Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,495 Year: 6,752/9,624 Month: 92/238 Week: 9/83 Day: 9/24 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Unpaid Work For The Unemployed
Phat
Member
Posts: 18650
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 226 of 300 (667217)
07-04-2012 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by onifre
07-04-2012 10:47 AM


Catch from Crash
Isnt the catch the fact that its a "Trial"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by onifre, posted 07-04-2012 10:47 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2012 11:31 AM Phat has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 227 of 300 (667218)
07-04-2012 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Modulous
07-04-2012 9:03 AM


Re: following a photographer
You aren't even reading what I'm writing are you?
I'm reading it all. Are you?
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.
Er, you're getting ahead of yourself and misunderstanding exactly which claim I referred to. (This is part of the confusion introduced by your effort to change claims midway through without admitting to doing so.) You're talking about the claim you made in Message 165 and I'm talking about the claim you made, previously, in Message 156:
Crash writes:
You can't get experience that way.
Mod writes:
But it is an experience, and one experiences it.... You experience learning stuff.
Crash writes:
Come on. Now you're playing word games. Obviously anything you do is an "experience" that you experience, by definition. Sitting at home doing nothing is "experience" in the sense that you're experiencing boredom and idleness.
We're talking specifically about marketable experience that is going to help you get your next job.
Mod writes:
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.
That's the claim you made - CS wasn't talking about experience working as a photographer. I rebutted in Message 160:
Crash writes:
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. That's the context we started with. Now you're trying to pretend like that context was never present. Maybe you didn't understand that it was present, that's understandable when you jump into the middle of someone else's conversation, but in that case you should just admit that you misunderstood.
And then you replied, trying to rebut that a certain context had been present the whole time:
Mod writes:
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
But I asked:
Crash writes:
What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"?
in order to demonstrate that your "rebuttal" was nothing but, that it actually proved my point, and you've now apparently found it so convincing that you wish to adopt that position as though you've held it the entire time.
But as I've made abundantly clear, that's not what happened. You started out arguing that CS was saying something different than he was, and then in Message 176 you either completely forgot what you were arguing before, or started this incredibly dishonest and disingenuous effort to change your mind without looking like you did.
This all happened, Mod. I've not ignored anything you've written the way you're trying to. I'm just not willing to pretend, as you are, that your contributions to this thread began only at Message 165.
Here I say that CS is talking about an experience, just not 'an experience working as a photographer'.
Yes. You mean "experience" as in "something that just happens to you." Here's what you said, as proof:
Mod writes:
But it is an experience, and one experiences it.
Well, yes, obviously one "experiences it" because it's happening to you, in the same sense that anything that happens to you is an "experience" because you're there for it to happen to. But that's not what CS or I were ever talking about. I've already given the proof; your response, as I've shown, was to backtrack and pretend like you never made that claim at all. But that's a lie, as I've shown.
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.
Right. And you specified "professional" because you were trying to show that CS meant "experience" to mean something other than "experience that would help you get a job." You were dishonestly trying to "palm the pea", here, and make it look like you were rebutting my message Message 160:
Crash writes:
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.
Mod writes:
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
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."
If you'd actually intended to agree with me, you would have mirrored the phrase. That's how speakers of English indicate their assent to a position. But I caught you up short with my rejoinder:
Crash writes:
What does "turn professional" mean except "start getting paid work as a photographer"?
Returning from your wedding, you realized that you had been cornered and started in on this amazingly transparent ruse of playing dumb combined with a Gish Gallop into an irrelevant point about paid people who aren't professionals:
Mod writes:
Why do you ask?
I mean, I guess it's possible to get paid to be a photographer but not be a professional. I think my fiancee has received some money for her works, but it was a paltry sum in terms of the rent (you can see some of her stuff here). I know someone else that does portraits and makes a nice bit of money from that and some photo restoration work - but he still works full time in an office job and I don't think his photo related work has yet paid for all the equipment he owns.
So I wouldn't qualify them as professional.
Come on. Transparent much? It was obvious to everyone what you were doing here, and what you're still doing. Do you think you can outmeta me on this? Lots of luck with that. If there's one thing I hate to talk about it's talking, but you and CS were the ones who insisted that we press this point, that we chase down this rabbit hole ad nauseum, and now you're reaping the results - everybody can see how dishonest you've been this whole time.
I don't see how your credibility ever recovers. Everyone can see what a liar you are. Happy 4th of July.
You don't actually get to do this by changing what I said to its exact opposite and claiming I changed my position, sorry.
This is another of your outright lies. I've not changed or altered even a single one of your remarks in quote; I've provided copious links to your messages when the quotations have been used so that readers can find the original context and evaluate my claims. You've not linked to even a single one of my messages, and you've been radically misrepresenting my positions throughout.
Summarize this supporting documentation for me, because I must have missed it.
In addition to this message:
Message 222
Message 220
Message 218
Message 209
Message 197
Message 188
Message 180
Ample evidence has been provided of your ignominious conduct. Asserting that it has not is just another one of your lies.
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.
Would you admit to making mistakes? I'm perfectly happy to let this go if you'd like to admit that it was just all your mistake. I gave you that opportunity way back in Message 160 but you ignored it.
Why was I supposed to think that you would have responded to an opportunity to admit to a mistake when I gave you that opportunity to admit it, and you passed it up? I'm sorry that you're not getting the benefit of the doubt I gave you back in Message 160 but honestly, why on Earth should I?
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2012 9:03 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2012 12:44 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 228 of 300 (667219)
07-04-2012 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Phat
07-04-2012 11:05 AM


Re: Catch from Crash
Nope!
Come on, I know you guys can get this. Think about the only tangible thing I'm being asked to do in this offer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Phat, posted 07-04-2012 11:05 AM Phat has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 229 of 300 (667222)
07-04-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by crashfrog
07-04-2012 7:43 AM


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 will have some funds sent to you to complete the errands". This is a classic form of internet scam.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2012 7:43 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2012 12:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 230 of 300 (667223)
07-04-2012 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by crashfrog
07-04-2012 11:29 AM


Re: following a photographer
I'm reading it all. Are you?
Oh yes.
That's the claim you made - CS wasn't talking about experience working as a photographer.
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.
And then you replied, trying to rebut that a certain context had been present the whole time
Indeed I did.
in order to demonstrate that your "rebuttal" was nothing but, that it actually proved my point, and you've now apparently found it so convincing that you wish to adopt that position as though you've held it the entire time.
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.
You started out arguing that CS was saying something different than he was
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.
This all happened, Mod. I've not ignored anything you've written the way you're trying to. I'm just not willing to pretend, as you are, that your contributions to this thread began only at Message 165.
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.
Returning from your wedding, you realized that you had been cornered and started in on this amazingly transparent ruse of playing dumb combined with a Gish Gallop into an irrelevant point about paid people who aren't professionals
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.
Everyone can see what a liar you are.
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.
In addition to this message:
Message 222
Message 220
Message 218
Message 209
Message 197
Message 188
Message 180
Ample evidence has been provided of your ignominious conduct. Asserting that it has not is just another one of your lies.
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.
Would you admit to making mistakes?
Naturally.
I'm perfectly happy to let this go if you'd like to admit that it was just all your mistake.
If you can stop accusing me of being dishonest, maybe we can sensibly explore whether that is the case.
This is another of your outright lies. I've not changed or altered even a single one of your remarks in quote
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2012 11:29 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2012 1:29 PM Modulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 231 of 300 (667224)
07-04-2012 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Dr Adequate
07-04-2012 12:27 PM


Well done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-04-2012 12:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 232 of 300 (667226)
07-04-2012 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Modulous
07-04-2012 12:44 PM


Re: following a photographer
You claimed that I claimed that CS 'wasn't talking about the kind of experience that would help you get a job'
And you did claim that. As I specifically noted:
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.
Now, remember "experience working as a photographer" is your statement of my position on CS's position, which I stated was
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.
so you intended "experience working as a photographer" to be a synonym for my phrase "experience that helps you get a job." Otherwise, you were misrepresenting me, right? And we all know you would never do that. 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":
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
But, apparently unbeknownst to you when you said it, "turning professional" means "getting a paid job", which is what I had been saying. And then you suddenly started acting like it was all so stupidly obvious that CS had actually meant "experience working as a photographer", or in other words "experience that helps you get a job", that there was no reason to have pointed out that "turning professional" means "getting a paid job."
But there was a reason to point that out, and the reason was your initial claim that I was wrong in my interpretation of CS. The claim you made in Message 156.
That happened, Mod. It's all up there in print. Read your own words if you don't believe me.
It proved a point that was never in contention though, that's my point.
But it was in contention because you contended it! You asserted, in Message 156:
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.
You said those words. At least, they appear under your username and picture. Do you now claim that you did not post this message? If so, please notify Percy at once so he can address this breach of the system's security.
Oh look, I'm talking about exchanging labour for something other than money.
I've never said that you weren't. The issue, here, is still as I identified in Message 160, Message 170, and Message 218: you're equivocating on the term "experience."
So - where is my position change
I showed you the position change. I'll show you again. It's where you say this:
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 then say this:
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
where you agree that "turning professional" at something means "getting paid to work in that area."
Mod, I've not claimed you've changed every position, so showing me examples of your positions that haven't changed is irrelevant. I've never claimed that you weren't trying to argue that, under some circumstances, labor for something of value is a fair trade. I know you're trying to argue that.
The position you've changed is your position on what CS was talking about. You tried to support his argument that I had misunderstood him. I've been trying to make you see that either you did, or you misrepresented him, or now possibly both since you've tried to adopt two contradictory positions on the subject.
This would all be a lot clearer if you would read what I said, instead of reading what you seem to thing I've been saying.
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.
Why don't you just read the posts? They weren't long - nowhere near as long as your posts have been. What would be the purpose in summarizing them? You replied to all these posts, are you now saying that you did not read them in their entirety? Why not?
Is it possible, Mod, that this call for evidence I've already provided is just another dodge on your part?
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.
How am I supposed to "highlight specifically"? I can't link to parts of a post. Linking to evidence is an accepted standard at EvC. Can you explain why it is insufficient in this case?
Remember, to be supporting documentation it has to show that I was aware of the truth, but presented it deliberately falsely.
Sure. All I have to do to demonstrate that is juxtapose your claim that you never said something, or took such a position, with your own earlier words showing you saying that thing or taking that position. We all have to assume you're aware of your own words The signal that I'm doing that is when I quote your protest that you never said such a thing or took such a position, say something like "but you did say that", and then quote your remarks from an earlier post. In addition to the instance where I've done that at the beginning of this message, I've done that in
Message 227
Message 222
Message 220
Message 218
Message 209
Message 197
Message 188
Message 180
Hopefully you find this sufficiently clarifying. You just need to be looking for the part of these posts where I contradict you with your own words. It's usually at the beginning. Saying something, and then denying you ever said that thing is certainly an instance where you would have been "aware of the truth, but presented it deliberately falsely." Having shown that you've done that, you now see why I'm completely justified in accusing you of the most rank dishonesty and disingenuous conduct.
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.
So you now retract the accusation that I was "changing what you said"? Or are you going to now claim that you never claimed that I had "changed what you said"? If so, be advised - that will be entered into the evidence against your honesty, since you did make exactly that claim.
Towards the end of moving this discussion forwards perhaps you can answer the questions I asked at the end of my last two posts?
I addressed these questions by addressing your point in raising them. See Message 223:
quote:
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:
It's a subtle argument, you may have to dig for it. I'm not going to go through them individually, like I said; yes, I would turn all of those "offers" down.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2012 12:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2012 3:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 233 of 300 (667227)
07-04-2012 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by crashfrog
07-04-2012 1:29 PM


Re: following a photographer
And you did claim that.
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.
Now, remember "experience working as a photographer" is your statement of my position on CS's position
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.
so you intended "experience working as a photographer" to be a synonym for my phrase "experience that helps you get a job." Otherwise, you were misrepresenting me, right?
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.
But, apparently unbeknownst to you when you said it, "turning professional" means "getting a paid job", which is what I had been saying.
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.
And then you suddenly started acting like it was all so stupidly obvious that CS had actually meant "experience working as a photographer",
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.
You said those words. At least, they appear under your username and picture. Do you now claim that you did not post this message? If so, please notify Percy at once so he can address this breach of the system's security.
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.
I've never said that you weren't. The issue, here, is still as I identified in Message 160, Message 170, and Message 218: you're equivocating on the term "experience."
Except you have not shown how I've been misleading in my usage of the word.
I showed you the position change. I'll show you again. It's where you say this:
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.
The position you've changed is your position on what CS was talking about. You tried to support his argument that I had misunderstood him. I've been trying to make you see that either you did, or you misrepresented him, or now possibly both since you've tried to adopt two contradictory positions on the subject.
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.
Why don't you just read the posts? They weren't long - nowhere near as long as your posts have been. What would be the purpose in summarizing them? You replied to all these posts, are you now saying that you did not read them in their entirety? Why not?
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.
How am I supposed to "highlight specifically"? I can't link to parts of a post.
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.
Sure. All I have to do to demonstrate that is juxtapose your claim that you never said something, or took such a position, with your own earlier words showing you saying that thing or taking that position
Yes, that would be a start. Why don't you do that?
In addition to the instance where I've done that at the beginning of this message, I've done that in
Where in those posts did you perform this feat?
Quote it for me, please. Thanks.
Hopefully you find this sufficiently clarifying.
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.
You just need to be looking for the part of these posts where I contradict you with your own words.
Again, I'm not seeing it after taking a quick look through those posts. Gimme an example, at least.
So you now retract the accusation that I was "changing what you said"?
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.
I would turn all of those "offers" down.
Why?
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by crashfrog, posted 07-04-2012 1:29 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2012 8:22 AM Modulous has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 234 of 300 (667276)
07-05-2012 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Modulous
07-04-2012 3:30 PM


Re: following a photographer
You're doing it again.
Crash writes:
Now, remember "experience working as a photographer" is your statement of my position on CS's position
Mod writes:
It was a rough summary of it yes.
And then:
Mod writes:
No, I did not mean them to be synonymous.
So you admit, then, that you offered as my position something that you did not intend to accurately represent my position. Charges of dishonesty: upheld.
I'm sorry this comes as a shock to you, Mod, but believe it or not you do have an obligation, when you quote, summarize, or refer to the arguments of your opponents to not misrepresent those arguments. Here, it's even in the forum guidelines:
Avoid any form of misrepresentation.
Saying "you said this" when I didn't, when you know I didn't, is certainly a form of misrepresentation.
I'm sorry to harp on this, Mod, but you well know that the reason those rules exist is because they're critical for effective dialogue. True communication can't occur when participants aren't prepared to face each other honestly.
So we actually can't talk about anything else, Mod, until we deal with the fact that you're not behaving honestly in this exchange. I'm sorry but we can't - I'll not be responding to any other part of your posts except the parts about your dishonesty from now on. At such time as you can rectify this behavior, we'll return to the subject at hand. You're making it impossible to discuss the subject with your relentless misrepresentation and dishonesty. You.
No I didn't say that.
But you did, and you dishonestly omit the part where I quoted you doing just that, so that it looks like I've made an accusation without evidence. Quoting out of context is another instance of your dishonesty in this exchange.
You find a post in which I said something dishonest. You quote that and say 'This is an example of dishonesty'.
Since I've already done that several times, I guess I don't understand. Do you want me to cut and paste from those posts? That seems unnecessarily redundant, since I've already linked to them and you supposedly already read them. If you read the posts but somehow missed where I did that, go back to them and do a word search for "dishonest", because I've usually provided supporting documentation where I've used that term.
Again, I'm not seeing it after taking a quick look through those posts.
Then don't take a quick look. Take a long, close read. My only obligation here is to present evidence. I'm under no obligation whatsoever to convince you to face it. That's on you.
You took what I said, and asserted that I was arguing the opposite.
But I didn't. That's a fabrication on your part, a fabrication that you constructed by misrepresenting which posts I was describing. And I've not changed even a single one of your remarks in quotation - literally no editing at all, just straight cut and paste of your own remarks, in context - contrary to what you accused me of doing.
Again, Mod - there's nothing to talk about here except your dishonesty because your dishonesty makes it impossible to talk about anything else. Your persistent and willful misrepresentation of my positions is an obstacle to effective discussion. When you make a promise to stop:
1) Misrepresenting my remarks and positions
2) Changing positions without acknowledgement, and using the accusation of "misunderstanding" to conceal it
3) Making spurious accusations that I'm redacting your words
then we can resume the discussion about whether there's valuable work experience to be had at unpaid internships, "work to watch someone work" schemes, and the like. I've presented a case that the "work experience" to be had, here, is drastically overvalued. It'd be nice to get past your dishonesty so that we could talk about it. But until you do, we can't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 07-04-2012 3:30 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2012 1:57 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 235 of 300 (667299)
07-05-2012 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by crashfrog
07-05-2012 8:22 AM


mod is a big fat liar (or not)
So you admit, then, that you offered as my position something that you did not intend to accurately represent my position.
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.
I'm sorry this comes as a shock to you, Mod, but believe it or not you do have an obligation, when you quote, summarize, or refer to the arguments of your opponents to not misrepresent those arguments.
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
Charges of dishonesty: upheld.
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 sorry to harp on this, Mod, but you well know that the reason those rules exist is because they're critical for effective dialogue. True communication can't occur when participants aren't prepared to face each other honestly.
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.
Since I've already done that several times, I guess I don't understand. Do you want me to cut and paste from those posts? That seems unnecessarily redundant, since I've already linked to them and you supposedly already read them.
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.
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.
But you did, and you dishonestly omit the part where I quoted you doing just that, so that it looks like I've made an accusation without evidence.
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 said
You 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 output
I 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 took what I said, and asserted that I was arguing the opposite.
But I didn't. That's a fabrication on your part, a fabrication that you constructed by misrepresenting which posts I was describing.
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 between
experience working as a photographer.
and
the kind of experience that would help you get a job
Which 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.
And I've not changed even a single one of your remarks in quotation - literally no editing at all, just straight cut and paste of your own remarks, in context - contrary to what you accused me of doing.
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.
Again, Mod - there's nothing to talk about here except your dishonesty because your dishonesty makes it impossible to talk about anything else.
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.
then we can resume the discussion about whether there's valuable work experience to be had at unpaid internships, "work to watch someone work" schemes, and the like. I've presented a case that the "work experience" to be had, here, is drastically overvalued.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by crashfrog, posted 07-05-2012 8:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2012 4:41 PM Modulous has replied

  
AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 300 (667371)
07-06-2012 12:57 PM


Thread Moved from Coffee House Forum
Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
This thread is off track anyway, and has a few posts dedicated solely to defending personal opinions rather than addressing the topic at hand.
Edited by AdminPhat, : add

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1722 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 237 of 300 (667388)
07-06-2012 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Modulous
07-05-2012 1:57 PM


