Summations Only

You aren't even reading what I'm writing are you? I can tell. The reason you were rebutting that claim is because you read my claim wrong.When I compare the claim you said I made (and rebutted), with the exact words I used it is clear to all English speakers that I made the EXACT OPPOSITE claim. Watch again, I'll put them both in big font so you can see But clearly you don't have to get hung up on such details as the words I used. Since you copied and pasted my words several times without reading them correctly, as evidenced above, I have no confidence in your doing it again. So let me walk you through it:

quote:

---

CS was talking about a valuable experience.

​

You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.

---

Here I say that CS is talking about an experience, just not 'an experience working as a photographer'. As essential as that kind of experience would be, that wasn't the kind of experience CS was talking about when he raised his example

quote:

---

{the} context has always been that we're talking about the sort of experience that helps you get a job

---

Here you say that the context was that we're talking experience that might help you get a job

quote:

---

And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.

---

Here I am saying that CS comments about gaining an experience operates within the context as the experience in question does help you turn professional.

quote:

---

What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"?

---

Which you wrote, as you admitted, because you were rebutting the exact opposite of what I said viz., the example that CS gave was NOT of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional. An issue I have cleared up now, but apparently despite posting the exact quote you still insist you were right. Going to college is an experience that will help you turn professional.Going to college is not the same as becoming an experienced photographer.I'm talking about, and have been all along, an experience that will benefit your career, which is not performing the career itself. All you have to do is actually show where I took one position, and then took another position. You don't actually get to do this by changing what I said to its exact opposite and claiming I changed my position, sorry. And yet you provide no support of me 'presuming to dictate terms', arrogantly or otherwise. What you have is me saying that CS was talking about an experience that would be useful to your career but was not the experience of doing the work. How is that dictating terms? It's unrebutted because it's not a counterargument. I hold the same position, and have said as such.But this is not whether the experience is 'as valuable' as some other experience you may or may not be able to have. It's about whether the experience has value. I see you replied to the most unimportant and irrelevant part of what I said.Here is the part I was hoping you'd tackle

quote:

---

$500,000 for 12 months work is worse than that an unknown probability of getting paid $250,000 for 9 months work.

​

How is this true? It seems counterintuitive so I'm afraid you'll have to walk me through it.

---

As I said, you said 'that's not my argument' when I said it the second time (you didn't respond the first time), that's why it became a point of argument. If you are now saying it's perfectly in agreement with your argument then I return to my original point

quote:

---

By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange. They ask for value for value. The photographer might think 'I hate having to pack up my stuff and lug it to the coffee shop If someone were to do that for me, that would be valuable'. Seeing an opportunity to exchange mutual value with each other an agreement is soon made.

---

So since we are in agreement that neither party should be doing work without compensation I proposed this:

quote:

---

The pro works for coffee
The amateur works for knowledge

---

And I'm eager to see your argument explaining why the amateur is being irrational. Yes, but you didn't apply that to the example given. So explain how x% probability of getting paid $250,000 for 9 months work is better than ~100% probability of getting paid $500,000 for 12 months work.You can factor in 'price signaling' and 'market value' into that if you want, but I don't think its really going to help.What signal are you sending about price if you turn down $42,000/month in exchange for $28,000/month? And how is this to your advantage? The context should have made it clear. 'Working for nothing' clearly means 'working without pay'. Since we're technically not really talking about 'working for nothing', as has been patiently explained to you, I would have thought you'd have realized that.

---

Summarize this supporting documentation for me, because I must have missed it. I've done a lot of work going back to this thread to support my claims of consistency and honesty. I'm sure you can do a little bit of work to prove me wrong. Quoting what I am saying and responding as if I'm saying something else doesn't count, by the way.

quote:

---

We're not talking about "hanging out with a pro photographer." We're talking about doing unpaid work for a pro photographer, work that has nothing to do with photography, and you've repeatedly and dishonestly tried to equivocate those two very different things

---

No support for this claim presented that I can see, ample support in refutation. I've been talking about the same thing all along: the value acquired in learning from a pro being paid for in labour. No equivocation on that matter at all.To support dishonesty you need to show that I knew the truth, but intentionally represented things in a way contrary to that.
To support equivocation you have to show how I've been using the ambiguity of a word in order to mislead.You have done neither of these things.

quote:

---

But you know that's my position because I've told you, several times. Yet you continue to insist that my position is that photographers should work for others for free. Do you see why I'm accusing you of the most rank dishonesty? Hint: it's because you keep lying about my position.

---

It wasn't lying about your position, it was an attempt to lead you to a conclusion that you were resisting for no good reason.I said, 'a photographer should get paid to teach you'
You said, 'that's not my argument'
After some clarification you said 'my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free.'Which is entirely consistent with what I had originally said: the photographer should get paid to teach you, he shouldn't work for you for free.This isn't lying about your position, it's showing an inconsistency in your argument. I knew you didn't think the photographer should do it for free, but you denial of its opposite would suggest you were saying they should.Again, no supporting evidence cited that I was actually lying.

quote:

---

Do you see why you open yourself to charges of dishonesty? Hint: it's because you're so dishonest.

---

No supporting evidence provided. Supporting evidence would be I suppose to show how the quotes that I avoided posting change the context of the discussion. I've not made this about you crashfrog. You have decided to make too much of this argument about my perceived shortcomings, and your insistence on accusing me of being dishonest rather than making mistakes. All I've done is accuse you of being human.I'm desperately trying toa) defend against your accusations
b) support the argument that you can exchange labour for something of value other than money

---

Towards the end of b), perhaps you can address the questions I raised at the end of the thread

quote:

---

Would you pick up a lens cap for Sweden and all its taxes in perpetuity?

​

Would you walk to the shop and buy me a drink with my money in exchange for a trip to Mars?

​

Would you tie a child's shoe laces in exchange for the Library of Alexandria?

​

Would you put this paper cup in the bin in exchange for seeing Jimi Hendrix {insert dead musician you'd like to see live as appropriate} live?

​

Would you shred 500 sheets of paper in exchange for fully paid tuition at a university of your choice in the subject of your choice?

​

Or are you rejecting, on principle, the notion of exchanging services for goods/services?

