> The recruiter did in fact know exactly what the difference was and he was obstructing the candidate. For a little while I was basically convinced of delibera

> The recruiter did in fact know exactly what the difference was and he was obstructing the candidate. For a little while I was basically convinced of deliberate obstruction - no sane person would use the arguments employed by the recruiter. But, on reading through from the top once more, the recruiter was actually initially helpful and I have settled on "incompetence, not malice". Almost settled, at least.