From: JamaisVu@UnrealEmail.arg   
      
   Capuchin  wrote in   
   news:rjsaoddb3ojkvh1e7b5tatl8k6hdkbfrhn@4ax.com:   
      
   > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 20:25:22 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J   
   > Heydt) wrote:   
   >   
   >>I would suggest that *after* he's hired (and has signed or   
   >>otherwise authorize something so that he can't back out now), he   
   >>gets told some of what's been going on.   
   >   
   > They tell him the truth toward the end of the interview, before he   
   > signs on. But: 'He thought of two options: this was an elaborate   
   > psychological test, or these people belonged in a mental ward. He   
   > decided the safest route, whichever was true, was to play along.'   
   >   
   > The corporation is real, their work with the DoD is real, and most   
   > importantly, their money is real, so continuing to play along remains   
   > his best option.   
      
   At the risk of replying just to AOL, the opening worked for me, thought it was   
   quite clearly a rather strange job interview (have had hundreds, so I guess I   
   defaulted to "panel interview for position" on reading the third line) and I   
   would   
   have been quite happy to continue reading to find out more. Although if they're   
   worried about damaging the furniture that's a bit alarming, makes me wonder if   
   there's a physical effect on the distraction-weapon's targets, and if there is   
   and   
   they don't mind risking it on their interview candidates that makes it feel   
   like a   
   different kind of story than if they just want to know if they can bemuse him   
   with   
   it or not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)