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Oh yes. That's right. CS was NOT talking about experience working as a photographer.You claimed that I claimed that CS 'wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job'Those are different claims and the first does not imply the second. CS was NOT talking about working as a photographer. He WAS talking about getting an experience that would be valuable in becoming a pro photographer. Indeed I did. It proved a point that was never in contention though, that's my point. You've failed to identify a time when I held a contrary position to the claim that CS' post was in context and was about acquiring something of value in exchange for labour. That one can do work that is tangential to your goals as a means to acquiring your goals. And yet again, you absolutely fail to provide any supporting evidence. I have been saying all along, in various different ways, that CS is talking about exchanging something of value (the day out with the pro) in exchange for labour. So let's start right at the beginning shall we? Message 67

quote:

---

Surely this is a little simple minded? At $7.50 an hour one only needs work 20 hours to earn $150.

​

So an arrangement could be made: Every 40 hours you work, we'll pay you $150 and 1 hour's university credit.

---

Oh look, I'm talking about exchanging labour for something other than money. Message 74

quote:

---

If you're a moron who spends their days with a photographer and who only participates in coffee errands, maybe.

​

But sensible people will observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high.

---

I notice you focused on the labour and ignore the value, so I highlighted the value you are meant to be getting in exchange. Again: I'm talking about exchanging labour for something of value. Message 87

quote:

---

Different people learn in different ways. Some people learn better when they figure stuff out on their own. Some people do better by talking out their questions with an expert, watching them work and instead of stumbling on trade secrets, acquire them directly. Others like to learn by reading. And sometimes people choose different ways of learning based on the situation.

---

Here my point is that some people learn things differently, and that's largely individual. For some people there is therefore value in asking an expert over learning everything by experience. And they may want to pay for that in labour. Still talking about the same thing. Message 111, I support the notion that there is value in following a pro photographer. The value that one is exchanging for labour. Still talking about the same thing, with the same position on it. Message 121

quote:

---

But nobody suggested that one gains experience as a photographer by following a photographer around in exchange for favours. That would be moronic and so easily demolished it seems barely worth the time. I think they call them strawmen don't they?

​

What has instead been suggested is that there are things one can learn from a professional photographer. From watching how they organise their work, find locations all the way to asking them direct questions to fill specific knowledge gaps.

---

So even as far back as that I explicitly disavowed the position 'one gains experience as a photographer in exchange for favours'And again I highlight the value being obtained, which is in exchange for your labour. Still saying the same thing. Message 141

quote:

---

My claim was that spending time with a photographer affords you the opportunity to learn the ropes from someone who knows the vagaries of the business. And that some people believe that this opportunity is worth selling their labour to run a few errands for the person who is helping them out.

---

Wow, look at that. I'm still talking about exchanging labour for value. No change in my position as of yet. Message 156

quote:

---

CS was simply coming up with a simple scenario where one might do a bit of work for free: to acquire the valuable experience of seeing a pro at work and asking them questions and what have you.

---

So - where is my position change, where is my blindness to the discussion before Message 165? Where am I saying that CS is saying something he isn't?

quote:

---

See? You're not using it to express agreement with me that CS was talking about experience that would help you get a job; you're using it as a rejoinder to rebut my claim that CS was talking about experience that would help you get a job. That's why you specified "turn professional" and not "help you get a job."

---

'Getting a job' isn't quite the way I think of working as a photographer, since a lot of that work is freelanced and the like. So while they may win contracts, they don't really get a 'job' - at least not universally. They do however get paid for their work. So I used the word 'professional' to more accurately convey my meaning - it covers both being salaried and self-employed. I was trying to guess at why you were asking the question because, as I explained to you I didn't know. And it was because you had the mistaken impression I was saying something I wasn't. I'm comfortable with the way I'm looking right now, thanks. I'm sure there are quite the number of people who are wondering why you are compounding your error by attempting to call into question your opponent's integrity. You are looking like randman right now, crash. I am looking like Mod debating randman. If you want to assert that within those messages is the supposed 'supporting documentation ' I urge you to identify it for me, what you just did was provide links to posts in which you claim the evidence is, not summarized the evidence. When I say 'I must have missed it' the response should not be 'read my posts', which I have already done, it should be to highlight specifically in those posts which parts are documentary evidence of me being dishonest.Remember, to be supporting documentation it has to show that I was aware of the truth, but presented it deliberately falsely. Naturally. If you can stop accusing me of being dishonest, maybe we can sensibly explore whether that is the case. No you haven't - but you have quoted me as saying one thing while claiming I am saying the exact opposite, which is obviously what I was referring to.Why are you so hung up on this series of accusations? Is it because you are trying to avoid dealing with my actual points? Are you trying to distract us from errors you have made? Why don't you just find out what my position is now, and argue against that? Even if you feel I was lying - you've put forward what I presume is your best defence of that accusation already. Do you really see merit in continuing to try and prove your point through the mighty power of repetition?Towards the end of moving this discussion forwards perhaps you can answer the questions I asked at the end of my last two posts?

quote:

---

Towards the end of b), perhaps you can address the questions I raised at the end of the thread

​

quote:Would you pick up a lens cap for Sweden and all its taxes in perpetuity?

​

Would you walk to the shop and buy me a drink with my money in exchange for a trip to Mars?

​

Would you tie a child's shoe laces in exchange for the Library of Alexandria?

​

Would you put this paper cup in the bin in exchange for seeing Jimi Hendrix {insert dead musician you'd like to see live as appropriate} live?

​

Would you shred 500 sheets of paper in exchange for fully paid tuition at a university of your choice in the subject of your choice?

​

Or are you rejecting, on principle, the notion of exchanging services for goods/services?

---

I really didn't, crash.

quote:

---

You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.

---

It was a rough summary of it yes. You kept arguing that the way to get 'experience as a photographer' was to go out and actually take pictures. Like this:

quote:

---

I'd look for experience. Photographic work that they had done. Publications their photographs had appeared in. Challenging environments they had been able to produce good work in.

---

You are clearly talking about experience of working as a photographer, taking pictures, getting published etc.But CS and I were not talking about this kind of experience, as I previously said. We were talking about a different kind of experience.

quote:

---

No, it's a discussion, the discussion has context, and that context has always been that we're talking about the sort of experience that helps you get a job.

---

And then I asserted that the experience that CS was talking about helps you turn professional. Thus, we were operating within the context as you described it. No, I did not mean them to be synonymous. You had been arguing about becoming an experienced photographer, so I retorted that it was not that kind of experience - but a different kind of experience. It wasn't some of the other kinds of experience you mentioned all related essentially to practical experience of photography.Experience working as a photographer is helpful becoming pro
It does not therefore follow that an experience that is helpful in becoming a pro is therefore experience working as a photographer.This started because you said

quote:

---

Practice to get experience

---

And I agreed with that,
You said: Message 122

quote:

---

Because we're talking about sources of experience. That's the context. You presented, as a corroboration of your position that you can get experience as a photographer by fetching coffee for photographers, a source that you represented as saying that you can get experience by fetching coffee for photographers.

---

You see the misrepresentation there? It was never my position that you can experience as a photographer by fetching coffee. So I replied

quote:

---

As I said, that's not my claim its your strange interpretation of my claim. My claim was that spending time with a photographer affords you the opportunity to learn the ropes from someone who knows the vagaries of the business. And that some people believe that this opportunity is worth selling their labour to run a few errands for the person who is helping them out.

---

So I identified that you were thinking merely of 'practical experience' and interpreting CS's post in light of that, but actually CS was not talking about that kind of experience, he was talking about a different kind of experience.

quote:

---

And then you said that the context of the discussion was not the sort of experience that helps you get a job, rather that it was "professional experience":

---

No I didn't say that. I was pointing out that the CS and I were both operating under the context you described. I just used different words that I thought were close enough to be fine, but had subtle distinctions. Yeah, unbeknownst to me. Heh.Actually one can become professional without getting a paid job. And one can have a paid job and not be professional. I made points like this at the time, but you dismissed it as a Gish Gallop. But CS didn't mean that, and I've never said that he did. So it is false that I was acting like it was obvious.He was not talking about 'experience working as a photographer'
He was talking about 'an experience that will help you become a professional photographer.'The two are not the same. There is no contradiction here. Not all experiences that help you become a professional photographer are experience working as a photographer. Attending a lecture on photography by an esteemed photographer may help you become a pro photographer, but they won't make you an experienced photographer.See the difference?

quote:

---

It's not a word game, its just a word and you were getting tripped up on it.

​

CS was talking about a valuable experience.

​

You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience. And now you know what experience we were talking about, I hope that clears it all up.

---

I did post that message. I asserted we were talking about a valuable experience, but not 'experience as a pro photographer'. This is not out of context in a discussion about 'experience that will help you turn pro' as the valuable experience in question can indeed help you turn pro. Except you have not shown how I've been misleading in my usage of the word.

quote:

---

You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.

---

quote:

---

And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.

---

As demonstrated, there is no change of position between these posts. In the first quote I say CS is talking about a 'different experience' than 'working as a photographer'. In the second quote I clarify that the 'different experience' in question was something that was helpful in turning pro. Just because it was 'helpful in turning pro' that does not mean it is 'working as a photographer', so you have not identified a position change.You've found two posts in which I am saying different and non-contradictory things about the same position. CS was talking about exchanging some labour (getting coffee) in exchange for the experience of watching a pro work etc.I've not changed my position on that. Given that I followed that by saying

quote:

---

When I say 'I must have missed it' the response should not be 'read my posts', which I have already done

---

I'm not sure why you'd think I am saying I didn't read them. My point is that I don't see the supporting documentation that you claim is in them. It's quite simple: You find a post in which I said something dishonest. You quote that and say 'This is an example of dishonesty'. Then you provide support to the assertion that dishonesty takes place. Yes, that would be a start. Why don't you do that? Where in those posts did you perform this feat?Quote it for me, please. Thanks. No. I have read your posts. I do not know what standards of evidence you are thinking of, but nothing in there meets any standard of evidence I'm aware of for supporting claims of dishonesty. To get an idea of what you are calling supporting evidence I'd like to see you tell me where you did that. Again, I'm not seeing it after taking a quick look through those posts. Gimme an example, at least. No. You took what I said, and asserted that I was arguing the opposite. This is what I mean by changing what I said. I said 'x', you say 'you said 'y''., that's the sense in which change to what I am saying is occurring as a result of your actions. Why?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I admit no such thing.I offered it as a good enough short summary of your position for the purposes of the point I was raising. You can (and since I knew you knew your position, I was expecting you to do this) insert your full position into that statement and will retain its meaning. Absolutely, but giving a shortened rough 'good enough for purposes' summary rather than typing out the full position each time, is perfectly acceptable behaviour as long as the rough version does not significantly alter the position. As an example

quote:

---

You presented, as a corroboration of your position that you can get experience as a photographer by fetching coffee for photographers

---

This is a problematic misrepresentation as your version of my claim has completely the opposite meaning than my version of my claim.And since I gave the brief summary of your position, and you didn't correct me straight away, I assumed you had understood me well enough and you agree that my portrayal of it was near enough to not bother arguing it.You were saying that you were talking about various kinds of experiences: experience doing the job, experience that is marketable, experience that you can put on a CV. And I was simply trying to point out that this is not the kind of experience CS was talking about in his example I'm afraid you have not shown that my actions were done dishonestly. Did my 'gist' leave anything important out? Why did you not say so at the time? Am I wrong in thinking you were thinking of a certain 'practical experience'? I'm quite content facing you honestly. I'm not the one derailing this conversation with accusations of various things. If you think my rank dishonesty is interfering with discussion, report it to a moderator. Then I guess my only conclusion is that you failed to present an adequate case and instead are relying on misreading my posts to say things that are contrary to what I am saying (as I have provided evidence for) and using that as a basis for calling me dishonest.Since I seem to be doing a large amount of the heavy lifting in this discussion let me go through some of the posts you linked to and see where it gets us: Message 180
You accuse me/CS of dishonesty:

quote:

---

I can, when you're not lying about it. And the way that I know you're not lying about it is when you correct me when the misunderstanding occurs. When "oh, you misunderstood me" pops up late in the game, that's how I know it's a dishonest ploy. Nobody's even tried to explain how I'm wrong about that.

---

I explain why it is not necessarily an indication of dishonesty in Message 184:

quote:

---

If you insist. There are a number of circumstances which could arise which falsify your 'knowledge'.

​

1. The person doesn't see your misunderstanding initially.
2. The person doesn't realize you are misunderstanding them, and argues back at them as if they understood the original point and are being awkward or slow for some reason.
3. The person has identified the misunderstanding early but the person misunderstanding doesn't understand the correction perhaps as they still believe they understood things perfectly the first time.
4. The person saw your misunderstanding, but figured that trying to correct this misunderstanding will lead to an annoying and protracted argument where the person they are trying to correct is calling them dishonest equivocators.

​

You can mix and match them, and come up with some of your own, I'm sure.

---

As a single other possibility that has not be falsified, refutes your notion that if an objection 'pops up late in the game', it's dishonest. It's a crappy heuristic in the first place, based on absolutely no logic and is vulnerable to biases.So no supporting documentation of dishonesty here, just a bad (and refuted) argument for it. Message 188
I see no particular accusations of dishonesty here, and no supporting evidence. Message 197
Again, I see nothing here that's relevant. Message 209

quote:

---

you're misrepresenting my argument

---

But later when I basically say it again, this happens:Me

quote:

---

By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange

---

You

quote:

---

you're misrepresenting my argument

---

quote:

---

Sorry, I thought your argument was that people shouldn't do work for free.

---

quote:

---

No, my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free.

---

quote:

---

You are suggesting the professional photographer should work for the wanabe for free, which is in contrast to your position that one should not work for others for free.

---

quote:

---

There's nowhere where I suggested that the photographer should work for anybody for free...nobody should work for others for free

---

quote:

---

Are you then saying that teaching people isn't work?

---

quote:

---

Teaching is work and people shouldn't do it for free

---

quote:

---

So you agree that by your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange

---

quote:

---

Yes, if the photographer is going to work as a teacher he definitely shouldn't do so for free.

---

See? I did not misrepresent your argument as by the end of yet another protracted discussion you agree with what I said.Either way, there is no supporting documentation. The above is what supporting documentation looks like when discussing an internet argument. It's a bit messy, but I'm putting as much energy into this discussion as I'm willing to already.You want me to say anything about the other messages? I am already conscious of how long some of these posts are already. This is the problem when you just spam out a bunch of messages it doesn't really help the discussion move forward. Again, it wasn't dishonest and it wasn't intended to make it look like anything. I was avoiding filling the post with excessive and redundant quotes as much as I could. Just as you were doing when you said:

quote:

---

That seems unnecessarily redundant, since I've already linked to them and you supposedly already read them.

---

You had already quoted it, I had already said it. Did I really need to quote you quoting it?Furthermore you 'dishonestly omit' the part where I explained what I actually said, which stands in contrast to what you said I said:

quote:

---

No I didn't say that. I was pointing out that the CS and I were both operating under the context you described.

---

As for whether I said it, here is exactly what I saidYou said something like 'the context was about experience that can help you a get a job'

quote:

---

And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.

---

See the first word? And.This is how I was using it:The context was Shakespeare's complete works
And the context I was talking about was Shakespeare's writing outputI did not say 'it was this rather than that', as you claimed I did:

quote:

---

And then you said that the context of the discussion was not the sort of experience that helps you get a job, rather that it was "professional experience":

---

I neither said 'the context was not the sort of experience that would help you get a job' nor did I say that it was rather '"professional experience". That simply never happened crash.What appears to have happened is that you read my statement as if I was denying your claim as to the context and correcting you. I was not correcting your claim as to the context, I was pointing out that we were operating under the context as you claimed it to be.You could have avoided this error if you were using the rhetorical methodology known as the Principle of Charity

quote:

---

While suspending our own beliefs, we seek a sympathetic understanding of the new idea or ideas.

​

We assume for the moment the new ideas are true even though our initial reaction is to disagree; we seek to tolerate ambiguity for the larger aim of understanding ideas which might prove useful and helpful..

​

Emphasis is placed on seeking to understand rather than on seeking contradictions or difficulties.

​

We seek to understand the ideas in their most persuasive form and actively attempt to resolve contradictions. If more than one view is presented, we choose the one that appears the most cogent.

---

Your present rhetorical methodology of seeking contradictions or difficulties is causing you way too many false positives. You claimed that I claimed that CS

quote:

---

wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job

---

When as a matter of fact, as I have demonstrated, I made no such claim. I made a claim which you interpreted to be this, but as I have shown there is a difference betweenexperience working as a photographer.
and
the kind of experience that would help you get a jobWhich seemed to be the source of your mistake.See the opening of Message 230 to see where I have already said this. You responded by ignoring the complete argument I was making and just focusing on a single sentence. That is to say: I said a bunch of things including the phrase 'You claim that I claim x' and you simply responded by reiterating that I do claim x and proceeded to make the same mistake I was originally correcting in my full argument.As for misrepresenting the posts you were referring to, again this is not true. What happened was, that I was not clear which posts you were referring to, so I had to make an educated guess. I only said one thing about 'the kind of experience that would help you get a job' regarding CS's position and that was to say IT WAS. But you claimed I was saying IT WASN'T. How was I to have predicted you were referring to a post where I was talking about a completely different aspect of my position?Do you remember how awkward you was being in trying to explain it when I asked you quite nicely? It went like this: What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"?
Why do you ask?
What do you mean, "why do I ask"?
I was wondering if you had a reason for asking the question and, presuming that you did, I was asking what that reason was.
Asking what question?
'What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"?' - - - I just have no idea why you are asking it.
What do you mean you "have no idea" why I'm asking? {Quotes a huge section of the discussion, including the bit where I said And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional. - - - What do you mean you "have no idea" why I'm asking?
It means I do not know why you bothered to raise the question. I don't know where you were going with it, what motivation you had for asking, what rhetorical purpose is being served etc...Yeah this isn't salient, but I'm itching to know the answer.
I already told you the answer. Remember? I showed you the context of the discussion?
I already saw the context of the discussion, but I'm still confused. Is it so difficult to explain it to me so that I do understand?
I don't understand what you don't understand, I guess. That's why I kept asking but you seemed disinclined to explain.
I have no idea why you are asking this question. I mean the answer is pretty straightforward and I've given it. But presumably you had some reason you wanted to say this. Is there no other way you can conceive of to try making the same point in a different way?
{quotes entire conversation again} Perfectly obvious, to me. Can you explain what is confusing about this exchange?
I am confused about your intention for bringing up the definition of the word professional. Was it meant as a rebuttal? In what sense does it undermine what I said?
It's a rebuttal to your claim that CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job, because as you admitted, "professional" basically means "does it as a job."I mean, how ridiculous was that? If you had just quoted the salient parts you felt were in contradiction or indeed any number of other ways of handling that - I would not have been in a position where you accuse me of misrepresenting which posts you were referring to. I'm not claiming that you changed any of my remarks in quotation, as I have explained already. What you changed was my stated position, which you proceeded to argue against causing confusion. The supposed dishonesty has been shown to be false. You characterise my argument incorrectly on a number of times, and when it becomes clear this is the case I correct you. Instead of trying to read my posts in the context of my correction, to see if it makes more sense that way, you insist that I am being dishonest instead. I have invited you to discuss those matters to the exclusion of this issue several times. You could go over to Message 206 and respond to that. On the other hand, while you continue to say I am dishonest in a public forum, I'm going to continue to challenge you.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Well no, I don't. Let me recount what your position was:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And, of course, what's number 5 on that list? What's the only list item that actually refers to getting experience, which is what we're talking about? Why, it's:

---

​

Practice to get experience

---

Practical experience, basically, that's what you mean. You mean 'getting experience' rather than 'having an experience'.
Then you said:

quote:

---

The way you get experience as a photographer is to take pictures.

---

Yet again, you are talking about a sort of 'practical experience'.You went on to say

quote:

---

CS referred to getting experience as a photographer

---

Here you are saying that CS is talking about getting this kind of practical experience.

quote:

---

We're talking specifically about marketable experience that is going to help you get your next job. You're making the argument that you can get that from proximity to professional photographers, which you receive in exchange for menial labor.

​

But you've not provided any evidence that you can get real, marketable experience from nothing but proximity. And the way I know that you can't is my own common sense, and what I would ask for and look for if I were hiring a photographer.

​

I'd look for experience. Photographic work that they had done. Publications their photographs had appeared in.

---

Again - you are talking about the kind of experience that one gets from practice, even specifying some of the evidence one can produce for that experience.It was then, that I characterised your position, that we're talking about this kind of practical experience that one gets from actually doing the vocation in question as

quote:

---

'an experience working as a photographer'

---

What you have not done, is show how I 'summarized {your} position with language that did not mean the same thing as your position'I admit it's not the perfect shortened version of a position ever created, but I don't think one can go so far as to say it was misrepresentative. You even quoted me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.

---

​

No, he wasn't. He says he is now, but he's lying. It's a dodge - it's transparently a dodge.

---

You didn't say I was misrepresenting you there, you seemed to acknowledge that I got your position close enough. That's why you were able to say that 'He wasn't'. He wasn't what? Why he wasn't referring to a different kind of experience as you were. Well it was in Message 156 is where I said it. And it was in Message 160, the direct response to my post where you did not correct me right away. It was your next post, Message 170 where you raised that rhetorical question. And you later explained why you raised that rhetorical question, it was in rebuttal to a point I never made. As you wish. I do not believe it's OK to present, as someone's position, something different than what their position actually is. I believe I presented as your position, something which captured the essence of your position enough for me to explain you were thinking CS was talking about a different kind of experience than he was. I asked you specify something in the posts so that I could address it. But you had to have me try and figure it out myself. You have only yourself to blame if I didn't address the right thing. Are you psychic? How could you possibly know whether or not I saw 'no particular accusations of dishonesty here'What does that 'evidence' show exactly? Well, I think it was obvious to all that CS didn't see it as a misunderstanding. I thought it was misunderstanding, though naturally I'm beginning to consider that CS might have a point.I don't think I 'utterly misrepresented' the exchange. In Message 74 I did indeed try to correct your mistake. The mistake was that you were complaining that there was no value in fetching coffee, when nobody was arguing there was. The value was in watching the pro.I was not suggesting that CS was telling you that you had misunderstood the exchange. This came from me saying:

quote:

---

he was talking about a different experience.

---

And you retorting

quote:

---

No, he wasn't. He says he is now, but he's lying.

---

And I replied:

quote:

---

He said it quite a while ago

---

Now - I think I've identified the source of the misunderstanding on this particular point. You clearly thought I was saying

quote:

---

He said it quite a while ago

---

In response to the latter part of your statement

quote:

---

Otherwise he would have told me I misunderstood him from the get-go.

---

And when I said 'he said it a while ago' you thought I meant 'He said you had misunderstood him a while ago'. But I didn't, not exactly at least. I just meant he corrected you pretty early into the discussion - he thought you were spinning it deliberately. It was me that put it down to a misunderstanding. Well you made many arguments, and that was one of them, but that was not related to the particular point I was making. The point I was making was that if both parties were acting rationally, they'd both try and get compensated for their work.

quote:

---

The photographer has something of value: a day out with them sharing advice and watching setups etc. However, it costs them something to give that value to you: you may be competition for them in the future, they have to explain what they're doing all day rather than just getting on with it which takes effort and presumably distracts them from doing their work at optimum efficiency, they may miss a killer shot because of your presence.

​

By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange. They ask for value for value. The photographer might think 'I hate having to pack up my stuff and lug it to the coffee shop If someone were to do that for me, that would be valuable'. Seeing an opportunity to exchange mutual value with each other an agreement is soon made.

---

That was my point, it was nothing to do with the agreement we had about the fact that it is in fact possible to find a photographer who would do it for free. If you can find a find such a photographer, and they are offering you the same level of support as someone who is asking for favours, then of course you should rationally pick the one
that doesn't ask for anything in return.But my point is, that by your own argument, photographers should not do it for free even as some do. And those that do, by your own argument are irrational.And as I said - the photographer should rationally try and get someone to get them coffee (or whatever), while the student should rationally try and get away with having free tutorials.If you really want to go down the road of talking about this, let me try to deal with it head on. Let's say you want to follow a photographer around. You ring a few people up, but all the local photographers in the field you are interested in ask for favours (let's say, 3 coffee runs at 20mins each). Someone 2 hours drive away would do it without asking for any favours. What is the rational course of action here?

quote:

---

I thought your argument was that people shouldn't do work for free.

---

Which was the relevant argument in question to the point I was making, you replied,

quote:

---

No, my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free.