Re: mod is a big fat liar
I offered it as a good enough short summary of your position for the purposes of the point I was raising.
A summary, by definition, has to mean the same thing as what it summarizes. But you admitted that what you presented as my position meant something very different than what my position actually was, in Message 233:
Crash writes:
Now, remember "experience working as a photographer" is your statement of my position on CS's position...so you intended "experience working as a photographer" to be a synonym for my phrase "experience that helps you get a job." Otherwise, you were misrepresenting me, right?
Mod writes:
It was a rough summary of it yes...No, I did not mean them to be synonymous.
So you admit that you summarized my position with language that did not mean the same thing as my position.
I don't know how it gets any clearer, Mod. Why do you believe that it's OK to present, as someone's position, something different than what their position actually is? (Your response should not ignore this question.)
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.
But I did correct you right away. I told you what "professional" meant (via a rhetorical question.) Your response was to play dumb and wonder why I was "asking a question" when in fact I was making a statement. I'm sure you'd now like to pretend that never happened, but you don't get to, because that would be a misrepresentation.
I'm afraid you have not shown that my actions were done dishonestly.
Sure I have. I've done so according to your own standard:
quote:
Remember, to be supporting documentation it has to show that I was aware of the truth, but presented it deliberately falsely.
So, I've shown that. You admitted that you were aware of my position, and intentionally presented as my position something that was not my position.
Now, you'll lie and say that you never admitted it, that I'm "misrepresenting" your meaning, but that's a predictable dodge. It's the lie you use to defend your other lies.
I'm quite content facing you honestly.
Then I invite you to do so. Start with your reply to this message.
If you think my rank dishonesty is interfering with discussion, report it to a moderator.
You are a moderator. Why should I expect them to agree with me? You know as well as I do that the moderators here have only ever protected their own. You know it because you were there when it happened.
Message 180
You accuse me/CS of dishonesty:
Ok, you've completely ignored the evidence I actually did present, to seize on something else. Message 180 refers to you misrepresenting CS's argument and shows, by contrasting CS's arguments with your "summaries" of them, that you did so.
Message 188
I see no particular accusations of dishonesty here, and no supporting evidence.
Well, that's a lie. You're ignoring this evidence:
quote:
Message 74 - I try to correct your misunderstanding. (06-13-2012)
No, this is a misrepresentation. Message 74 is just you arguing with my point. You make no claim whatsoever that I've misunderstood CS's example. Your message 74 is just a defense of it. My reply to that message is a rebuttal of your defense and to correct your misunderstanding of one of my points.
CS brings forward the photography example again to rebut your claim at addressing arguments head on. And says you spun his argument.
Yes, but by "spin" he merely means that I didn't not accept it at face value:
quote:
Now, you could try to use my example to falsify your own position, that is, is there any way that you could imagine my example as a way of working for free and getting experience (watching how a photographer sets up shots would be good xp for a newb). If you can, then your position is wrong. Or the other way, the way you actually do it, is to try to think of any way in which my example does not falsify your position (you cannot get photography xp while your busy getting coffee).
See? CS isn't claiming I misunderstood him, he's not even claiming that I misrepresented him. He's complaining that I didn't accept his counterexample without question. That's what he means by "spin." As I make clear in Message 106 and Message 127, which were not rebutted, that's a legitimate tactic in debate. I get to attack counterexamples raised against my position. If I say that there has never been a female President of the United States, and you say "what about Abraham Lincoln", I get to defend my position by pointing out that, in fact, Abraham Lincoln was not a woman. I'm not under any obligation to just accept that mistaken example as "something that challenges my position," because it didn't.
And what was CS's response to these devastating arguments against his position that I spin things? Message 132:
quote:
You misinterpreted my position. Its clear that the audience can see it and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste my time trying to get you to admit it.
See the flounce? That's how I know this is a dodge - it's a simultaneous attempt to declare victory while cutting and running. Nothing about this is a good-faith attempt to correct a misunderstanding that has arisen, despite your efforts to misrepresent the context.
See? It's an example of how you've utterly misrepresented the exchange to claim that CS was "correcting a misunderstanding" when all he was doing was complaining that I didn't immediately become convinced by him. This evidence was presented and you ignored it; you simply repeated your erroneous claim that CS was trying to "correct my misunderstanding."
Message 197
Again, I see nothing here that's relevant.
Only because you didn't read it:
quote:
He was clearly referring to your attempt at addressing the photographer assistant argument.
Yes, I know that he was. But he didn't say that I'd misunderstood it, he complained that I didn't take it at face value:
quote:
Now, you could try to use my example to falsify your own position, that is, is there any way that you could imagine my example as a way of working for free and getting experience (watching how a photographer sets up shots would be good xp for a newb). If you can, then your position is wrong. Or the other way, the way you actually do it, is to try to think of any way in which my example does not falsify your position (you cannot get photography xp while your busy getting coffee).
There's nothing in here about any "misunderstanding". This is CS simply complaining that when he presents a counterexample, I defend my argument by showing how his counterexample is invalid.
Does this exchange not occur in your version of my post? How is this not evidence that you're misrepresenting CS's position?
Message 209
Once again, you're editing the discussion to misrepresent what my replies are replies to. As so:
[quote]
quote:
By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange
quote:
you're misrepresenting my argument
But the latter was not given as a reply to the former. The actual exchange is thus:
By your own argument, the photographer should not take on this extra work without some form of exchange. They ask for value for value.[/qs] Well, wait, that's not my argument. Remember? You already agreed with me that you can follow around a photographer for free, without fetching coffee or hauling gear. You've already conceded to my point that carrying the stuff and fetching the coffee isn't a necessary condition. That was your Message 196 where you conceded that.
Now you're misrepresenting my argument and ignoring the fact that you've already conceded this point. Do you see, now, why I have no choice but to accuse you of dishonesty?[/qs]
You're misrepresenting which misrepresentation you're being accused of. The part where you misrepresented my argument is when you argued that my argument is that a photographer shouldn't let someone follow them around for free. My argument, which you agreed with, was that you can follow around a photographer for free.
Then you started asking me whether photographers should be paid as teachers, and I agreed that since nobody should work for someone else for free, they should be paid, yes. But we weren't talking about teachers when you misrepresented my argument.
I did not misrepresent your argument as by the end of yet another protracted discussion you agree with what I said.
But you've taken my remarks and yours out of context, and rearranged them so that it appears we're having a different discussion than we actually did. This is misleading editing - another of your lies.
You want me to say anything about the other messages?
Mod, you can address them or not. It's entirely up to you. But you can't ignore them and then claim that evidence was not presented, because it has been. Your efforts to argue otherwise are misleading in the extreme, as I've shown. You've radically misrepresented the history of our exchange on this subject, and no amount of asking nicely seems to convince you to stop.
Did I really need to quote you quoting it?
No, of course not. You just need to stop saying that I didn't quote you saying what you said you didn't say.
Furthermore you 'dishonestly omit' the part where I explained what I actually said, which stands in contrast to what you said I said:
I didn't say you said anything. I quoted you saying it. That's what evidence of your dishonesty looks like. It's when you say you didn't say something, and then I show you saying that exact thing.
You said something like 'the context was about experience that can help you a get a job'
Right, because you had previously stated that CS wasn't talking about experience working as a photographer:
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 I reminded that he was, in fact, talking about that. And then you said:
And the example that CS gave was of a person gaining experience that will help them turn professional.
Now, since we were in a disagreement about what CS was talking about, I took this as a rebuttal. Now you seem to be claiming that it was actually an agreement.
Well, ok. It's possible that I misunderstood. But it's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that can occur when you change your position 180 degrees and try to act like you didn't. Remember, you said "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." I don't understand why it's so unreasonable to read that and think that you were trying to say that CS "was talking about a different experience" than experience working as a photographer.
That simply never happened crash.
Lie. See above, where I quote your remarks to that effect twice.
You could have avoided this error if you were using the rhetorical methodology known as the Principle of Charity
The Principle of Charity doesn't mean that when you first say that the sky is red, and then later say that the sky is blue without making any effort to explain the shift in your position, that I'm required to go back and believe that when you said "red" you actually meant "blue." And you can't use your subsequent statements that the sky is blue to argue that you never said, originally, that the sky was red. You said (quoted for the third time):
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.
You said that, and you continue to misrepresent my remarks as though they were in reply to a different post. That's the critical misrepresentation. You continue to pretend that you never said (for the fourth time):
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 you did say that.
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 that's a lie. You took two opposite positions on it and are trying to pretend that you didn't, by presenting my replies to the first position as replies to the second, to make it look like I'm arguing against a position you never took. But you did take it. I've now quoted you doing so five times in this post alone, and several times in the posts previous.
Do you remember how awkward you was being in trying to explain it when I asked you quite nicely?
You weren't "asking nicely," you were playing dumb. I chose not to play along - I don't need the practice. (That's a small joke.)
If you had just quoted the salient parts you felt were in contradiction
But I did quote the parts that were in contradiction! Multiple times, even. To say that I did not is a lie.
What you changed was my stated position, which you proceeded to argue against causing confusion.
Uh, what? How did I "change" your position? You're the one who holds your positions, there's nothing I can do to change them except present arguments that either convince you to change or don't. There's nothing I can "change" except by dishonestly presenting words you didn't write as your own - which you've admitted to doing to me - and you now agree that, contrary to what you accused me of, I've not done 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.
Feel free to. But stop doing it by misrepresenting the context of our discussion, misrepresenting which remarks are in reply to which others, and lying about the context of my posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Modulous, posted 07-05-2012 1:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Modulous, posted 07-06-2012 7:24 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 239 by Modulous, posted 07-06-2012 7:48 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 238 of 300 (667400)
07-06-2012 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by crashfrog
07-06-2012 4:41 PM


