Job interviews necessitate a certain degree of decorum. I was over it. I had left work that I never should have left, and a revered colleague, for what he and I thought was a better opportunity. It was disastrously nothing like it was supposed to be, and left me in no hurry to accept another so-called job. I could have been satisfied with my work as a garden columnist. When I resigned to interviewing for another secondary job, I did not put much effort into the process. Instead of explaining my credentials, expertise and qualifications, I explained what I would NOT do. After my previous experience, I had quite a list to present, and was quite a jerk about doing so. It worked for me.
Within the context of Community discussion of issues regarding homelessness, someone occasionally feels compelled to explain his (or her) experiences, observations or even opinions as if they are universally relevant. For example, an addict in recovery might explain how he (or she) came to recovery after ‘hitting bottom’, and becoming homeless without assistance from those whom he had already exploited. Because it is so relevant and important within his experience, he believes it to be just as relevant and important to others, or even everyone with a few similarities to their respective experience. He believes that since ‘it worked for me’, it must necessarily work for everyone.
Recovery from addiction, although commendable, is irrelevant to those who are not addicted. Most people who are presently homeless here became so as a result of unemployment or income that is insufficient to sustain a mortgage or rent, not because of addiction. Homelessness and addiction are two completely different concerns. Belief that what worked for any individual would necessarily be effective for everyone is both presumptuous and ignorant.