Author: Albert Silver
Date: 10:40:59 09/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2000 at 20:13:12, Mogens Larsen wrote:
>On September 06, 2000 at 19:32:33, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>The entire thread? C'mon... You say one thing, referring to a specific post and
>>line of argument, and follow this up with another statement that I am somehow
>>supposed to have guessed is completely unrelated?
>
>I don't understand what you're trying to say, as it was you who accused me of
>making derogatory remarks about Uri's abilities. Accusations without basis in
>reality I might add. I fail to see why I should enlighten you about all contents
>of this thread and subthreads just because you accuse me of something.
?? I am not accusing you of anything. You clarified that that was not the case
and that was that. You ALSO asked me how I had come to this conclusion, claiming
it was without foundation. I obliged by showing you how I had come to this
conclusion (which you had already corrected). You asked me, and I answered, that
is all. You had made a succession of statements, one stating that Uri shouldn't
hold his breath in the hope of being paid as beta-tester (I agree BTW, I think
he has much better prospects as a non-programming developer), and the other
stating that some (not wishing to say names) beta-testers clearly had an overly
improtant view of themselves. Where was the clue that this phrase had nothing
whatsoever to do with the previous one? I needed to be corrected, but not
because I couldn't read. Telling me that I should have following your other
discussions is illogical IMO. In any case, there are no accusations.
>
>>Yes, that must be it. My views on beta-testing, program development,
>>remuneration, work, and hobbies aren't valid, therefore I'm just arguing for
>>argument's sake. I'd still like to know why you believe that one's work and
>>one's hobby are mutually exclusive. I don't think that is necessarily so BTW,
>>but perhaps I'm just an optimist. Judging from the reply, I presume you'd rather
>>just let the subject drop, which is fine, but at least be clear about it rather
>>than dismiss what I have to say as lacking validity.
>
>Given that 10 minutes of thought on your part would have prevented me from
>repeating myself or state the obvious, I still consider it to be a purely
>argumentative reply.
State the obvious? What is obvious to you is not obvious to me. I'd like to
remind you this thread started with Uri's wish to discuss remuneration for
beta-testing. You thought this was wrong. I thought Uri should get paid, but not
for beta-testing. As I explained, the functions and work he described are those
of a developer and not a beta-tester (invalid view). It's a different job
altogether. You then added what I thought to be an astounding comment: that it
would have been immoral to receive payment as it constituted a hobby and not
work. Since this seemed to be the crux of your position and I couldn't disagree
more (invalid view), I asked why you believed this (invalid question). The only
difference I perceive in what work is as opposed to a hobby is in the 'when'. If
I am doing an activity in order to meet certain professional obligations that is
work. Any activity I choose to do when I am not forced to meet professional
obligations can be described as a hobby. They most certainly CAN be one and the
same. In fact, and this is why your statement surprised me so much, I always
thought it was every person's secret dream to find something they love to do in
their free time and find a way to make a living out if it. So you can imagine
how this struck me when you said that such a marriage was 'immoral'. The problem
is I don't know why you believe this, and you keep answering with things such as
"10 minutes of thought on your part would have prevented me from repeating
myself or state the obvious". So ok dude, have it your way, but just for the
record I'll add that that comment and telling me my views and questions aren't
valid do not represent great arguments IMO.
>On top of that you expect me to provide you with a summary
>of the entire thread and subthreads to validate/repeat my own opinions.
Why I should have to read other discussions in order to understand a discussion
you are having with me eludes me.
Albert Silver
>That is
>neither my job nor my hobby. That's definately EOD on my part.
>
>Mogens.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.