Re: mod is a big fat liar
So you admit that you summarized my position with language that did not mean the same thing as my position.
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.
But I did correct you right away. I told you what "professional" meant (via a rhetorical question.)
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.
I don't know how it gets any clearer, Mod. Why do you believe that it's OK to present, as someone's position, something different than what their position actually is? (Your response should not ignore this question.)
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.
Ok, you've completely ignored the evidence I actually did present, to seize on something else.
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.
Well, that's a lie. You're ignoring this evidence:
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?
See? It's an example of how you've utterly misrepresented the exchange to claim that CS was "correcting a misunderstanding" when all he was doing was complaining that I didn't immediately become convinced by him.
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.
Again, I see nothing here that's relevant.
Only because you didn't read it:
{snip}
He was clearly referring to your attempt at addressing the photographer assistant argument.
Yes, I know that he was. But he didn't say that I'd misunderstood it
Does this exchange not occur in your version of my post? How is this not evidence that you're misrepresenting CS's position?
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.
You're misrepresenting which misrepresentation you're being accused of. The part where you misrepresented my argument is when you argued that my argument is that a photographer shouldn't let someone follow them around for free. My argument, which you agreed with, was that you can follow around a photographer for free.
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.
Then you started asking me whether photographers should be paid as teachers, and I agreed that since nobody should work for someone else for free, they should be paid, yes. But we weren't talking about teachers when you misrepresented my argument.
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.
But you've taken my remarks and yours out of context, and rearranged them so that it appears we're having a different discussion than we actually did. This is misleading editing - another of your lies.
It's not out of context when you ignore the extraneous and undisputed stuff. It what sense did I 'rearrange' your remarks?
Did I really need to quote you quoting it?
No, of course not. You just need to stop saying that I didn't quote you saying what you said you didn't say.
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.
Now, since we were in a disagreement about what CS was talking about, I took this as a rebuttal. Now you seem to be claiming that it was actually an agreement.
Well, ok. It's possible that I misunderstood. But it's exactly the kind of misunderstanding that can occur when you change your position 180 degrees and try to act like you didn't.
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.
I don't understand why it's so unreasonable to read that and think that you were trying to say that CS "was talking about a different experience" than experience working as a photographer.
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.
You said that, and you continue to misrepresent my remarks as though they were in reply to a different post. That's the critical misrepresentation. You continue to pretend that you never said (for the fourth time):
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 you did say that.
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'.
Lie. See above, where I quote your remarks to that effect twice.
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.
But that's a lie. You took two opposite positions on it and are trying to pretend that you didn't, by presenting my replies to the first position as replies to the second, to make it look like I'm arguing against a position you never took.
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.
If you had just quoted the salient parts you felt were in contradiction
But I did quote the parts that were in contradiction! Multiple times, even. To say that I did not is a lie.
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.
Uh, what? How did I "change" your position?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2012 4:41 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by crashfrog, posted 07-09-2012 3:03 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 239 days)
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 239 of 300 (667401)
07-06-2012 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by crashfrog
07-06-2012 4:41 PM


