner side we’ll have several hundred firms attending our second annual symposium (our first was in conjunction with ERE last year in Chicago) in September in Dallas where employers the practices they’ve adopted, maintained or changed as a result of the data.

    And so, while a 12 year effort to consistently mystery shop the 100 Best Companies in America with unusual characters may irritate some recruiters who missed the joke, it has added in a small way to the growing conversation based on data, not just opinion that is considering the value and the practice of how we treat all of our candidates…not just the ones we choose to hire. Hopefully our paths will cross sometime and we can have a conversation about how you can add to this issue as you are obviously as passionate about it as I am. Best.

    1. Once more, surveys are not science. That our profession regards them as such is indicative of what a low bar we set in all things. And the very real and obnoxiously self righteous prejudice against the unemployed is destroying people’s lives, so I tend to not take it so lightly.

      1. So I don’t feel left out…..

        IMO, surveys are used to justify a position. Even if the data gathered is based on misconception.

        If pilots were taught by the use of surveys, they would be constantly flying into the sides of fog-shrouded mountains.

        ‘What to do’ and ‘how to do it’ has to be based on what has actually worked in real-life situations. And I don’t mean for only as long as the duration of a placement guarantee.

        Huh. If scientists were using surveys, they would still be telling us the sun goes around the Earth.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *