On 23 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ask Bjoern Hansen) writes:
>
> > On 23 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
> [...]
> > > "no money" implies "unethical"
> >
> > Yes, if compensation was promised or implied.
>
> No!
> "no money" implies "no money"
> it's a
At 17:14 -0800 1/23/02, Ask Bjoern Hansen wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Marty Landman wrote:
>
>[...]
>> The same is true of stock as compensation. Worse still, if you accept stock
>> from a company that isn't publically traded you may not have any way of
>> selling it, or fairly valuating it. Howe
> "VB" == Vicki Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
VB> I _really_ hate to break this to you and your friend, but the IRS
VB> would like to see its cut of the value of that Perl Whirl cruise.
VB> The IRS taxes compensation that has value - a computer or car you
VB> win; a computer your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ask Bjoern Hansen) writes:
> On 23 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
[...]
> > "no money" implies "unethical"
>
> Yes, if compensation was promised or implied.
No!
"no money" implies "no money"
it's a personal preference
But
"compensation promised or implie
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Marty Landman wrote:
[...]
> The same is true of stock as compensation. Worse still, if you accept stock
> from a company that isn't publically traded you may not have any way of
> selling it, or fairly valuating it. However there will be a valuation, and
> a 1099 and you
At 04:07 PM 1/23/02 -0800, Vicki Brown wrote:
>I _really_ hate to break this to you and your friend, but the IRS would like
>to see its cut of the value of that Perl Whirl cruise. The IRS taxes
>compensation that has value - a computer or car you win; a computer your
>company "gives" you (to keep
At 18:09 -0500 1/23/02, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
>One company "employed" a buddy to "work" on
>Saturdays for *NO MONEY* in exchange for his Perl Whirl
>passage.
At 17:43 -0600 1/23/02, Dave Rolsky wrote:
>A trip on the Perl Whirl is most definitely compensation, as opposed to
>stock in a company wh
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> > We're in a community centered around "free" software. Larry
> > Wall, himself, does not currently have an income stream.
>
> Yes, he does. He works for O'Reilly.
(no, not anymore).
- ask
On Wed, Jan 23, 2002 at 05:43:04PM -0600, Dave Rolsky wrote:
:
:On 23 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
:> We're in a community centered around "free" software. Larry
:> Wall, himself, does not currently have an income stream.
:
:Yes, he does. He works for O'Reilly. But that's irrelevant.
Actua
At 18:09 -0500 1/23/02, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
>"no money" implies "unethical"
>
>Non-sequitor!!!
>
>We're in a community centered around "free" software.
There is a difference between "unwilling" and "unable".
There is a very fine line between what you describe and "trying to get
something f
On 23 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
> "no money" implies "unethical"
>
> Non-sequitor!!!
My point was that in my experience there is a corrolation between the two.
> We're in a community centered around "free" software. Larry
> Wall, himself, does not currently have an income stream.
Y
On 23 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
>
> > > Don't like jobs like that? Don't apply to 'em.
> > >
> > > But don't filter them, either.
> [...]
> > > TMTOWTDI - it applies to cash streams, careers, work
> > > choices, too.
> [...]
> > The problem is that I think that places that aren't
> > wil
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Rolsky) writes:
> On 22 Jan 2002, Michael R. Wolf wrote:
>
> > Don't like jobs like that? Don't apply to 'em.
> >
> > But don't filter them, either.
[...]
> > TMTOWTDI - it applies to cash streams, careers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terrence Brannon) writes:
> On Wednesday, January 23, 2002, at 10:48 AM, Dave Rolsky wrote:
[...]
> > They did the work and have yet to be paid. But until
> > Vicki brought QCI up on this list we never heard about
> > it.
>
> Ouch, now *that* is a whole different story. I
> "ABH" == Ask Bjoern Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ABH> On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Uri Guttman wrote:
ABH> [...]
>> so the rule is that if we get complaints, then we will remove the
>> listings.
ABH> uh, no. We'll consider removing the listings. :-)
minor nit accepted. :)
uri
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Uri Guttman wrote:
[...]
> so the rule is that if we get complaints, then we will remove the
> listings.
uh, no. We'll consider removing the listings. :-)
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002, Douglas Wilson wrote:
[...]
> On another note, I wouldn't mind posts, say, from
> charitable organizations looking for 'freebie' work,
> as long as they say up front that they're only
> paying with their goodwill, but I agree that
> commercial enterprises wanting a month of
well, speaking of moderation of the jobs list i rejected 2 spanish spams
(1 each to jobs and discuss) today. but this one i need help with:
Delivered-To: moderator for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Incredible Information
Sen
> "ML" == Marty Landman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ML> At 01:28 PM 1/23/02 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>> nah, we already crossed it. i take bribes to accept posts. i need the $$
ML> Funny Uri. Only having a blacklist as per one suggestion is against the
ML> law, isn't it? Even on a
On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Marty Landman wrote:
> At 01:28 PM 1/23/02 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>
> >nah, we already crossed it. i take bribes to accept posts. i need the $$
>
> Funny Uri. Only having a blacklist as per one suggestion is against the
> law, isn't it? Even on a privately owned list as
At 01:28 PM 1/23/02 -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
>nah, we already crossed it. i take bribes to accept posts. i need the $$
Funny Uri. Only having a blacklist as per one suggestion is against the
law, isn't it? Even on a privately owned list as was pointed out this is?
Personally I think barring f
21 matches
Mail list logo
