Nonstandard spelling influenced by the proper name…
Frylock, I’ll take your peer pressure under advisement.
If I do manage to get an answer, I promise faithfully to report back.
Isn’t there a clear difference between e.g. and viz?
From here we have:
followed by
The inference I draw from the first quote is that “the trade deficit, Medicare, and social security” are merely examples of problems. Although they are doubtless the major problems to be dealt with, the implication is that other problems also exist.
In the second quote it is clear that viz., or ‘namely’, refers to a specific person (The Duke of Rochester). There is only one Duke of Rochester hence no other examples are implied.
Vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis vis visss.
Can you name the tune?
Especially for an electronics tech. Sargent Tools is a pretty well known brand, and it’s pretty likely the tech had one of their tools right in front of them at the time.
But is the Duke of Rochester the only “minor Duke in the House of Lords”? If not, “viz” is not the same as “i.e.” as the citation claims. That’s if my impression is correct that “i.e.” desginates a definition, a one-to-one match of the things being referenced.
He saw a lot of stars, e.g., A, B and C.
He saw the closest star to Earth, i.e., the Sun.
viz. ???
It’s saying he is part of the group (lower Dukes of the House of Lords), and in particular (viz.=namely), this member (the Duke of Rochester) of the group.
not the same as i.e., as they claim.
Well, I clearly had a responsibility to get an explanation from the applicant. A mail was sent, asking what had been meant by ‘mitigated’.
Unfortunately, the reply the applicant sent is not particularly enlightening:
“‘Mitigated’ in this case means the main responsibilites of that particular position have been surpassed by others on the CV.”
If any Doper can figure out what that means, please speak up!
It means the candidate can neither think clearly nor articulate clearly. In short, it was a waste of time and will continue to be. Toss the resume in File 13 and move on with your life.
I would say that it means that the applicant has a lousy command of English 
Email him back saying ‘Thank you for obfuscating the matter’
My guess would be that they intended to mean that they would currently be overqualified for that position due to newly acquired experience or qualifications. My new theory is that this is a completely improper inversion of “unmitigated responsibility”.
That’s hilarious.
I can’t tell if its non-native-speaker speak or bullshit business speak.
-FrL-
Frylock, I’m 99.999% certain that the applicant is a native speaker of English. The recruitment ad did stipulate that only native speakers need apply.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of resumes, both for this post, and for others that I’ve been involved in recruiting for, demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of native speakers seem to be semi-literate.
This was probably the most baffling one I’ve seen, though.
It means this guys should not be getting the job.
What he wanted it to mean, remains a mystery to me. My WAG is that he thinks that whatever experience he acquired in that job is not as relevant to the application as a later job he has included in his CV.
Just to reassure anyone who is concerned: this applicant will not be getting the job. This applicant will not even be getting an interview.
::slopes off to find more resume gems to entertain the SDMB with::
That was my thought when I read the “explanation.” He means that other job experience mentioned in the CV has responsibilities more in line with your vacancy.
I think it would be nice of you to write a short note back explaining that he’s not using English accurately and that it has cost him an interview. Perhaps he’ll learn from it.
My WAG is that he means that “this was a junior position but now I’m doing much more important shit”, which translates to “please throw this resume in the trash”.
“‘Mitigated’ in this case means the main responsibilites of that particular position have been surpassed by others on the CV.”
=
“My position, title, and/or place of employment changed.”
Perhaps the change was gradual in some way, so the applicant is using “mitigated” to clearly show that he wasn’t jumping from job to job, but rather his job was evolving. Only without the “clearly” part. Or the “show” part, for that matter.
Perhaps in transferring him, his boss mitigated the ongoing damage he was causing.