Summations Only

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? Sorry, I thought your argument was that people shouldn't do work for free. It is possible, but it rather depends on the photographer you want to follow around really doesn't it? Hardly a concession, I've never disputed it. I apologize, as I thought you were arguing that people shouldn't work gratis, I thought you'd apply that same reasoning to the photographer who should also not work for free. He should gain something of value out of the exchange, if he is sensible.Granted, it is possible to get a free car. I've received a free car once. That doesn't make me irrational for paying for one. I might be able to get a free 1989 Citroen BX, but if I want 2010 Ford Fiesta I'm going to almost certainly have to pay to get it.You might be fortunate in finding someone that'll do it for free, it might even be common. But I fail to see what's irrational about agreeing to a mutual exchange of services. Of course not. I'm suggesting you do a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. Is it worth me fetching a few brews in exchange for insights into the business? And that depends on the circumstances. Maybe they're a crap photographer that's scraping a living. Then maybe you might not think its worth it. On the other hand, if they have won Pullitzer or something you might think it well worth your time. It's not really for free. It's in exchange for services.

No.But if you have a bit knowledge, and you spend a day talking to them about common jobs, quick fixes, long jobs, air filter cleaning tips and what have you, it might help you be a better mechanic if you were thinking of becoming self-employed. Doubly so if you have access to the gaffer for the day. You can learn the ins and outs of setting up your business if you're canny. Chuck, I've spent a considerable amount of time on this thread explicitly pointing out that this is precisely not what I am saying. I am saying that seeing a photographer set up shots, learn how they waterproof their kit, organise their lenses, and talking to them about lucrative jobs and low paying jobs. Risks vs rewards, how to find your niche, and all those kinds of thing that will help you become a freelance photographer.It won't transform you into one. There's still plenty of mistakes to be made, but if you remember some advice, you might avoid some costly mistakes along the way.However: this system might work for some jobs. onifre mentioned directing as being potentially one of them. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This is strange. You can't tell if Crashfrog is stupid or lying because he thinks real hands on experience that you can get paid for is what employers are looking for instead of following someone around for free all day asking questions and running errands and watching them work? Indeed strange.You can get hired in a field and get a pay Check as a helper or assistant or whatever. Start at the bottom. But doing it for free all day while taking notes? I think an employer is looking for more than an errand boy who watched someone do their job before and thinks that is considered somehow valuable when job hunting.

I don't understand what you don't understand, I guess. That's why I kept asking but you seemed disinclined to explain. No, my argument is that people shouldn't work for others for free. No, it's absolutely irrational for you to pay for the exact same car that you could get for free. Why pay when you can get it for free? That makes no sense.Now, you're going to try to come up with counterexamples, but they won't be counterexamples because they'll be examples of paying for something different than what you could get for free. Like your car example - that's two different cars. And that's not what I'm talking about. And I'm suggesting the same thing, and my position is that there's no conceivable set of circumstances where working for someone else for free is of greater benefit than working for yourself for free. You guys keep trying to harp on this one supposed counterexample of shadowing a photographer, but as I've shown, it's no counterexample at all because you don't get anything that you couldn't get working for yourself and shadowing a photographer without wasting your time doing grunt work. Maybe, but my point is that you would be wrong to. So it's not a counterexample at all, then, now is it?

OK step by step

quote:

---

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

---

I replied

quote:

---

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

---

It wasn't quite 'getting a job' in the strictest sense, but I feel it was still in the sphere of 'gaining employment'. So CS's example wasn't wildly out of context. Especially given the context, as I show below, was basically one of getting value other than money out of doing work.

quote:

---

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

---

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? In the context, I fail to see how this distinction makes a difference. 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. Yup. And if you happen to know a photographer that won't ask you for any favours and they're equally as good as any others you can ask, that's the one you should go for, obviously. I don't see why it's different. Not all photographers are equal. You might find one photographer that doesn't get asked this kind of thing very often, and who might find value of their own in explaining the trade to a newbie. They might be inexperienced themselves, or just not very good.On the other hand, there are award winning photographers making huge sums of money.If you could pick one of them to shadow for the day, I think the rational choice would be the latter. But the latter may ask for favours in return. Or not. But if they did, and you think the price is worth paying, then I say go for it. Well I can conceive of a set of circumstances where this might come into play.Let's say a movie producer comes up to you and says 'I want you to direct my next film. I will pay you $500,000 to do it. While I think you have talent, you haven't the experience of working on a big set. My friend is shooting one at the moment and the director needs a new assistant. Because you're inexperienced I can't convince him to pay you for it, but you only need do it for three months then we can start filming our project'.The numbers are all aribtrary, but I can imagine some future employment opportunity would motivate me to certain jobs without pay. Prove it. Well given how Jon was originally talking about doing work for something other than money... I think it suffices. Here is Jon's take on things:

quote:

