I'm not disagreeing with any of that, and I use "unfortunate" in the sympathetic sense of the word, i.e., that it's certainly unfortunate to get started -- and,

I'm not disagreeing with any of that, and I use "unfortunate" in the sympathetic sense of the word, i.e., that it's certainly unfortunate to get started -- and, from the sound of it, love -- a new job, only to have that job disappear 6 weeks later. That's unfortunate, regardless of whom it happens to, and regardless of how quickly the person (Ernie or otherwise) can recover from it. I apologize if my post came off as harsh on Ernie. That wasn't the intent. But the reason I feel B doesn't follow from A is that there's kind of a missing intermediate step. The story I was hoping for was "A: the company went under," "B: Here's what I've learned from the situation," "C: Here's why I need these things from my next job." Instead, we sort of skip that middle section, and we're left without a lot of the wisdom and perspective I'm sure a guy as capable and introspective as Ernie could have given us. "I don't know why you find points he has laid out as "strange" as well" I don't find his requirements strange in the least. If anything, they feel perfectly rational. My issue is with the general structure of his post, not the particulars of it. By skipping the "middle step," he risks coming across a in way he probably didn't intend to.