moderator activity
From Message 586 where it does not belong (but hey, congratulations on getting a cheer from Buzsaw!):
Crashfrog has more or less decided to dedicate a whole post to his claims of my dishonesty.
You asked me to substantiate my claims of your dishonesty. I did so. Now you're complaining that I did?
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.
So then the "discussion problem", here, is that you won't stop? And that's somehow my problem?
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.
How is that fair? If you use your "last word" to further prevaricate, misrepresent, and lie, how is it fair that I wouldn't be allowed to correct the record?
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.
Yes, there are limits, and opening misrepresenting the arguments of your opponent, denying that you are doing so, and then complaining in another thread that the evidence you asked for was presented certainly, in most people's judgement, would exceed those limits.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by crashfrog, posted 07-06-2012 4:41 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 240 of 300 (667423)
07-07-2012 6:11 AM


Starting over
I went back here some. I think there should be some clarification on some points made in this thread.
Straggler writes:
Do you think there is ever a situation where unpaid work experience is justified? If so what situations justify unpaid work experience? Who might benefit from such unpaid work experience? Anyone? Message 54
In what capacity are you talking about? Benefit in what way?
crashfrog writes:
No, not ever. Not in a single instance. Volunteer experience has value, and I invite people to volunteer. But unpaid internships and the like are always a waste of time. By definition they can't be giving you relevant experience: if you're getting experience doing work relevant to the paid position you're training for, then you're doing that job and it can't be an internship (because internships can't displace paid workers.) If it's an unpaid internship, then, you can't be doing anything that someone in the same paid position would be doing, and so you can't possibly be getting relevant experience. Message 55
crashfrog here is saying that the kind of experience that you will recieve for working for free is not marketable experince that will help you get a job or benefit you in the way a paying job can.
Jon writes:
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. Message 56
What kind of "experince"?
I don't think Jon here is talking about marketable experience. He seems to just be talking about an agreement between two parties that will benefit them in the meantime. Not a marketable experience. Which is a personal preference. And crashfrog thinks it better if you are going to work for someone, getting paid for it is a better "experience" while gaining marketable experince at the same time.
crashfrog's opinion is that he thinks it's a better idea to get paid for lending your abilities out for the benefit of someone else and that you should be compensated for your work.
And then some rationality issues were raised.
Jon writes:
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 61
Now Jon seems to be talking about value. But what kind of value?
crashfrog writes:
And that something is... what, exactly? Message 62
Jon writes:
Value, of course.
What else could it be? Message 63
Value for what? What kind of "value"?
crashfrog writes:
So people would work for free because of the value of value? Message 64
Here is where I think the "experience" issue comes more into focus.
Jon writes:
Because of the value of what they get in returnexperience, college credit, references, networking, information, etc. Message 65
crashfrog writes:
I asked you what they get in return, and you told me they get "value." Now you've given me a whole list, but let's look a little closer and we'll see how it makes no sense:
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.
crashfrog is clearly talking about marketable experience here. It's unclear what kind of "experience" Jon is talking about IMO. He seems to interchange "value" and "experience" in a circular way without defining on what term he means by them. While crashfrog argues the only experience worth recieving is marketable experience which you can get by getting paid for the work you do.
Modulous enters the discussion.
Modulous writes:
It could be a job that requires a certain level of competence is required before a person can justify being paid. Or perhaps its a job that requires a certain amount of experience in another job, and the person is prepared to work for free (and so massively increase the chance of getting employment) so that they gain the necessary experience.
I seem to remember I was shown a career root involving television which if I wanted a chance of climbing to the top, required a certain degree of working for free.
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. One possible escape from this dilemma is to take on a sort of voluntary role to gain the experience so that you can compete with others for future employment because now you can justify the wage. Message 67
Modulous says "It could be a job that requires a certain level of competence is required before a person can justify being paid. Or perhaps its a job that requires a certain amount of experience in another job, and the person is prepared to work for free (and so massively increase the chance of getting employment) so that they gain the necessary experience."
I'm not sure that follows Modulous. Why are you comparing non marketable experince to what crashfrog is saying about marketable experince? crashfrog thinks that it's better to use your ablilites and get paid for them instead of working for free. In what way is your comment to crashfrog address marketable experince that he says is better than what Jon thinks? You're not addressing crashfrogs opinion about the type of experince one would get for doing paid work. You are interjecting your own opinion aabout a position crashfrog is being clear about which is marketable relevent experince as opposed to what Jon was saying about unpaid experince. Jon is the one you should be addressing, not crashfrog.
Catholic Scientist writes:
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.
Yes, sure. Of course you could. But for what reasons? What makes you say this? What is your reason for bringing this photographer analogy up? This should also be addressed to Jon.
Why are you commenting to crashfrog about this? It's not a rebuttle that addresses his position that supports getting paid for your services or any marketable experience. So you should clarify why you brought it up to him. It has pretty much taken over this entire thread and it seems like all it was was a floating comment out of context not supporting anyones postion thus far. What did you mean by it?
Jon thinks it's valuble to work for free as long as there is a mutual agreement. crashfrog thinks it's valuble to get paid for your services. I'm unclear what Modulous' position is other than "It could be a job that requires a certain level of competence is required before a person can justify being paid. Or perhaps its a job that requires a certain amount of experience in another job, and the person is prepared to work for free (and so massively increase the chance of getting employment) so that they gain the necessary experience".
Modulous you should clarify what you are basing this comment on and in what context are you meaning it and why you addressed it to crashfrog instead of Jon.
crashfrog has been consistant in saying he thinks it valuble to get paid for your services and considers any job you get paid for as marketable experince whereas not getting paid for it is not marketable experince.
Modulous was expanding on the experince Jon seemed to be talking about that crashfrog said wasnt valuble as far as marketable experience goes but was still valuble to Jon in some way.
Then Catholic Scientist joined the conversation and commented about following a photograper around for free and "watching how they do thier job" and would get the "invaluble experince" in doing so.
All of which doesn't address crashfrogs postion.
It seems that Jon thinks it "valuble" to work for free as long as it's an agreement between two parties and it's valuble to him in some way while you get some sort of "experince" along with doing so. Modulous and Catholic Scientist should be addressing Jon with the comments they made and not crashfrog unless they want to talk about marketable experince you recieve when you get paid for the work you do. All they have done is address Jon postion and not crashfrogs postion which has always been about relevent marketable experience that doesn't come with doing work for free.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.
Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Straggler, posted 07-07-2012 5:38 PM Chuck77 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 243 by Modulous, posted 07-07-2012 7:26 PM Chuck77 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024