necoandjeff wrote:
> Rykk wrote:
>> necoandjeff wrote:
>>> Rykk wrote:
>>>> Mr. Smith wrote:
>>>>> "Michael Cash" <mikecash@buggerallspammers.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:k980t0hhmfdi4fpu78lqkg3bn17vp34dop@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 21:44:04 +1000, windsor <fake@none.com>
>>>>>> brought
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Depth of rapport with the interviewer is also important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a very pleasant way of rephrasing "sucking up".
>>>>>
>>>>> that's silly, "sucking up" is usually a poor way to impress
>>>>> someone at an interview. It usually means you don't have anything
>>>>> interesting to say and you are easily intimidated.
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately that would be me.  Not that I am so much intimidated
>>>> the person as by the act of attempting to establish rapport.  It
>>>> isn't that I have nothing to say either, but that I am completely
>>>> uninterested in all non-functional conversation.  So as long as the
>>>> conversation is pertinent I do fine.  But if it turns to something
>>>> trivial such as the weather, or personal, "I had a baby yesterday,"
>>>> then I am filled wave of disinterest.  I have absolutely no idea
>>>> how to respond to these completely irrelevant remarks.  Interviews
>>>> seem to involve one non-sequitor after another.
>>>
>>> Wow. Aren't you supposed to preface a confession like that with
>>> something like. "Hi, my name is Rykk and I'm a suffering
>>> self-a-holic"...
>>
>> Heh,  are you trying to imply that I'm conceited?
>
> No implication required. You said it quite clearly yourself I thought.

Then you are just misunderstanding me and making assumptions.

I fail to see how being disinterested in non-functional conversation equates 
to conceit.

Rykk