---

See - that's your argument, you said it yourself.

quote:

---

My argument, which you agreed with, was that you can follow around a photographer for free

---

And that's another argument.Once we had agreed that, yes, it was your argument that led to the conclusion that the photographer should ask for payment - then no misrepresentation of your argument could have occurred. I had, by your own admission, represented one of your arguments perfectly well.Just because I didn't address some other argument, one that was not in dispute, that doesn't make it misrepresentation. I was making an argument about the rational choices the photographer should make, not the student. Obviously we agree that student's optimum outcome is to find a local photographer who'll give them a valuable experience and will do it without compensation.And tying this into my overall point, some people may judge that 1 hour getting coffee and 7 hours with a pro is a better way of learning the fundamentals than by however many hours it would take to figure them out by experience. That is to say: They reckon it would take them longer than 8 hours of doing photography related tasks to learn the kinds of things the pro can teach them. We were talking about photographers teaching someone the ropes. I mention it in Message 207. I mention that it costs the pro time and effort (to sum it up) to teach, for which they should be compensated if they are acting rationally. It's not out of context when you ignore the extraneous and undisputed stuff. It what sense did I 'rearrange' your remarks? Then why on earth was I accused of dishonesty for not quoting you quoting it?Again, You said:

quote:

---

your claim that CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job

---

To support this notion you presented this quote:

quote:

---

You interpreted him to mean 'an experience working as a photographer' which would be a valuable, mandatory even, experience, but he was talking about a different experience.

---

But in that quote I do not say anything remotely similar to 'CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job'.What it says is that CS was not talking about 'experience working as a photographer'. This is a completely different claim. I've tried to patiently explain the difference, but for some reason you don't want to take into account what I am saying on this matter.CS was talking about an experience that would be valuable in becoming a pro photographer. That experience, as he put it was 'of watching how they do their job' but has been expanded in later discussion. CS did not say

quote:

---

You could follow around a photographer and get them coffee n'stuff without getting paid but gain invaluable experience of being a photographer

---

He said

quote:

---

You could follow around a photographer and get them coffee n'stuff without getting paid but get the invaluable experience of watching how they do their job

---

He was talking about the experience of watching someone do their job. I expanded this with some other benefits of the experience such as asking questions and getting useful tips and so on.He was not talking about 'experience working as a photographer', he is not talking about 'marketable experience', he is not talking about 'vocation relevant experience acquired through the practice of a vocation'. He is talking about the experience of watching how they do their job. This experience is, however, useful in becoming a professional.But just because it useful in becoming a professional, it does not mean it is therefore 'marketable' or 'practical' or 'experience gained working as a photographer'. There are other experiences besides these which can be useful in becoming a pro photographer. My position has not moved particularly in this sub-debate. I am, and have been, of the position that CS was talking about a certain kind of experience, one that is helpful in becoming a pro photographer but that was not practicing photography.You thought that I was talking about practicing photography kind of experience, you argued against me as if that was what I was talking about. But I never was. You made, and continue to make, a mistake. That's the exact right way of looking at it. I was indeed trying to say, very specifically, that CS "was talking about a different experience" than experience working as a photographer.How you managed to interpret that to mean I was saying that 'CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job' (as per your stating this in Message 220). I can only begin to speculate.Maybe you could fill in the blanks there for me. Of course I said that, I even quoted myself saying it in Message 224 and three times in Message 233. I've been discussing for some time already that particular quote of mine, and how it does not say what you are saying it says.And what to do you notice about that particular statement? Do you see where I say 'CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job'? I don't. I see where I say he is talking about experience other than 'working as a photographer'. The words are not to that effect. They're completely different words, with completely different meaning. In one I'm talking about experience that is not practical experience, in the other I'm highlighting that this non-practical experience is however, helpful in turning professional. By saying that the experience is non-practical, I am not saying it is therefore not helpful in turning professional.So try again. I took two positions that were not opposites. On the one hand, it was non-practical experience. On the other hand, it was helpful to getting a job. They are not contradictory, they are not opposites.I already gave a partial explanation for the innocent mixup regarding which replies I thought you were responding to. Allow me to give further detail.In Message 165 I said this:

quote:

---

And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.

---

You replied:

quote:

---

What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"?

---

So - when you asked this rhetorical question, it was in a direct response to where I specifically said 'the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional'. When I asked you to explain yourself you said

quote:

---

It's a rebuttal to your claim that CS wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job

---

But you posted right after I made the exact opposite claim. Since you didn't specify which thing I said that led you to believe I had made such a claim, and since there was only one thing that I said that anything to do with the 'helpfulness regarding getting jobs' was to say that it was - I drew the conclusion you were referring to that message. It transpires you were talking about another message, and as soon as you pointed this out, I moved on to discussing how that message does not involve me making a claim that could be interpreted as you had portrayed it. You pointed out the confusion in Message 227 and in Message 230 I began to address the argument in light of this correction. I didn't say that you had not quoted the parts that were in contradiction, crash. Your continued accusations of lying are still absurd. What I actually said was that 'if you had just quoted the salient parts...'. You didn't just paste the salient parts. I explained already

quote:

---

You took what I said, and asserted that I was arguing the opposite. This is what I mean by changing what I said. I said 'x', you say 'you said 'y''., that's the sense in which change to what I am saying is occurring as a result of your actions.

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

From Message 586 where it does not belong (but hey, congratulations on getting a cheer from Buzsaw!): I wouldn't go so far as to say you had substantiated your claims, no.But to address your concern more directly - I'm not complaining that you tried to substantiate your claims of my dishonesty - I merely stated as a fact that you had dedicated a whole post to so doing. This is of course a key sign of terminal topic derailment. The correct thing to do in such cases is to alert a moderator. Which I did. Well actually the discussion problem is that you don't seem to have any intention of stopping while you perceive I am lying, and I don't think I'm going to stop defending myself against them. Since it is now the predominant discussion going on - and there is no visible terminus to the off-topicness, that would constitute a discussion problem.I can promise to stop being dishonest if you like. I promise to stop being dishonest (within normal human limits). I won't, however, promise to stop making mistakes. What would be swell is if you at least tried to interpret my posts as errors or mistakes rather than as rank dishonesty. I was referring to the 'right of reply':

quote:

---

The right of reply is the right to defend oneself against public criticism in the same venue where it was published.

---

I guess its fair because it is much easier to accuse someone of dishonesty than it is to defend against it. Multiple accusations of dishonesty are like a Gish Gallop - each accusation takes considerable time and effort to address, and if anything is left unaddressed due to time constraints or what have you, then the person being accused can be criticised at a later date for his unanswered charges against them. Maybe in an internet forum setting, it doesn't work out as being quite so fair. But whatever, it's moot now - the better suggestion of moving this to Free For All won out. Again, I was not complaining. I realize that a problem discussion was occurring and I'm alerting moderation to this fact.As to the charges you lay out about me here, I have of course dealt with them, at least in part in Message 238.

