Exchanging messages with a recruiter

LinkedIn


At 9:32 AM Joseph Francis wrote:
--------------------

What on earth makes you think I'm not serious? Tegan Moss is a consummate professional.

At 9:23 AM Megan wrote:

--------------------
Are you being serious? Not very professional is it and a complete waste of my time - a great opportunity lost on your part!


At 9:12 AM, Joseph Francis wrote:
--------------------

I quite understand. Here's a link to my CV (I am better known as Tegan Moss). Please let me know what you think.

At 8:52 AM, Megan wrote:
--------------------
Sorry - dont be put off that is poor grammar on my part (its getting late in the day)

It is one company....one site - just different sections to their website. Any better?

Megan

At 8:49 AM, Joseph Francis wrote:
--------------------

Companies plural! Blimey, that's put me right off.

At 8:46 AM, Megan wrote:
--------------------

Hi,

Thanks for your prompt response.

I do have loads of details including the spec; however would it be possible for us to have a quick chat on the phone before I send things through?

I can say now it is a Web Content Manager role - looking after a section of their companies website (ecommerce) - so you would be entrusted with strategy, aligning with marketing and branding etc.

You're linked in profile looks spot on for what I am looking for - do you have a CV I could peek at?

Thanks

Megan

At 8:38 AM, Joseph Francis wrote:
--------------------

That's quite all right. Do you have a website for the retailer?


At 8:35 AM, Megan wrote:
--------------------

Hi Joseph,

Sorry for the direct contact; I am searching for a Web Content Manager for a leading retailer in Hertfordshire and wondered if you would be interested in hearing more about this opportunity?

Thanks
Megan
IT People Recruitment

More New Skillz!

Look what I went and did!

Into Libya

One of the few things I got out of my four years of university politics, along with heavy debt and absolutely no advantage in the jobs market, was the near-certainty that foreign intervention was almost always a foolish mistake.

Look at the history of English and American interventionism: the Empire, Vietnam, Afghanistan (each and every time) and, of course, unfolding in front of my eyes at the time, Iraq. A sorry set of sorties, it has to be said. There are one or two that are more open to debate: World Wars 1 and 2, for example. Generally speaking, though, I'm a non-interventionist. It's about as firm a principle as I have.

I realise now, though, that it's easy to hold such a view when the evidence is so crashingly in your favour, as I believe it is in all the above cases. Right now, though, my "faith" in non-interventionism is being sorely tested by the unfolding events in Libya.

I certainly don't profess to be any sort of expert on north African politics, so was quite happy to blithely assume that Libya would go the way of Egypt and Tunisia before it - with the dictator being run out of town by the popular uprising of the masses. That's how it looked in the beginning here, too. The rebel forces were said to be sweeping through the coastal towns between their base, Benghazi, and Gaddafi's in the capital, Tripoli. There was even excited talk of Gaddafi throwing in the towel immediately and making for the presumably safer haven of Venezuela.

Clearly, though, talk was all it was. As I/we wrung our hands, Gaddafi's forces launched a brutal counter-offensive against the rebels, pushing them out of many of the towns they'd recently occupied/liberated with a view to launching a sustained assault on Benghazi itself. The previously triumphal talk turned to the bloodshed that would inevitably follow if and when Gaddafi's troops conquered that city for the Government. The rebel chief, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, claimed that such a victory for Gaddafi would lead to the deaths of 500,000 rebels.

That possibility was taken seriously, clearly, by the international community, because as I write we are now into the fourth night of UN-sanctioned NATO airstrikes on Gaddafi's forces. I hear that the NATO countries making the intervention are keen not to be seen as the air force of the rebels, but are merely levelling the playing field by knocking out much of Gaddafi's heavy armour (which the rebels lack the means to do themselves).

So, here we go again - military action overseas, where the UK's direct interests aren't threatened. It certainly seems like a purely humanitarian intervention. That's good news, because the Muslim world has very few honourable Western interventions to bring to mind when contemplating extremism.

I have to admit, against my stated principles, a significant part of my was thrilled when the UN passed the resolution that sanctioned this intervention. As the Times journalist (and noted interventionist) David Aaronovitch tweeted before the decision to intervene was made "I fear that we're about to see the reality of non-intervention before our eyes in Libya". The bloody crushing of the supposed Arab Spring by Gaddafi's forces was an awful prospect.

When push comes to shove, I probably still wouldn't have made the decision to intervene were it up to me (ha!), but, now that someone else has taken the responsibility on themselves, I really, truly hope it all goes to plan.

It all starts with a leak...

Generally speaking, my apathy knows no bounds, but just occasionally I am shaken out of my docility by something exciting. The Wikileaks vs Governments skirmish seems to have done just that.

I haven't read the leaked documents in anything like enough detail to state with any degree of certainty whether or not they do indeed, as Wikileaks's legion of critics suggest, endanger the lives of those people named or detailed within them (although Julian Assange has claimed that, to his or anyone's knowledge, there have been no deaths whatsoever as a result of the leaks). The libertarian within me quite likes the spotlight the leaks have shone on the activities of governments (and particularly the US) around the world, though. From what I have seen, a fair proportion of the activity detailed in the cables is, at the very least, embarrassing and, at the worst, pretty appalling.

As I say, though, without really taking a view on whether the leaks are a good thing or not, I am still fascinated and horrified in equal measure by the reaction of governments around the world to Wikileaks and its enigmatic Editor in Chief, Mr Assange. With Assange's arrest on rape charges this morning, and the string of organisations (including high profile private companies like Visa, Mastercard and PayPal) pulling various plugs on Wikileaks, it certainly looks like a concerted campaign is being waged by world governments against the organisation. In Wikileaks's corner is a group of "hacktivists", known collectively as Anonymous, who are carrying out cyber-attacks on the organisations that would put and end to Wikileaks's activities.

I can't help but think that the genie is already out of the bottle, though. Even if the powers that be succeed in muzzling Assange and Wikileaks, the technology that enabled the interception of the previously-secure diplomatic cables, and that makes it possible to spread the information contained within those cables far and wide, already exists.

Wikileaks may have made foreign policy as we know it (or don't, as it seems) unviable. That is, at the least, a fascinating development and one that deserves closer study than this nincompoop is usually capable of.

Update - Tango down. Anonymous knocks out Mastercard's website. Lovely stuff.

Update II - Can I just dismiss a particularly absurd notion that seems to be doing the rounds at the moment?

Repeat after me: just because Julian Assange is in favour of government leaks, doesn’t mean he’s a hypocrite for wanting to keep his own affairs a secret.

At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he’s not in favour of total transparency, for everyone, all the time. He’s in favour of transparency from public, not private, institutions. Governments, then. Not individuals. Not companies, either.

That’s the difference between, to go all American for a sec, liberals and libertarians. The former is concerned with the behavior of, well, everyone. The latter is concerned with governments, full-stop.

I’ve no idea whether Assange considers himself a liberal, a libertarian, or whatever. His ideas are perfectly consistent, though. Hypocrite, at least on this, is he none.

Things what blow my tiny mind

I didn't even know this was possible back then.

Back with a whimper

This is funny. I mainly uploaded it just to see if I can embed videos, though. Turns out I can! Enjoy this one.