Matthew King matthew.king at monnsta.net
Fri Jun 1 19:20:18 UTC 2007

John G Walker <johngwalker at tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 13:47:52 +0100 (BST) Jason Clifford
> <jason at ukfsn.org> wrote:
>> The fact is that there are jobs that are well suited to people who
>> are younger or less experienced due to the nature of the job. You
>> will note that the actual posting causing this stated young OR less
>> experienced.
>> Similarly there are jobs that are better suited to older or more 
>> experienced people. Should those be required to be advertised in a 
>> misleading manner to?
>> I think I'd rather see ads that honestly reflect the job rather than
>> ones that pander to stupid PC interpretations.
> This makes the assumption that "young" and "less experienced" are
> synonymous or in some way comparable.

Well they are.

> If you're looking for a less experienced job applicant, say so. Why
> complicate matters by including irrelevant criteria? It's in the nature

Because English was not designed by committee. 'Pointless' information
is a vital part of the language.

> of things that most applicants for such a job will be young, but it's
> by no means certain. And it's presumably not necessary, so don't say it,

I may not be particularly old yet but I would shy away from any job
specifically requesting young people because the place is likely to be
crawling with students, so stating the requirement (or suggestion) that
the job is suited to young people has served me well.


I must take issue with the term "a mere child", for it has been my
invariable experience that the company of a mere child is infinitely
preferable to that of a mere adult.
                                           --  Fran Lebowitz

Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk

More information about the GLLUG mailing list