You raise some interesting questions (more interesting to see an outside perspective), and the answers to many of them exist in one form or another in the debate. But, as I wouldn't ask anybody to spend that amount of time trying to catch up, I thought I'd use answering your questions as a medium for summarizing my thoughts on this topic. So apologies for the length, but I wanted to try and answer as many of your questions as I could. I see Straggler has already answered the one directed at him. I'm not trying to speak for anyone here, what follows are my impressions only. Value doesn't come in 'kinds', as far as I can tell. Value is value. Things might be valued for different reasons. I might consider vaccine to be valuable. In which case I might walk 6 hours to get water that I can trade for the vaccine.I might consider The Spirit of de Grisogono to be very valuable. But if I'm on a deserted island with no hope of rescue, I'd consider 6 months supply of food to be more valuable.This means that there is no objective intrinsic 'value' to something. It depends on circumstance. But CF wants us to believe that there is no circumstances whatsoever in which one can obtain enough value in exchange for labour.So for instance, CF would not put a single item in the trash in exchange for anything (except perhaps, money), not even the best education money can buy or an exclusive trip, or time travel to a gig you want to see etc. I think he was talking about marketable experience, or something close enough to it. He is talking about 'work experience' which I would consider to be 'experience gained as a result of working in a particular vocation'. In most cases, this is marketable. Jon is talking generally about paying for something of value by working. It's the origins of trade.Bob is a good roofer. But a useless gas plumber.
Dave is a good gas plumber. But a hopeless roofer.Bob needs a new boiler. Dave needs roof work being done.Bob fixes Dave's roof. Bob installs a new boiler at Dave's house.That's the general principle. Now to the specifics of photography.Jane is a pro photographer. But hates having to stop working to get coffee.
Sarah is a photography student who has no work to be interrupted.So Sarah asks Jane if she can follow her around, if Jane will give her some advice on the business etc. And Jane asks Sarah if in exchange she will go get coffees a few times.Jane benefits in that she doesn't have to be interrupted by her caffeine addiction.
Sarah benefits as she learns stuff that can be slow/difficult/expensive to learn by practicing photography.CF seems to be arguing that it doesn't matter how much you are getting out of the exchange - it is irrational on two general grounds:a) Sarah could find a pro photographer to do it for free so she shouldn't 'pay' for it.
b) Sarah's time could be better spent taking photographs etc. Well, I think more specifically CF thinks that if you are not getting paid to do it, you aren't doing the job proper (that is, since you aren't displacing a paid worker, you can't be doing useful work because if it was useful work, the company would pay someone to do it) and so cannot call the experience marketable (or at least as marketable). In the quote you present that 'does not follow' I am in fact talking about marketable experience

quote:

---

requires a certain level of competence

---

That is, the kind of competence that can be gained through experience, which one can put on a CV/raise in an interview or whatever. And I agree that if you are in a position to do this, you should (unless you are trying to change career or something). But not everybody is in this position. I am in fact talking about that kind of experience in that quote:

quote:

---

The fact is that having experience helps getting future jobs. Starting a new career track can be difficult if you are competing with people with even as little as 6 months experience.

---

In what sense are they competing? In the job-marketplace of course. They are competing against people who have evidence of six months of experience (aka marketable experience).Now - as to crashfrog's particular point 'you'd be doing that job and they would be paying you' I thought the counterpoint was obvious and implied, but maybe I'm wrong. But what if you were doing that job and they weren't paying you? Why would they not pay you? Because you don't have the competency to justify paying you. Why have you not got that competency? Maybe you're long term unemployed or seeking a job in an unrelated field from one you are experienced in. So that you can Message 74

quote:

---

observe setting up shots, trade tips for quick colour balancing, will ask questions about exposure settings and learning the justifications for each. They'll learn how to approach clients and drum up business, how to sell their work, what work sells quick, what work sells high.

---

Message 111

quote:

---

Start out by speaking to other professionals in the field. They are normally willing to give advice to individuals interested in their field. Besides if you speak to the right people they will tell you the pitfalls and upsides right from the start. Ask if you can follow them around for a day of work.

---

And so on.Those are the kinds of reasons one might follow a photographer around. Crashfrog made a claim in Message 66:

quote:

---

if you were getting experience that was relevant to a paid job, you'd be doing that job

---

CS raised his example as an example of someone getting {an} experience relevant to a paid job - as an example of someone getting paid in something other than money.Now granted, CF says he was specifically talking about marketable experience in that instance. But CS is quite clear he is talking about another kind of valuable experience, the experience of seeing a pro at work.The discussion up that point was about the general principle of exchanging your labour for something that you value. Evidence for this is as follows: Message 39

quote:

---

The business, for example, may be providing something of value to the unpaid worker, such as job training experience, chances to network with potential job references, etc.

---

The person does work, but may be getting something of value in return for that work. Message 46

quote:

---

We compensate employees in many different ways. Some employees are compensated with college credit and work experience. Some compensation is in healthcare benefits. Sometimes compensation is in the form of living quarters.

​

The notion that compensation must be a $ amount is just thata notion.

---

More about compensation in exchange for doing work. And the comment at the end there tells us explicitly that Jon is thinking of compensation in terms other than money. Message 61

quote:

---

So long as the parties each get something of greater value to them out of the exchange than what they put in, they are both acting rationally.

---

Message 65

quote:

---

Because of the value of what they get in returnexperience, college credit, references, networking, information, etc.

---

The reason to bring the photographer example up? As an example of someone doing work in exchange for something of value that is not money. My position is that it is perfectly rational to do work in exchange of something of value (goods or services) that is not money. That's my point in the photographer example. In the specific thread of the topic, my position is that marketable experience has a value of its own - and may be worth paying for that value in labour in some circumstances.Even more to the point of the thread: It is my position that the long term unemployed face a certain barrier to gaining employment. That barrier is 'lack of recent marketable experience'. They may be in a Catch-22 situation of 'can't get a job to get experience because I don't have experience'. It may be of assistance for the long term unemployed to give them marketable experience by way of certain workfare schemes. Workfare often fails on a number of grounds: requiring too much work (making paid job seeking difficult) or not taking into consideration the difficulties faced by those with multiple barriers to employment. Because it was in agreement with Jon but disagreement with crashfrog. I was talking to crash about marketable experience. See: Message 67
Message 74
Message 87
Message 93
Message 101
Message 110
Message 120
Message 147
Message 177
Message 185
Message 206But crashfrog abandoned that discussion in favour of discussinga) the photographer example
b) the dishonesty of myself and CS.I wasn't discussing the example at all initially. Crash brought it up in a reply to me:

quote:

---

To riff off of CS's example, below, nobody's opinion of your photography skills is going to be improved by your "experience" of getting coffee for photographers.

