torgophylum-blog - Tumblr blog

torgophylum-blog · 12 years

Text

NYU SPI

My "Word" program isn't working, so this may be more typo-filled than usual. For that, I apologize. So, It's been a while since I either posted and about a week since I applied to any new jobs. The reason why is that I've been busy with a new project. I'm putting some eggs in a new basket, and applying to a program I discovered offered by NYU.

This program I discovered after some research into publishing Jobs fairs for publishers. Evidently, this program not only gives students access to a major one, but gives them direct training and extensive networking within the publishing field. While they stress that this doesn't guarantee attendees a job, it does seem like this may be an excellent option for me, and I hope I am accepted into the program. This may be at least one solution to the "no experience" problem, and I hope it leads to a job.

If I get in, it will certainly curtail my daily applications, as I will be tempted simply to wait and see what happens with the program. While I should keep it up, it may be good that I take a break for a while and use the time to return to some creative writing. My girlfriend and some others have noticed I've been feeling pretty down lately, and while I believe my reasons are legitimate, it may be time to return to something that legitimately makes me happy. I've also been practicing guitar on a daily basis, which is odd for me.

Something has come up in my personal life, which has caused me to reflect on my own goals, and what kind of experiences I've really wanted before being saddled down with a job. Without going to far into it, there is a good argument for me to move overseas and make some attempt to work there, particularly since my own efforts here are failing. I've always liked to travel, but have never really entertained or considered the notion of actually LIVING outside of my own country, let alone my own state. The thought is fairly alien to me. If I did so, I feel as if I could really focus on my writing and have a wider more meaningful experience to draw from. It would also mean falling behind on any real chance of having a professional career in a business.

I've never been mad at artist's for selling out, unless it legitimately made their work worse, or non-existent. I've thought of myself as an artist who simply couldn't work because he had other things to worry about, such as getting a job and moving out. It has occurred to me lately that I will be even less tempted to create art if I have a particularly busy career. I do keep on the lookout for that dream-job that lets me create as part of my work, a screenwriter for a show, for example, or a novelist. But I have little confidence that such a job will ever make itself available to me, or that I will be able to find one. But how else should I support myself? Which is more important, and are they mutually exclusive?

I realized I wrote my novel largely about a person that I was very afraid that I might become when I'm middle-aged. I've also realized that I didn't like what I wrote very much, and I think that experience scared me out of giving professional writing a decent try. So, I've got to get back to it. I think success there might be the best way to get the kind of mobility and freedom I really want, and which a publishing job will not provide. But I'll still try for traditional employment, as long as I can keep writing at the same time. I may never be the kind of person who can spend months at a time traveling and experiencing the world, never have the kind of resources which would allow me to do such a thing, but writing is my best avenue there and I should at least try, even as I try to claim and do the kind of jobs that would prevent those excursions for now.

1 note · View note

torgophylum-blog · 13 years

Text

Online Applications

A few days ago, I applied for a paid internship in New York City. I was confused, as the job description insisted that the cover letter would be an important part of the decision making process, and though I wrote what I though was a fine draft, there was no place for it on any part of the online application, nor any way to send it in hard copy.

Which leads me to today's topic, which is the online application process in general. Some websites have done this very well. I think Random House and Simon and Schuster have very excellent systems which record all of your applications and updates you via emails on their status. They also allow you to view your past cover letters and rebuild from them. This indicates, of course, that they receive a high volume of submissions and needed an organized system to intake them all. That's fine though, at least it's easy.

Even easier, of course, are the application processes that use built in resumes of job searching sites, like linkedin, monster, or careerbuilder. It's as simple there as writing up a cover letter and hitting "Apply". And it's nice, too, to think that they have a personality from a networking site like linked in to associate the cover letter with. Linkedin also gives you the added bonus of knowing whether or not you have even been "looked at". It's always nice to know you caught someones eye even if you never get a call.

Other online application systems are a little more buggy and hard to work with. I understand that part of why businesses prefer the online model (aside from the obvious reasons of paper-saving), is that they can rate the documents base on their use of key words and experience, without ever having to actually see the resume. Now, that's unfortunate for people without a lot of experience, and it kind of demands that we all become experts on what, precisely, an employer wants to hear. The plus side to this is, for the artistically challenged, the formatting of resumes means a whole lot less than it used too; Oftentimes, they don't even want the document, but simply the copy and pasted text.

