If you can find where I have said that anyting proves anything else, then I will certainly retract it. The only people talking about proof are those setting up unreachable goalposts.
If their success relies on good hiring, then they would pick the best methods. If they haven't, they wouldn't be successful and would be replaced.
That's faulty reasoning. Successful hiring choices do not necessarily depend on having used the most ideal hiring practice. Past success does not mean things cannot be made better.
What a load of twaddle
I know this topic makes people emotional, but how about we keep it civil?
I do apologise. For a moment I thought I was talking to Alasdair. Having now checked your name properly, everything you wrote previously is seen in a new light and my post is the twaddle in this instance.
If their success relies on good hiring, then they would pick the best methods. If they haven't, they wouldn't be successful and would be replaced.
That's faulty reasoning. Successful hiring choices do not necessarily depend on having used the most ideal hiring practice. Past success does not mean things cannot be made better.
What a load of twaddle
I know this topic makes people emotional, but how about we keep it civil?