---

...providing something of value to the unpaid worker, such as job training experience, chances to network

---

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

I simply use the phrase 'unpaid work' because it's the one used in the title of the thread. No sensible person actually thinks people should have to work with no compensation whatsoever.

---

quote:

---

Whatever Crash. You're clearly hung up on thinking that I am proposing people go to work without compensation and no amount of me telling you that I don't think they should seems as though it will change your mind.

---

quote:

---

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

---

Then CS raised his example of a person getting value in return for working without being paid money.

The Mandatory Work Activity Scheme that this thread is about. Its for people who are on Jobseekers Allowance. After you're on the dole for too long, they put your ass to work for free so you don't get stagnant. Either that, or you get off the dole.

Perhaps this whole argument has been over semantics.Following a photographer around and getting valuable tips, taking notes, learning the ropes in exchange for doing mundane non-photographer errands is more like a paying a small adult education fee at your community college in order to get valuable knowledge in the course you are taking - which could involve taking you out into the field where you even learn what kind of shoes are best to wear.It can be construed correctly as education, not experience.Note that Onifre has stated that no one successful in film making has not done a stint of unpaid work. Note that most of the examples cited here are in the arts. I can also think of the medical profession, where literally you are STILL IN SCHOOL when you do your unpaid internship in order to get your sheepskin.So, on your resume (CV for you UK folk) where would you list "Learned directly from Ansel Adams in person on how to set the black & white exposures." In the Experience section or in the Education section?

Well, yes, Mod. You're not going to understand it "step by step" if your "step by step" omits most of the steps.Here it is actually step by step, as I presented in Message 197Perfectly obvious, to me. Can you explain what is confusing about this exchange? I've never claimed that it was "wildly out of context." I've claimed that there was a context where "experience" was being used in a different way in which you were using it, and when you came into the middle of the discussion using the term differently than we were, you were, perforce, equivocating on the term. Either intentionally or unintentionally. I assert intentionally, because I informed you that you were doing this way back in Message 160 but you ignored me. There's nowhere where I suggested that the photographer should work for anybody for free, so this is another of your misrepresentations. My position, in fact, is that nobody should work for others for free when they can work for themselves for free, and in doing so, get all of the benefits of working for free plus they own the product of their work.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. Sure. The appropriate response would be to take the first offer and not the second. What's the advantage of working the second job, in this scenario? I don't see it. And even if the first is contingent on the second - you don't say that it is - go and find a third offer. If one producer will pay you $500,000, you've just learned that the market rate for your services as director is higher than nothing. So why work for nothing? And I rebutted those points. But you present them, again, as though I had not even responded. Do you see why you open yourself to charges of dishonesty? Hint: it's because you're so dishonest.

Apologies for the length. Half of it is just be posting highlights from the discussion with Jon, including your responses so as to avoid charges of dishonesty. Then there's the 'configurations' list which adds length, but isn't a lot of words. I also want to avoid any potential charges of ignoring your points and you made a number of them. As does yours, if we included all of the steps, it would be tedious. As I partially demonstrate below. If I haven't been clear already, I hope this works. 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?If your intent was obvious - that only serves to add further confusion: Why can you not explain it? And as I said, the context was with regards to acquiring something of value in exchange for labour.I was not using the term differently than 'we were'. I may have been using it differently than you were, but that's a misunderstanding, not an equivocation. To be equivocating you'd have to show that I was using alternative meanings in a misleading way. But you haven't shown such a thing.If you'd like, you could show that 'an experience of seeing x done professionally' could only possibly mean 'gain professional experience doing x' in the context, I'd be interested to see your working.I mean, marketable experience only seems to come up in Message 150, and to me it was Message 170.Here is the context, as full as you'd like, within tolerable limits and with some inevitable mistakes (I'm not getting paid to do this ). Jon said:

quote:

---

The business, for example, may be providing something of value to the unpaid worker, such as...{examples}

---

You retorted

quote:

---

The way we compensate employees for their work is with their pay.

---

Jon replied:

quote:

---

We compensate employees in many different ways.{examples}

---

crashfrog:

quote:

---

You assert that they're being compensated, but so far the only "compensation" you've identified is "the opportunity to do work for free", and that's not compensation of any sort.

---

Jon:

quote:

---

You're clearly hung up on thinking that I am proposing people go to work without compensation and no amount of me telling you that I don't think they should seems as though it will change your mind.

---

crash:

quote:

---

Because you don't tell me how they'll be compensated.

---

Straggler chimes in:

quote:

---

Do you think there is ever a situation where unpaid work experience is justified?

---

crashfrog:

quote:

---

No, not ever.

---

Jon:

quote:

---

It is justified whenever two parties agree that such an arrangement is suitable between them.

---

crashfrog

quote:

---

And the laboring party should not rationally ever agree that it is.

---

{A brief bit of snarkiness not relevant to the flow of discussion}Jon:

quote:

---

So long as the parties each get something of greater value to them out of the exchange than what they put in

---

crashfrog

quote:

---

And that something is... what, exactly?

---

{ahem another cut}Jon:

quote:

---

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

---

crashfrog:

quote:

---

Experience - you can't get this from an unpaid job, because if you were getting experience that was relevant to a paid job, you'd be doing that job and they would be paying you.

---

and finally: CS:

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 and better your own performance so that you can end up getting paid to do it.

---

I will take your word for it that in your mind, when you saw Jon list 'experience' you were thinking of 'work experience' or 'experience of doing the job' or 'marketable experience'. However, what you said was ''experience that was relevant to a paid job".The experience of following a photographer around is experience that was relevant to a paid job.Then you brought it up in our discussion, I looked at CS's example of 'an experience of watching x' in exchange for work, I remembered the general discussion you'd been having with Jon regarding getting something other than money in exchange for labour, and I operated under that context. I saw you were focusing on the value of acquiring coffee rather than the value that CS was bringing forward as an example of something you might do work in exchange for, and tried to draw your attention to the actual value you'd get out of the exchange rather than the value the pro got out of it.I hope that fuller context examination might help me gain my 'honesty points' back. I hope that because I didn't spam the board with the full discussion, and tried to keep it to salient sentences, you won't complain of quote mining or something. I invite the curious to go read Jon and crash's exchange for themselves for the full glory. Are you then saying that teaching people isn't work? As I have posted twice now:

quote:

---

In normal society what we do is exchange things of value with one another. 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.

---

Last time you responded, you didn't acknowledge that the pro photographer is having to do work for your benefit, perhaps you missed it. Your argument is

quote:

---

nobody should work for others for free when they can work for themselves for free

---

The photographer is somebody.
Teaching someone the ropes is work.
By your own argument, a photographer therefore should not show someone the ropes for free.There are several possible configurations:a: The pro does some work for free.
b: The amateur does not do work for freec: The pro does not do work for free
d: The amateur does work for freee: The pro does work for free
f: The amateur does work for freeg: The pro does not work for free
h: The amateur does not work for free.I assert, and I believe you must agree, that gh is the only configuration where all parties are acting rationally. In our example this is:g2: The pro works for coffee
h2: The amateur works for knowledgeNaturally, we both agree, that the amateur should prefer the configuration ab. Then again the pro should prefer cd. But, except in cases of generosity, we should expect gh and neither party can be criticized for that arrangement. The first is contingent on the second. I didn't think I needed to spell it out, since it is the only way my argument made any sense. I tried to have it implied (quite strongly I thought) that:

quote:

---

you haven't the experience of working on a big set

---

Is causing the producer to not want to hire you, would be apparent.What if the work required to get a 'third offer' resulted in less $/hour worked than in the original offer? What if you'd been working for nothing for 10 years before this offer came around, and it might be once in a lifetime for all you can tell? If you had learned that your market rate is higher than nothing, you may have a valid point. All you've learned is that one 'buyer' is willing to pay that right now. And in exchange for $500,000 the producer asks you to get some experience. You're free to find someone to pay you to get that experience, but you might fail to do so in time. The producer is giving you a guaranteed avenue to gain the exact degree of experience they require of you to make you worth their money. If the filming lasts 9 months, and the free assistant works lasts 3 months - then you're effectively being paid $500,000 for 1 year work. It's less than $500,000 for 9 months that you would have got if you had the necessary experience to begin with, but that's fair enough. Might you find a better offer? Yes, but that possibility does not render it irrational to decide to take the guaranteed six figure payout. I presented them as a quick and simple way of showing the context of the discussion leading up to that point. I figured as Jon was the originator of the point, he would be a fairly good source for determining the points being discussed. As far as I can tell, your replies don't alter the overall context of the discussion in any way. If I had stated that I was including them for the purposes of showing how you had failed to rebut an argument, that'd be dishonest. However, presenting a list of Jon's quotes to support my claim that

quote:

---

Well given how Jon was originally talking about doing work for something other than money...

---

I'm not sure that your dishonesty charge flies here.I mean honestly, you criticize me for making my posts too long, then you criticize me for not be (needlessly) thorough enough for your liking. And you wonder why people express so regularly that it can be pretty unpleasant trying to argue with you?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

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 don't see how that's not stupidly obvious. Are you now going to dishonestly assert that you never made such a claim? I've told you what the context is. Remember I was in the discussion before you were, which means that I know what the context was because I helped create it. You don't get to come in after the fact and say "no, this other thing has been the context this whole time." That's misrepresentation. Nobody was using it the way you were. I've shown you that I was using it a certain way, and you've now agreed that CS was using it that way as well (you agreed when you assented to our shared definition of "professional", which is why I asked you about it, obviously.) So there's no basis where you can claim that you were using the term in the same context we were - you introduced a new usage of the term "experience", where you just meant "anything that happens to you", but did not state that you were using the term differently.That is equivocation on your part, and it's dishonest. Please stop being dishonest. No, Jon was thinking that, and you dishonestly omit the part that proves it:

quote:

---

100% wrong. Stupidly so.

​

It is justified whenever two parties agree that such an arrangement is suitable between them.

​

There are many jobs I would gladly do in exchange for unpaid work experience.

---

That's from Message 56.Jon and CS and I have always been talking about marketable work experience, that's been the context from the outset, and you were either unaware and made an error or were aware and chose to equivocate. Well, I told you a hundred messages ago that you had misunderstood the context and you refused to admit error, so I have no choice but to conclude that you're being dishonest.I assume this puts the matter to rest. Everybody's been talking about marketable work experience, not just "things that happen to you", but you. But it's not, except in the most tangental of cases. You can't become a photographer by following photographers. You can get tips, as I've admitted, but you don't get any tips while you're fetching coffee, so don't fetch coffee. Just get tips and take pictures. Take your own pictures. Work for yourself. Get tips if you want but if it pays the same, work for yourself. You get all the relevant experience plus you own the work product. That's always a better deal because it's exactly the same as you get working for others for free plus additional benefits. Therefore it can never be rational to accept a deal that's the same as what you get working for yourself for free minus substantial benefits. What gets them back, Mod, is when you admit to misrepresenting my posts and positions and lying about the context, and agree not to do it anymore. Go forth and sin no more. I promise I won't bring it up anymore if you'll just admit to it and stop. Or if you just stop! We can all agree to look the other way this once. Just don't do it anymore, ok? Teaching is work and people shouldn't do it for free except as volunteers. I'm fine with volunteering, I'm a proponent of volunteering, I said so back in Message 55. Volunteering experience definitely has value and people should consider it (maybe especially when they're unable to find paid work. Have to kill time somehow, right?)But if you're going to work for free you should only do so for yourself. Well, allow me to correct another of your misconceptions - you certainly need to be making arguments that make sense as written. I can only read your words. I can't read your mind. But it's not causing the producer to not want to hire me; you said he offered me a $500,000 position. Oh, but "contingent" on me working for free for someone else. Well, politely, I decline. If one producer will offer me a half a million dollar salary (with a big catch) based on my current work experience, then I should easily be able to clear a quarter million dollars with someone else - with a lot of someone else's - or even more. His offer signals that he thinks my work could be worth as much as $500,000. Why should my counteroffer be to signal that I think my work is worth nothing?That's why you don't give your work away for free - in doing so, you signal that your work is worthless. Why would you be in a hurry to send that signal to potential employers? This is the point I made back in Message 17. Would you now care to respond to it? Then clearly working for nothing hasn't been working for you very well, now has it? If you'd worked for yourself for ten years, you might have 5-10 films, some feature-length, to your name by now. But instead you worked for others for ten years and at the end of it you have nothing. As I said to Oni:

quote:

---

I mean, if you're trying to portray show business as a place where working for free gets you the experience you need to get a desirable job, you really have to deal with the fact that almost nobody in show business is getting the desirable jobs. But you don't. In your mind, the fact that all these film students and comedy writers think the way to get ahead is to work for free somehow proves that it works, but in my mind, the fact that almost none of these film students and comedy writers are actually getting ahead proves that it doesn't.

---

Show business proves that you shouldn't work for others, for free. Yes, I'm sure it's very unpleasant to be called out on your dishonest bullshit. Here's a novel strategy - don't be dishonest. It works pretty well for me.

I never made such a claim. You know, if you had just explained this when I asked, you could have saved lots of needless typing.My claim was that CS WAS talking about the kind of experience that would help you become professional. Watch as I prove it with the power of a supporting quote, with emphasis. From Message 165:

quote:

---

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

---

I think I'll call this further evidence for my hypothesis that you are interpreting what I am saying so as to make it as stupid or wrong as possible. If I was using your rules of interpretation, I suppose I'd have to infer you were doing it deliberately, after all the words were quoted numerous times, even by yourself etc etc. Boy, is there egg on your face. Actually I omitted all of Jon's examples because they weren't relevant in establishing that Jon's point was about working in exchange for something of value other than money. He wasn't, as you are representing here, just talking about work experience. He raised several examples As he said:

quote:

---

experience, college credit, references, networking, information, etc.

---

He was not limiting his examples to just work experience. So when CS gave an example of someone working in exchange for something other than money, that was a perfectly acceptable point to raise. He didn't have to be talking about work experience, no rule of English dictates this.You said

quote:

---

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

---

So CS raised an example of someone getting an experience that was relevant to turning professional, without actually doing that job, in exchange for labour. So you agree that by your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange (volunteering aside)? Because last time I proposed that you said

quote:

---

Well, wait, that's not my argument.

---

You have made the unfounded leap that because one person is willing to pay lots of money, other people must be willing to quite a lot of money. That aside - I'd like to see your working to explain this proposition in more detail.$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. And did I say that you had not been working for yourself for ten years? No I did not. I said that you had been working for free, essentially meaning that you made no money on any of the projects that you must have worked on in order for a producer to believe you have the relevant talent (but lack some relevant experience) to direct a decent budget film.

---

As for the accusations of dishonesty and equivocation or misrepresenting the context and so on? If you want to carry on talking about that crap with me, I expect to see supporting quotes and argumentation rather that assertion after repeated assertion as to your position as to what the context was or whatever.

---

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?

Sure you did, which is why I was rebutting it. Again: If you can't keep this context in mind, if indeed you can't even remember what positions you were arguing, then you'll certainly be unable to understand these exchanges. Yes, and when you made this statement in support of an argument that CS "was talking about a different experience" (your words) than I was, I asked you what "professional" meant in order to show you that you had just contradicted your own argument.Now you're doing exactly what CS did; changing your position and trying to act like that's what you were saying all along. But it wasn't. When I said that CS was talking about experience that would help them get a job - turn professional, in other words - you said, in Message 156, that Now, at the time I let your belligerent arrogance at the end there pass by unremarked, because that's just the kind of forgiving guy I am, but I'm disinclined to do so now that you've forced me to read it a second time. So that's another breach of conversational trust you stand accused of - coming in to the middle of someone else's discussion and arrogantly presuming to dictate terms. And I've argued - unrebutted - that the experience is not as valuable as the experience you would get by getting tips and working for yourself. Unless I have reason to believe that producer 1 is stupid or insane or dishonest, there's nothing unfounded at all. He's sent a price signal that communicates some degree of information about my value on the market. That's what a price signal does. And if he is stupid or insane or dishonest in my estimation, then there's no reason to believe that the offer is in good faith, so I definitely shouldn't accept it - at best it's a scam to get me to work for free, at worst who knows what. A scam to get me to show up at an abandoned movie lot to eat my liver with fava beans and a nice Chianti, or something. Yes, if the photographer is going to work as a teacher he definitely shouldn't do so for free. He should do so for compensation commensurate to his skills as a teacher. I don't see how that's a contradiction to anything I said, maybe you can explain. Mod, I've explained it in excruciating detail, using concepts from economics such as "price signaling" and "market value." If there's something you still don't understand - like how a price can signal information about the value of an item to someone who is in the market for it - then you'll have to ask more specific questions. I can't read your mind and pluck out the source of your confusion or ignorance. Telling me "I don't understand" does nothing to help me help you with your lack of understanding. I need a better read on the contours of your misunderstanding than that. Uh, yes, you were pretty specific:

quote:

---

What if you'd been working for nothing for 10 years before this offer came around, and it might be once in a lifetime for all you can tell?

---

Working for yourself isn't "working for nothing", I've been pretty clear about that, I thought. Working for yourself means that you own the product of that work. Working for nothing means working for someone else, because they're the ones who keep all of your work product. Done and done. I've been doing this throughout, this message included. I've never accused you of dishonesty without supporting documentation. Your implication to the contrary is simply further obfuscatory dishonesty on your part. I'm sorry if these charges are beginning to smart, Mod - you're clearly getting incensed about the whole thing - but you should look back at the copious examples I've accumulated and ponder if, perhaps, the sting in the charges is the sting of truth. Remember, I'm not the one who decided this thread had to be about participants as well as positions; to be about making and rebutting charges against personal integrity. You can thank CS for opening that door.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Rather than give you individual reasons why I would turn down your absurd job offers, let me share with you a more conventional job offer that I did turn down:

quote:

---

Dear Applicant,
I'm looking for someone that can be prudent and reliable to work very well with good understanding as my Personal Assistant/Receptionist.This position is home-based and flexible,working with me is basically about instructions and following them,so this person has to be very close to a computer as there could be some urgent errand that is needed to be passed across. My only fear is that i may come at you impromptu sometimes,so i need someone who can be able to meet up with my irregular timings.As my Personal Assistant/Receptionist,your activities amongst other things will include;

​

Primary Responsibilities:

​

* Creating orders/pick slips/invoices/credit memos.
* Processing return authorizations for me as needed.
* Running personal errands.
* supervisions and monitoring.
* Scheduling programes, flights and keeping me up to date with them.
* Acting as an alternative telephone correspondence while I'm away and when needed as i am hard on hearing that is why computer works for me. Making regular contacts and drop-offs on my behalf. Handling and monitoring some of my financial activities as the case maybe.

​

Basic wage is $400 Weekly

​

I'm sure you'll understand I tend to have a very busy schedule at this point. Please note that this position is not office based for now because of my frequent travels and tight schedules, it's a part-time work from home for now and the flexibility means that there will be busier weeks than others. I have reviewed with your Resume and I think I am impressed with it and would like to give you an immediate trial, so if you are interested kindly get back to me. As I have been checking my files and schedules and would need someone urgently to run some errands for me this week/next week, while I am away. I will have some funds sent to you to complete the errands and would get back to you with more information on that, get back to me with your Personal/Contact Details such as:

​

****YOU ARE TO REPLY DIRECTLY TO MY PERSONAL EMAIL**** carlostorres007@aol.com

​

FULL NAMES:
ADDRESS,Include Apt # If Available(No PO.BOX please):
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP CODE:
HOME PHONE #:
MOBILE PHONE#:
EMAIL ADDRESS:
SEX:
AGE:
PRESENT JOB:

​

The employee,acknowledged the Trial and Detailed Job Description
and signed _______________
(First Name and Last Name of Employee)

​

Send Your Information to : carlostorres007@aol.com
Thanks in anticipation of your prompt response
Yours Sincerely,
Carlos Torres.

​

PS

​

Once I have received your Personal/Contact details, I will draw my schedule and get back to you with your tasks for this week/next week

---

See if you can guess why I didn't respond to this offer. Hint: It's not because I wouldn't have wanted to do the work, or didn't think the stated pay was high enough for it. See if you can find the hidden catch. I was halfway through drafting my acceptance before I saw it, myself. Good thing, too, I could have been in real trouble.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

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.

Found it:

quote:

---

Carlos Torres

---

Who wants to work for a dirty hispanic...?Good catch, crash.- Oni