There are others which demand EVERY box be filled, even if it's non applicable. (second address, or yearly salary, for example.) Others want every answer to be properly formatted, though they don't really tell you how to format. Those are frustrating to work with, especially when they don't tell you which boxes you are missing or are incorrectly formatted. I once spent ten minutes encouraging the send button to do it's "thang" before realizing 860 (my area code) needed to be in parenthesis.

I find that some companies simply want you to email a cover letter and resume. Though I've sent many resumes to this type of process, I have heard zilch back from them. I don't envy the person who has to wade through all those emails one by one, and download each attachment. But hey, at least he has a job, amirite?

There isn't really to much to take away from all this, I realize, but what I've been considering is simply taking a ride to New York and showing up in person, as this whole online application business really is getting me nowhere. I'm afraid of wasting the gas though, as they will inevitably tell me to look online.

#jobs #entry level #applications #online #cover #letters #resume

5 notes · View notes

torgophylum-blog · 13 years

Text

A letter I sent

Not really what this blog is about, but conversations with Haley led my mind astray. I went looking for some information regarding abortion, of all things, and came upon this article, which I thought was well written and quite clarifying regarding the pro-choice positions, (a camp I tend to include myself in with reservations; that will become clear as and if you read.) This is a link to her article, my arguments won't make much sense without hers.

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetusperson.shtml

Needing to get some ideas out, I drafted and sent the following email to her. I'm not really expecting a response from her, nor expecting her to read it, but I needed to clear my head. This is what I wrote:

Dear Miss Arthur, It may seem puzzling that I'm writing to you about an article you wrote a decade ago, but such is the nature of the internet I suppose. Given the conviction you wrote with, I doubt your opinions have very much changed, (though perhaps have evolved further.) My name is Tim, and I've been wrestling with my own ideals regarding the very issues you write about, principally the puzzlingly polarizing debate regarding abortion. I want to make clear before continuing that I fall into the "Pro-Choice" rather than the "Pro-Life" camp, though I despise both terms as I believe they lend themselves to oversimplification with what I believe to be a complicated issue, and preempt conversation before anything meaningful is said. (I'm not sure exactly why, for example, one could not define themselves as both pro-choice and pro-life. I suppose, with the hopeful whim that you are immune to rhetoric, this is why you refer to your opponents as "anti-choicers" rather than by their chosen nomenclature.) I am also compelled to say that I am an agnostic, and have no ties or beliefs ordained by any faith or spiritual group; and quite honestly I can't see how this became a religious v. non-religious issue in the first place. And, while I fall into the "Pro-Choice" camp, I find myself more swayed by the arguments, as you put them so very well 11 years ago, "Because ultimately, the status of a fetus is a matter of subjective opinion, and the only opinion that counts is that of the pregnant woman" and "There will never be a consensus because of the subjective and unscientific nature of the claim, so we must give the benefit of the doubt to women, who are indisputable human beings with rights." My response to the question of abortion has in the past, consistently been, "I am not a woman, so I don't see why my opinion on this issue matters. I'm missing the most vital information." I felt this was fair until a professor, (A woman and pro-choice advocate as well), asked me why my status as "human being" didn't endow me with enough information to debate a "human issue" as she put it. With that in mind, I felt guilty about avoiding the issue, and began to consider the issue more seriously. There is a certain camp group identity going on here-I wanted to be neutral on the subject because my gut feeling was that there was a certain immorality to abortion, which I felt would put me at odds with the average liberal, even if I still approved of it's legality (as I stated above.) My girlfriend, another college graduate has recently been investigating the issue as well, and her position has fallen to where mine has; that the distinctions between fetus and infant are about as extreme in terms of "person-hood" as the distinctions between infant and adult, or even as toddler to adult. We could of course break this down to the point of day by day differences; I am struck with the absurd image of a man with a stopwatch saying "now!" the moment an infant develops self-awareness. This was bolstered by the recent news of a publication in the peer-reviewed "Journal of Medical Ethics," which argued (though not explicitly supported) that there was no effective difference in terms of mental capacity or ability to "self-actualize" in an infant as compared to a fetus, and that therefore the killing of a newborn was as acceptable as an abortion. You mentioned in your article some historically "acceptable" versions of infanticide-Culling of the fold to insure the strongest survive in the reality of limited resources, suggesting that from an objective standpoint even you see some merit in that argument. In the same way that a person who believes in abortion only "in cases of rape or incest" betrays his own desire that the rights of the mother be preserved, I'm wondering what this suggestion implies regarding the value of infants as compared to adults. I am tempted to ask when a person becomes a person, but we now veer close to "Begging the Question" as you put it, and that is not what I'm writing about. Nevertheless, I would like you to expand on this issue in particular: Is it still, in this day and age, acceptable to kill a newborn if it's existence significantly defer the rights of a human being, or actual "Full-person," or is it at this point of equal worth? My biological programming may be betraying my objective and logical mind here, but I feel a primal need to protect an infant. This would be all well and good if we were only talking about infanticide, an issue which we shall not have to address again until, like the ancient people, have concerns regarding resources . But if we, as the article in Medical Ethics, and the point you brought up in your own article suggests, consider the fetus to be the same as a newborn, then clearly this links the question and makes them the same. It certainly is convincing in it's simplicity, even if you disagree: A newborn is the same as a fetus; it is therefore either okay to kill both, or neither. The only way to avoid committing to both is of course to create a compelling difference between the two that would allow both cases to be handled separately. Which brings me to the part of your article that I think is therefore the most important in terms of convincing the open-minded that abortion is acceptable, even if the morality is vague. Because this is really the question, in it's barest form; It is not whether or not it is moral to abort, but what is the difference between an infant (whom we, as a modern society seem to condemn killing with legal force) and a fetus, (the abortion of which is treated with highly heated debate and ambiguous legal action.) It was with that specific question in mind that I began to do research into the various opinions surrounding the "humanity" of the yet-unborn and came upon your article. Before I continue, it may please you to know that, at least from the religious sector, I found no convincing arguments nor support in their own scripture which defined a fetus as human. That doesn't let either off the hook. I'm deeply frustrated with the attitude taken by most arguments from either side, which tend to amount to "You can't prove it is life," and "You can't prove it isn't." This kind of argument reaches no conclusion and is deeply flawed; It suggests that in the future we will be better able to define life and therefore gauge its authenticity and moral value. It's a lazy and unconvincing mode of argument that has no place. One must argue that either it is, or it isn't, and then have the outcome judged on those arguments. So, with that lengthy preamble hopefully showing you where I am coming from, and that this is hopefully a place worth responding too, please accept these humble criticisms of your arguments as an invitation for clarification, as I have not found them all to be convincing, and I dearly desire to be convinced. 