I hereby give you permission to lay out the full story, full-stop. Don't hold back. I know it's usually not a classy move, but you're hereby absolved of that.
> I don't know why you're shocked at the number of times I "showed up" at the NCC Chicago office.
I wasn't shocked. It was to point out that you weren't in the field anymore. We were.
> Wally was, at the time, your line manager at NCC. You get what a line manager is, right? Nobody was seriously asking Wally for the rights to anything, but I have no trouble believing you have trouble interpreting a joke.
No doubt. But that raises the question of why you met with Wally privately. That's a bit at odds with your immediate previous claim that there's no reason to show up to your ex-employer's office. But this is just a distraction.
> You just claimed, a comment earlier, that NCC engagements were "a week, max". I stand by my previous comment. I have better information, and you have weird information. If your personal experience of NCC was a back-to-back sequence of 2-day projects, you were put in some strange back-bench situation.
Pop quiz: If I worked there for a full year -- 52 weeks -- then how did I complete over 40 engagements?
> I'm just sitting here thinking about this and your claim about documentation is even more risible than I had realized. By the time you were working at NCC, documentation was almost fully automated; we had the whole team working with Litany of Failure, our docgen system. Litany became such a big deal after I left that a year ago, at someone's going-away party, Erin and I got pins, which they'd made for everyone who worked on it. You were sure as shit using it in 2014.
Yes, we used Litany exclusively for our docgen. That's the templating system that creates the PDFs. It's quite a nice system; thanks for making it.
It doesn't change the fact that you have to actually fill it out with words.
> 50% of your time. Give me a break.
We did.
So, let's hear those stories. I imagine it'll go something like this: "That Shawn was such a slacker that we couldn't figure out what to do with him. He spent most of his time fooling around on the computer. At one point he went to the bathroom for a full half hour."
My work spoke for itself. Pentesting was a necessary part of the job, but the product is the report. The report is what the client sees, and (in some cases) what they pay several hundred thousand dollars for. Is it any surprise that a huge amount of time is spent preparing this extremely-valuable product for consumption? This isn't even a particularly strange claim; Damien was the one who pointed out to me that the PDF is what clients are paying for.
I'd be interested to compare notes. What did you have in mind?