To the All-Encompassing Shaun McQuaid,
Recently, I was helping a friend create a majestic resume. When we were done I went to print it when she screamed â€˜bloody murder!â€™ and scolded me for not using â€œResume Paper”. What purpose does resume paper have? Why does it have an annoying watermark on it? Is it proof that you are not a lazy bum and can in fact travel to the store and purchase office supplies on oneâ€™s own? And why do girls without touretts syndrome feel the need to scream â€˜bloody murder!â€™ when a simple â€œHey dude, hold on one gosh darn minute there, Buckoâ€ would be more audically (haha i made up a wordâ€¦.i thinkâ€¦its still pretty audical) appealing?
Your friendly neighborhood New Hampshirian,
Comment by Paul â€” 9/22/2004 @ 12:01 pm
The controversy on whether resume paper is a good idea is currently raging in the fields of resume writing experts (meaning people who get fired a lot and people who sell resumes). There are two schools of thought on this; the “it’s an outdated idea” camp and the “it draws attention” camp. The argument against bothering with resume paper says that in this modern world, nobody cares what paper you use. The argument for it states that it shows you are “serious” about the job.
My answer is this: if you are applying for a job via a paper resume, and you believe your resume will be seen by a human being (instead of being scanned by a computer for keywords and accepted or discarded on that basis), it’s worth the time and effort to print it on something nice. Not because that makes the resume more interesting to someone, but on the sole basis that the person looking at it might expect it to be on fancy shmancy paper. And yes, it shows you are motivated enough to get said paper at the closest paper selling depot.
Why a watermark? Because the company who made the paper is selfish enough to brand each and every piece with a logo. Interestingly enough, the watermark isn’t made with water – it’s simply made when the paper is in the “watery gook” stage of production (hence the term watermark.
Apparently the issue is of such importance to the female in question that she jumped straight to the “bloody murder” expressive state. Here’s the general resume-writing anger stages:
Sarcastic speech + eye rolling
Angry yelling + arm waving
You simply fell prey to a strong believer in the resume paper need – so strong, that “bloody murder” was necessitated. Better luck next time!
The water at Smith College is run through a huge filter before it emerges from any faucets or showerheads. A sample of this once-filtered water was then run through a second filter to remove any remaining bacteria, nastiness, etc. This water was then examined under a scanning electron microscope at, I think, a magnification of 16,000x. The twice-filtered water was found to still be ridden with bacteria and small amoeba-like forms, both of which are icky. My question is, what is the point of these filters if they do not completely cleanse water? Are they simply being produced in order to appease the masses, to reassure tham that they are drinking / washing in purified water, when in fact they are drinking / washing in water whose dangers have only been somewhat lessened? Do you think the bacteria found is even dangerous, or just kind of yucky and gross to look at? Is coming into prolonged external or internal contact with icky water going to kill me?
And another thing â€” where are my PopTarts?
Question by Meghan McQuaid â€” 9/22/2004 @ 11:56 am
Scared of Death Water? Don’t be. Let’s assume that the first filter is a “Solid Carbon Block” style filter (which forces water through densely compressed carbon to suck out bad stuff). After it gets filtered, it has to go through more pipes, then out a shower head – giving it lots of time to pick up a cargo of little micro-organisms. Then it was filtered again – this probably got rid of some more stuff OR “inactivated” the bacteria (meaning it went to the Big Petri Dish in the Sky).
No filter is 100% effective – and even if it was, if the container wasn’t completely sterile, something might be picked up there……and bacteria breeds like rabbits. No, more than rabbits. The other thing to think about is this: maybe the Smith filter is designed to remove impurities like iron, or to soften the water, or something. It could not be intended to take out the bacteria. That would explain a lot.
Luckily, water standards force water providers to get rid of all of the nasty, hurtful stuff that could cause you problems. In fact, you’d be better off showering with tap water than bottled water (a lot of the restrictions on tap water are stricter than those on bottled). I am sure that the water coming out of the faucet will never cause you a health problem, or even a “seeing yuckiness” problem (unless you have microscope eyes – and if you did, you’d see bacteria EVERYWHERE).
In summary, the water may look icky under a microscope but it’s totally cool – no danger. Think about this: what doesn’t look icky when you magnify it? Seeing anything really close up makes it way worse. Like the IMAX theater – Spiderman looks good on a movie screen, but not when he’s huge enough that you can imagine playing basketball in his pores. (Mary Jane Watson is the exception to this rule – no matter how huge the movie screen is, there’s nothing wrong with HER).
I ate your Pop-Tarts.
Recently I used an ATM on campus to get some fast cash. My financial institution is Fleet and the ATM that I used was Bank of New Hampshire. Looking at my account later on, I was not surprised to see a $1.50 bank charge, because I accepted the charge when I was at the ATM. However, there was a SECOND $1.50 charge. Why am I getting charged TWICE for the same thing, and why does Bank of New Hampshire stink? Please advise.
Question by Jill â€” 9/21/2004 @ 9:49 pm
Ahh yes, the old â€œdouble chargeâ€ scam. Itâ€™s terribly unfair – a sucker punch to the wallet.
It turns out that not only does Bank of New Hampshire (and any bank that charges non-customers for ATM usage) feel the need to snag $1.50 from you as fee for the use of its ATM technology, but Fleet is also hurt by your unwillingness to drive the required miles to find a machine that THEY own. So they also, in a fit of jealous rage, will charge you $1.50 for your betrayal.
Why does Bank of New Hampshire stink, you ask? I canâ€™t say for sure, but my guess would be that it doesnâ€™t have a cool enough name. I mean, look at the competition: â€œBank of Americaâ€ covers a whole continent with its name (maybe 2!), â€œFleetâ€ conjures up images of a bunch of warships, or a really fast runner, â€œBank Northâ€ takes an entire hemisphere on, â€œCitizens Bankâ€ is the bank of the PEOPLE…Iâ€™d feel inferior too. And that would make me petty and spiteful, and that would make me stink. Like Bank of New Hampshire.
Do you have something that’s been eating away at you for awhile? Perhaps a deep rooted factual question that’s been bugging you for decades?
Comment to this post with your question. Shaun McQuaid will do his best to find the answer for you.
If you’d like to see what questions have been asked and answered already, click on the “attempts”.