1. I spoke of the importance in defining the difference between infant and fetus, or indeed infant and zygote, and so forth. It seems you recognized that this is important as you made several arguments to that effect. The first one I'd like to respond too is that historically, the distinction has been clear. "Historically, a fetus has never (or very rarely) been considered a human being, at least not before "quickening", an old-fashioned term indicating noticeable movement of the fetus. The Catholic Church even allowed abortion until quickening, up until 1869[4]. Further, the wide variety of laws throughout the world were written specifically to protect born human beings and their property. There is virtually no legal precedent for applying such laws to fetuses[5]. Even when abortion was illegal, it had a lesser punishment than for murder, and was often just a misdemeanor[6]. The anti-choice view of fetuses as human beings is therefore a novel and peculiar one, with little historical or legal precedent to back it up." I'd like to give you this one, but personally I can't see how this matters. All ideas are new at some point where they have been considered absurd in the past, particularly in cases of "person-hood," and this argument has been made in all of them. People of all races, and creeds, have found themselves as defined as "less-than-human" based on their divisions, including of course gender. This oppression was generally the result of a back-thinking and tradition based societies, and it took new ideas to break these bonds and accept that all people are of equal value. Add to this that throughout most human history, the science of birth and conception was a great mystery that was not completely understood. We continue to understand more about it and how reproductive cells function to serve our society better today. Other new ideas with little or no legal or knowledge precedent: Global Warming, Socialized Medicine, Coorporations as "People". With new knowledge in focus, we must constantly re-examine our values. Some have argued that this new knowledge indicates little difference between the fetus and the infant. 2. You also stated that, "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it." I think your initial argument is solid here, at least when discerning the difference, but you might be implying something you don't mean too. If I understand you correctly, this argument leads to the idea that fetuses are parasitic in nature, and require great sacrifice from another being to survive. Therefore, that other being has a right to dispose of it. I think that's a solid and convincing argument, and hard to really go against, unless of course we are forced to accept that the "parasitic being" is a human life. You recognize this, so before you get there, you preempt yourself by trying to claim that this is a difference which makes the fetus a non-human by nature of its utter dependence. This leads to the "anti-choice" argument, (a good response) that newborn-infants are also utterly dependent on others. You respond to that by pointing out that the fetus depends on ONE person, and qualify that as a "Crucial" difference. But you don't really explain what you mean by that, or why that difference is so "Crucial." Why does dependence on <2 people for survival, or 1 pregnant person disqualify a being from person-hood? You might say that this makes it more parasitic in nature, but does this really lend itself well to the parasitic argument, which this was supposed to be the basis for? After all, many parasites, in the manner of newborn infants I suppose, are free to disengage from their host and move on to others. And, not to antagonize, wouldn't being the ONE person responsible for another being survival make your decision regarding the being all the more important? I mean you say, "Anyone can take care of the newborn infant." Doesn't that imply that the parent of an infant is less responsible for it's survival than the mother of a fetus? By the end of this argument, I find myself leaning more towards the fetus being more similar in nature to the infant than you would care to admit, and being forced to face the questions therein implied. You proceed, through the rest of the article, to discuss several reasons why "right to life" does not trump the right to use another body in order to do so, giving the tried and true, "state cannot make you donate an organ." I'll point out that clearly, organ donation is the result of a action, while giving birth is the result of inaction. We are allowed to allow others to die through inaction and be morally neutral as a result; the ending of a life through deliberate means is something else entirely. This metaphor in particular therefore just doesn't get us away from the right-to-life issue, and I'm weary of it. I agree with you entirely on the foolishness of blaming women for their sexual proclivities. It is silly to try and base laws and morals on the idea that people should somehow be different than they are. People are inevitably going to have sex, sex will inevitably result in conception, conception will inevitably result in the very real problem of unwanted children. We have to deal with that reality, and trying to say that it should have been different before the conception is ridiculous. It of course is unfair to punish women for happening to be the party in question who has to carry the life-form, as well. I agree as well that the "pro-lifers" drastically underestimate the effects that carrying a baby will have on the mother in order to further their arguments. I agree that is is not a "mere inconvenience," and the rights of the mother can not be taken lightly under any circumstances. The weaker argument you make on this point strangely defies your entire position. "If fetuses did have a right to live, one could make an equal case for the right of unwanted fetuses not to live. This is alien to the anti-choice assumption that all life is precious and should be encouraged and preserved at any cost. In the real world, however, some people commit suicide because they no longer want to live, and others wish they’d never been born. Life is not a picnic for all, especially unwanted children who are at high risk for leading dysfunctional lives[10]. Many people believe that being forced to live is a violation of human dignity and conscience. To be truly meaningful, the right to live must include the flip side, the right to die. " Yes, many times unwanted children have terrible lives, and make the choice to end it anyway. Others are great. Others are okay. A very vocal proponent of abortion, and musician I admire very greatly, Neko Case, makes this point as well, having gone through the lifestyle of an unwanted child growing up. Still, her life became a valuable addition to art, to person-hood, and to life for everyone around her, and I doubt she regrets being a part of that. I'm just not sure how the one can speak for all here. Some may rather have died, and some may rather have lived. And wasn't that the issue you were just defending moments ago? The right to choose, once person-hood has been attained? It doesn't seem very "Pro-Choice" to me to make that decision for a being that hasn't had the chance to make its own observations regarding its existence yet. (That was a cheap shot, but so is "Anti-Choice." I hope it demonstrates partly why I think these labels are so unhelpful) I'm nearing the end of my arguments here, and I though I know I haven't convinced anyone of anything, I hope that you will respond to me and we may continue the conversation. I recognize that the legality of abortion is a hallmark of Women's rights, and for the freedom of living, definitely persons, women every where, and agree that this is more important than the "maybe, debatable, perhaps, perhaps not," person-hood of the conceived. That's why I haven't gone into the legal arguments you've made, although I have some reservations about your particular arguments there as well. Regardless, for those making the choice, it is owed the honesty that the issue is more complicated than either side will admit, and that as much honest debate as possible is created to assist them in making the right choice for their families, their bodies, and themselves. It is highly probable that you will not read this, but I'm going to use it as a blog post as well. If you decide to respond to me, I will post it in it's entirety as well. I would like to hear your responses; as I've said before, my silly tribal devotion to the liberal clan makes me want to agree whole-heartedly on every issue, and I'll take any excuse to do it. Mostly, it was therapeutic and releasing to get out a bunch of pent-up ideas that needed release, so I thank you for writing your article, (which, though I have disagreed with on some points was one of the more helpful and reasonable out there) to give me something to respond too. Sincerely, Tim

