From: NoReplies@jymes.com   
      
   On Wed, 29 Aug 2018 08:29:15 -0000 (UTC), Johnny Tindalos   
    wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
   Thanks! I'm hoping to find just the right word or two to clarify he's   
   being interviewed for a position, but the muse is in a snit, so it'll   
   take a while.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Maybe the best way to explain is from the text:   
      
   *****   
      
   (Woman complains about possible damage to the chair.)   
      
   "I focused it tightly. At worst, it would have aged it a little more."   
      
   "But you --"   
      
   "Enough!" the CEO said. He looked sternly at the woman, then at   
   Benedict, before turning back to Jeremy. "I apologize. My colleagues   
   do not enjoy working together. This can cause dissent and an   
   occasional disregard for rules." After touching his tablet to make it   
   go dark and pushing it away from him, he sat back and steepled his   
   fingers, looking very much like a man having to do a disagreeable   
   task. "You sensed a force which my associate manipulated. It was quite   
   inappropriate for him to do so without your knowledge and consent. He   
   will compensate you for the distress. It has, however, told us much of   
   what we need to know."   
      
   *****   
      
   (Extra points if you spot the worst clunker in that paragraph which I   
   dearly want to change but don't know how to without giving it an undue   
   number of words!)   
      
   They're interviewing him because they believe he may be 'immune' to   
   some things, but they can't tell for sure without actually exposing   
   him to those things.   
      
   One of them decided to skip the rigmarole of a provisional hiring and   
   pre-employment testing by just blasting him then and there.   
      
   As for putting him at risk, compare it to getting jabbed with a   
   needle: for people, it's a routine part of a medical exam with no   
   lasting effects, but for a chair, the hole will be there forever.   
      
   Don't get me wrong -- these people are psychopaths without the usual   
   charm, but this isn't a good example of that.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)