---

But nobody claimed that one's photography skills could be improved by getting coffee. When I tried to explain what the purpose of the example was, the resultant argument ensued which devolved into accusations of lies, equivocation, general rank dishonesty, misrepresentation and so on. We all started talking about marketable work experience. But crashfrog seemed to think we were proposing that the workers work for no compensation at all. So Jon mentioned some of the kinds of compensation the worker might receive.And CS came up with an example. It was in some ways a novel idea being introduced into the discussion. I'm even happy to provisionally operate under the notion that CS may have missed the mark he was aiming at. But whether CS successfully rebutted CF aside, CS was perfectly clear in his words.And somehow, biased by the idea of talking about marketable experience alone, he assumed when CS used the word 'experience' he was talking about 'marketable experience'. However, that kind of 'experience' is usually simply referred to as 'experience'. We say 'I gained experience', rather than 'I gained an experience' when we're talking about marketable experience type stuff.But CS was clearly referring to 'the experience', not 'gaining experience as a photograher'. Much of the debate has been about this, as crashfrog insists that CS was talking about 'marketable/practical type experience' when he was actually talking about a specific experience (of watching a pro). This was still within basic context, as this experience would be helpful in becoming a professional photographer and it was in exchange for labour.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

In fairness though - people could be overvaluing the benefits.

Well yes, there are degrees, but I don't think there are kinds. Incidentally 'Value is not value' is making the assertion that 'P is not P', which is always false.Chuck, quick question, are you sure you read my post? I mean in the bit you quoted I said

quote:

---

Things might be valued for different reasons...This means that there is no objective intrinsic 'value' to something.

---

Did you not consider that this might also mean that what is valuable differs from person to person as the circumstances allow? Absolutely. Well in the photography example I've been quite clear that it is not necessarily marketable experience (ie valuable to an employer), what I have been saying is that it is valuable to the person that has that experience.It will be helpful to learn the tricks of the trade you are about to try and ply. It will be helpful to know which are the high risk/reward jobs, and which ones generate almost guaranteed money, but just not a lot of it. And so on. That is to say: There are many different things which are valuable to different people for different reasons. Marketable experience. It's valuable to you in persuading others to hire you. Random example. Whether the work was paid or not doesn't really matter in this case. References who will say that you are a good and reliable worker and all that jazz. Right, you can't (unless perhaps the photographer was well esteemed), it's not marketable. It is a useful experience to have if you want to turn pro, though. Well no. Different things have different value to different people in different circumstances. I'm just saying there are no 'kinds of value' as far as I can tell. Something is either valuable to you (for whatever reason) or its not.What kinds of value are there, if I am wrong? Information is very valuable Chuck. It's why spies exist. It's why Google is so big. It's why people pay thousands upon thousands on college courses. It's why people are able to sell books.{In before some gag about a creationist who doesn't understand the value of information} How does getting paid make it more 'real' or 'marketable'? Of course, Jane is paying her, in tuition. Most photographers are not in a position to employ an assistant for money. And those that are, don't need an assistant and would rather save their money.But even then, which of the options you list is going to be better actually depends on specific circumstances. You could end up wasting your time looking a photographer thata) Can pay for an assistant
b) Wants to pay for an assistant
c) Wants to pay you to be an assistant.Which could have been better spent, taking pictures etc. Following a photographer around is not something you would generally raise in an interview. I was not referring to the photography example in the section you quoted me - as that example had not been brought up in the discussion yet.(I mentioned the 'competence to do a job' argument in Message 67, the photographer example didn't come up until the next post, Message 68) Indeed - but its also risky to try finding a paid job with no relevant experience. Some circumstances mean you should take the unpaid work, others that you should not. Because working for free gives you marketable experience. For instance, if you do a 6 month stint as a till cashier you have now become an experienced cashier (not very experienced, but after 6 months you probably know most of the ins and outs).This would be useful in competing against others with a similar level of experience. If you didn't have this 6 months experience, most employers will prefer those that do, so you'll struggle to find work. Precisely my point, but CF seems to disagree with that for some reason. Again, don't get confused between 'work without pay but gain work experience' and the 'work as an assistant for an experience that will be valuable'. Exactly! Now we just have to persuade crash As an example of someone doing work in exchange for something of value that is not money.
As an example of someone gaining an experience that would be useful in their career.It was an on-topic point.What other reasons are required, Chuck? Well, I think that there's nothing controversial about it. But its crash that seems to be arguing against this so you'd probably be wise to ask him that. Remember: CS' example was not about competing against others with 6 months experience. They are two separate threads of discussion. What's unrealistic about exchanging labour for training? I'm definitely not suggesting we resolve unemployment. If anything, that's been crash's position.My position is that we should help those who have become long term unemployed who face certain barriers to getting employed such as no recent work experience. Exactly! Precisely! That's what I've been saying!But what if nobody wants to pay you to do the work without work experience because you are competing against those that do? Catch-22 right?The Workfare scheme is designed to tackle this Catch-22 - not solve unemployment.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

We're clear to talk about this. See Message 580. Percy 'didn't notice the move to Free For All'. If you want moderation, speak up over there. If you're happy without, come at me!Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

When Percy made that comment he was still unaware (as far as I can tell) that the discussion had been put in Free For All.I posted my 'request for clarification' after Percy had made the post you are referring to. I suppose you could give your preference over at the message I linked to, as Percy requested.And there's always the option of going back to discussing the topic, if you'd rather not discuss my various failings any further. I mean, I was kind of enjoying it - but it was at the expense of Straggler's thread...There was Message 147 or perhaps the more recent Message 206 which were on topic but which you (for whatever reason) declined to respond to. One of those could serve as a medium by which we could resume an ontopic discussion.