0 notes

torgophylum-blog · 13 years

Text

Cover Letter Introductions

Clearly, as an English major looking for a job in publication, your cover letter matters even more than it might to the average person. While excellent writing is always a plus, no matter where you are applying, it's hard not to feel that as a hopeful editor, this letter is an audition in every sense of the word.

Your style, knowledge of grammar and vocabulary, and attention to detail are all on full display here. You may have perfect writing samples stockpiled up to your ceiling, but this is going to be the first one they see. You are competing with other people who know this, and you have to wonder if that last callback you never received had less to do with your qualifications and everything to do with how you used the wrong "too."

Considering that you are going to end up writing a LOT of cover letters from scratch, this is a lot of pressure to be under and can actually be the most discouraging part of job hunting and what keeps you playing Minecraft instead of writing.

What has worked for me is, first of all, to know what mistakes I commonly make and to keep an eye out for them every time. The weakest part of my writing comes from accidental homonym substitution (too, to, two and so on. This gets really bad sometimes, where I have written A Knee Where instead of anywhere. There's seriously something wrong with my brain) and comma usage (I tend to use far too many in places where they are unnecessary and inappropriate). Once you've flagged those flaws and know that they will turn up, it will be easier for you to polish that letter.

Secondly, I would recommend not keeping a template. I believe it's best to sound sincere with each new job you apply to, and respond very specifically to the job requirements in the same wording that they have used. The advantage here is that your cover letter won't read like you didn't read the posting at all, and that you will be able to practice more. Once you've done this a few times, as with all writing, it will become quicker and more natural.

Speaking of natural writing, I must admit that I've had difficulty finding a good way to word the introductory sentence of a cover letter. Ideally, you'd like to get the following three pieces of information in that sentence without it becoming a run-on. Your reason for writing, the name of the position, and how you discovered the position. This would seem easy, but my own attempts have always become somewhat awkward when I read them out loud. I've taken to say something like, "I am writing today to show my interest in _______ that I discovered on _________" I really think this sounds awkward, but I'm not sure how else to put it. Any suggestions will be heeded.

0 notes

torgophylum-blog · 13 years

Text

Well...

Tumblr isn't hiring English majors!

0 notes

torgophylum-blog · 13 years

Text

My Interview with Tantor

To introduce myself, I am a 23 year old English Major who has recently graduated and has been looking for work in the publishing industry. This is difficult, as entry level positions are something of a rare find, particularly if you can't afford to move to NY to compete for unpaid internships for three years. I am currently employed at a deli in my hometown, where I spend my time variously cleaning, cooking, and sheepishly greeting my old high school teachers.

I created this blog to chronichle the days from now until I become hired, in order to keep track of what I've tried, what has worked to get an interview and what hasn't. On that note, let me share with you the first (and only) interview I've garnered since graduating.

This was with an Audio Book company called Tantor Media. First though, I should create the backdrop I had going in: A few days before (before I knew even I was to be interviewed), I gave a stranger a ride home from a casino where I had worked for a few months. The woman was very polite and didn't even stab me to death, despite what my father had told me could have happened. Rather she very ominously told me that things would be happening to me in reward for the good deed. That night, a fortune cookie told me that I was to expect a career change soon.

