Thanks, Denis. If you're in SW Fla, look me up and we'll hoist a couple of Labatt's. (I still remember the end of the 10th Montreal Marathon, where we were greeted at the end with Labatt's trucks: one for each of their brands. It was worth it all. <s> At the time they had a Laurentian Ale that was superb, at least after 4+ hours of running.)


>Thanks for the explanation Hank. I'm sincerely sorry if you felt I attacked you.
>
>>I would interpret that as "be aware," since the "I remember" phrase indicates that there is no direct evidence in this case.
>>
>>Hank
>>
>>>Hello Hank,
>>>
>>>I saw your reply to Peter about the signification. You see I, like Peter, am not a native speaker of english. So perhaps this is why when I read what you said I interpreted it that (my) way.
>>>
>>>The explanation you gave to Peter gives me the impression that because you feel like it today the explanation goes in a given direction. This should'nt be about how you feel but on given rules about a language.
>>>
>>>So could you provide an english rule to prove your point because I don't get it.
>>>
>>>The last thing I want on this is to be personal. My last reply was not an ATTACK.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let me give you an example of another possible misinterpretation:
>>>
>>>Let's presume someone talked about another person and then in your reply you mention "I remember a weasel like him".
>>>
>>>How do you interpret this?
>>>
>>>Is there a difference?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, but do I know the difference between responding to the point and an ad hominem attack.
>>>>
>>>>>Have you ever been a politician Hank?
>>>>>
>>>>>Was that taken out of context?
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps this should have been phrased differently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Indeed; and if you want to infer from that, fine, but let's not confuse your inference with my assertion, which was that I remembered a scam like that, not that this a scam. It was a warning to look carefully, not a judgment; that judgment came from your inference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You said
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I remember a scam like that
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I didn't: reread what I wrote.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How do you come to the conclusion that this is a scam?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I haven't seen the name of the Company so I can't tell that. Do you have additional information that could lead you to believe that this is indeed a scam?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Like I said to Hilmar I don't really like that kind of approach but from what I understand they wanted to have bits of code.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I really don't see how they could build an app from disparate pieces of PRG, SCX or FRXs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Times are tougher than they used to be in IT world. Demands like those that are made would have been rejected by the vast majority just a few years ago. But now it's a different ball game.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Anyways It's up to Hilmar to decide what he wants to do next about that offer. Perhaps he won't continue further with that company but I'm sure others will.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In the end it depends on how bad you need the job. If you can get along without one and you see demands that seem outrageous you continue to the next offer. If an offered job is absolutely needed do you really have the choice?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I remember a scam like that from a few years ago; no idea if it's the same people. They even described the type of app you needed to have worked on. It was a rather obvious attempt to get source code for free.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Hank
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Comments on an entry in the Jobs section - Feb. 10, Quebec, Canada)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>I must be prepared to send source code - from the project I worked in for the last few years? And what if the source code belongs to the company, as will often be the case?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Also, "Include SCX names and functions (minimum 20+), FRX names and functions (20+), ..." seems like a lot of detail to me, part of which: 1) seems irrelevant; 2) I would consider property of the company, 3) the parts I am willing to discuss, I will do so only after making an initial contact. They want all those details before they even consider replying.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Unacceptible. MUST be refused. First an initial talk, only thereafter perhaps some test, like the one that Whil suggested in his Developers Guide.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, that is more or less what I was thinking.