Re: Pricing, et. al.

["Jack C. Thompson" <tcl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like to think that I write clearly.  Steve seems to ignore what
displeases him; I addressed the second question because I agree that anyone
may sell their expertise for whatever price they and their clients feel is
appropriate.

It *is* wrong for binders, for instance, "...to use publicly subsidized
equipment in order to moonlight and charge lower prices than the private
sector," for the reasons I enumerated.

>1. Is it wrong for part-time binders to charge lower than average prices?
>2. Is it wrong for binders to use publicly subsidized equipment in order to
>moonlight and charge lower prices than the private sector?

>Jack Thompson, in his declaration that "Dennis Gouey is right and Steve
>Hales is wrong" addresses only the second question, and mistakenly thinks
>that I am doing the same. However, this is false. I addressed the first
>question.

Perhaps; but I didn't write the questions.

>Jack complains about the cost of his employees, and the little money he
>has >made on videotapes and writing books.

Wrong again, Steve.  I've re-read my post and do not find that I
complained.  Please do not put words into my mouth.  I explained details of
business for the benefit of those who might learn something of value from
them.  I did not say how many copies of videotapes or publications I have
sold, or how many billable hours occupy my attention each day.

By taking my post apart and interpreting it as he saw fit, Steve may have
committed a "genetic fallacy" on the rest of us, as in the instance below,
knowingly confusing principle with observed fact by dissembling.

>Jack also claims that "But do not think of ethics.  Ethics have no place in
>business as conducted by non-profit institutions or governments." As a
>matter of practice, I sincerely hope that he is mistaken. As a matter of
>principle, morality has an important place in these arenas. Indeed, I
>thought this was the whole topic of conversation.

Steve's response to Dennis: (with respect to  credentials)

>A splendid example of the genetic fallacy; viz. the view that the origin of
>a statement has a bearing on its truth value. I suspect that you would find
>it uncompelling for me to merely announce that I am an expert in ethics,
>declare that you are not, and subsequently ignore your arguments. It is
>reason that matters, not the declarations of "authority".

Couldn't have said it better myself, and that is all I intend to say on
this matter.

Jack

Jack C. Thompson

www.teleport.com/~tcl/