The next morning, a friend had linked me to Tantor's posting, and I applied. Within a day, they had sent me a message asking for an interview. Well, Karma was on my side, so I had a great deal of optimism. I took a drive down to the place and arrived an hour early, with an insatiable need to urinate. Not wanting to enter the building that early, I left to find a gas station. I stopped at three, none of which had custiomer bathrooms. At this point, I had become lost, and wasn't sure how to get back where I was coming from. I still needed to pee pretty badly, and managed to find the place about five minutes before the interview was scheduled, and used their bathroom.

PRO TIP 1: Tough it out, or find some bushes.

While I filled out an official application form, I was happy to see a large, old white dog come out from one of the offices. He came up to me and looked at me with large eyes and an open mouth. I sorely wished to unleash a flood of baby talk on him, but decided it was best to avoid it, should my hiring manager come outside to see such professional behaivior. I'm gonna jump in with a spoiler alert now, and tell you I didn't get this job. I suspect now that the dog was the hiring manager all along.

PRO TIP 2: Pet the dog.

A few minutes later, the manager finishes his interview with another candidate. They come out laughing with eachother. I notice that she is very pretty, and realize that I will have to bring in my A-game to this interview.

The manager called me in and proceeded to ask me a few questions. One of his bigger concerns seemed to be whether or not I would be able to fit into the environment. The way he worded it however, was to ask, "What kind of environment do you work best in." As I didn't have a real good sense of what kind of office this was, I made the possible mistake of trying to hedge my bets rather than being honest. I tried to make myself appear as a flexible condidate, ready to work under many different conditions. He pushed the point though, and I took a stab, saying something fairly lame, such as "I don't like a lot of workplace drama." Naturally, I know full well that the kind of people who say that are exactly those who start workplace drama. Furthermore, this is the big leaugues; That should go without saying.

PRO TIP 3: Come in with a good idea of what kind of environment you want to work with, and be honest about it. It may not get you the job, but being aloof on the subject is going to get you a definite no.

To get a picture of how badly this avenue of conversation went, it led us to a discussion of workers who are overly political in the workplace. The manager took this as an opportunity to ask how cemented my opinions where. I took this as a sign that he was looking for whether or not I had room to grow. Specifically, he asked me "How often I had changed a position." I responded with some gibberish that made me look wishy-washy, and then said the stupidest part of the discussion, which was "I'm still young."

Even if it is an Entry Level job, looking young, and thus stupid, is one of the worst things you can do in an interview. That's why we dress up as our best, get haircuts, shine our shoes. The goal is to look as professional and capable as possible. If you find the things you have said to engender the following statement from your hiring manager: "Yes, you ARE young," then you have found yourself in a dark place.

"Yes, you ARE young," says my hiring manager, as I hope that I've shaven well enough that he doesn't notice I can't even grow facial hair properly. He now announces his concerns that I will jump ship as soon as a better opportunity comes a long, as I clearly won't want to be stuck in a 30,000$ a year job for all eternity.

I now have an oppurtunity to reverse this, to show that I have an understanding of the position and that it offers more than salary, to tell him that what I really need from this position is the 3-5 years experience that will allow me to advance my career, that the money isn't important and I would be stupid to leave the position. I could say something, as well, that indicates I would prefer to be promoted from within the company than look for another job. Instead, polishing my hindsight glasses, I agree with him simply that I would not stay forever, but that the pay would certainly be "enough for me." My argument? Oh don't worry, I'm not greedy, hurr durr.

Pro Tip 4: Be ready for that question, especially if you are young. It's a game decider.

Fairly quickly after this, the interview is over. I make another faux pas by standing up a full minute before he does, and then awkardly taking my seat once more. I want to be clear here, that at this point things with him where very amiable. He recomended me a few bookstores in the area, we were talking with a familiarity that I had hoped we would reach. It was leaving me with a pretty good feeling about how things had went despite the awkwardness during the interview. It was clear he liked me personally, and I still believe he did. But I had not made myself a good candidate for the position.

I never did recieve a call for the job, negative or positive, though they had wanted someone for the new year. I contacted him through email once more to thank him for the interview and recieved no response. In hindsight, I did blow the opportunity, but hopefully another comes and I've learned from it, and that this is a short lived blog.

#English #Jobs #Tantor #Emplayment #employment #interview #questions #Publishing

9 notes · View notes