[YouTube] An Important Update From Stefan Molyneux

[Freedomain]

An Important Update From Stefan Molyneux

Watch the video

[Chauncey Tinker]

I really think that Stefan should consider whether Steemit.com could be integrated with his new domain project.  A good argument can change the world, so why not reward those who make good arguments on your platform?  Steemit.com allows people to reward financially those who make good comments, as well as the big players.  I wrote my thoughts about why I think Steemit is the future of online debating here:

Steemit - A Revolution In The Making

https://steemit.com/steemit/@chaunceytinker/steemit-a-revolution-in-the-making

The only possible stumbling block is - I'm not sure if you can yet integrate Steemit with other sites yet.  However the need for this technology is obvious (as I hope I made clear in the post above).  If anyone can make this happen, it's Stefan!

Thanks for considering this point, I feel it is the future for online debate!

[barn]

Hi @Chauncey Tinker

I was wondering, would be curious to know your take on it.

Say commenting was enabling some people to make an extra buck...

a. How would it influence/What could it add to the arguments' truth value?

b. What could it take away from them?

Barnsley

[Chauncey Tinker]

Hi @barn

That's a very good question and one I have thought about.  We have already seen Twitter becoming hijacked by rich people who want to influence the public discourse on that platform (something about Saudi influence WRT a particular religion seems to be a factor there).  Any financially driven platform would face some risk from those who have deep pockets and I think this will require a lot of thought and have to be combated.  However as the tech is in its infancy I doubt if that will be a serious problem to begin with and I think it's perhaps a bridge that can be crossed when we get to it.  One thought I do have though is that such influencers could probably be detected and banned just as trolling is dealt with already.

In a more general way though, do Stefan's arguments carry less weight because people donate?  Are books on philosophy to be taken less seriously because the author receives a royalty cheque?  No, I don't see any problem with financially rewarding those who make good arguments, quite the reverse.

[barn]

I ask you to be patient with my writing style (you being a writer n' all...)

 

On 03/07/2018 at 12:14 PM, Chauncey Tinker said:

That's a very good question and one I have thought about.  We have already seen Twitter becoming hijacked by rich people who want to influence the public discourse on that platform (something about Saudi influence WRT a particular religion seems to be a factor there).  Any financially driven platform would face some risk from those who have deep pockets and I think this will require a lot of thought and have to be combated. 

Oh, I'm not worried about yet another oligarchy slicing out/taking over a large enough piece of information dissemination instrument. Having said that, I'm veeery vigilant that it keeps getting freer and the trend continues.

My concern is from my own observations. It's regarding the newest generations' weak critical thinking, favouring the impulsive -attributes, the 'gap' that's been skipped over not having been in the stage of self-examination, reflection on opposing ideas enough.

"not having been" = have been robbed

On 03/07/2018 at 12:14 PM, Chauncey Tinker said:

One thought I do have though is that such influencers could probably be detected and banned just as trolling is dealt with already.

Well, yes. Sounds reasonable and if there wasn't the age old sets of questions of:

Who should be entrusted with...

How would you pick those...

What would be in it for those/us...

I can't help but easily and consistently revert to the view, that:

Power corrupts, therefore one good measure is to decentralise the heck out of everything. (currently, until there's sufficient affinity to using the critical point of view, at large.) (imho)

and

Humanity, seemingly expanded in a few direction way faster than to have been able to keep itself in balance for the absorbing of more than the fraction of the lessons it has seen. Too much, too fast. No way back, no throttling. A challenge.

On 03/07/2018 at 12:14 PM, Chauncey Tinker said:

In a more general way though, do Stefan's arguments carry less weight because people donate?  Are books on philosophy to be taken less seriously because the author receives a royalty cheque?  No, I don't see any problem with financially rewarding those who make good arguments, quite the reverse.

I can see, how my questions were poorly worded, hopefully this might make it better. You'll let me know.

I think, the vast majority of the community here would agree that an argument's truth value strictly observed on it's content does not alter even if 'She, who's name shall not be spoken' delivered it, in a natural to her fashion. That's philosophy, rigor, clarity for you. 'Seeing through blocks of concrete with bare eyes.'

On the other hand, the world isn't at all what you would classify 'not irrational'.

Sure, domino effect. Sure, Pareto principle... the flock will follow, once the critical mass is formed. And that's all very well.

I just question a lot, if this is something that's as transmissible as a knowledge, as let's say new shiny gadgets, fashion, consumerism at large. Mainly, because all that is mostly required as of now for the 'turning of the tide' in most people's mind(how I see it, could be completely wrong), is hard work and dedication they have never experienced.

I had created this thread for the same question btb...

Neuw..., to the 'meat' of the matter.

Thank you for your sincerity and straightforward approach. It's only fair if I share my ideas on it too.

No. There shouldn't be more than 'lunch-money' amount of cash in being a commenter on a philosophy platform. Sorry, lunch money is too much... not even that. 'Brownie points'?! Maybe. Quicker moderation privileges? Eh, probably.

The thinking behind it, is that:

a. the truth should be enough of an incentive to be involved, granted the fruits of labour could be appreciated by those who deemed it valuable SEPARATELY FROM THE PLATFORM.

b. the more walk the walk and less talk the walk, is, imho preferable... monetizing would be an incentive for the later. Not good.

c. People who have nothing to loose talk more honestly.

Hope, this time I could flesh it out better.

p.s. (do tell)

 

[Chauncey Tinker]

Hi @barn

If I'm understanding you correctly then, your concern is that the reward system might attract people with the wrong kind of motivations and they would damage the quality of debate.  Where there are no rewards people are commenting purely in an altruistic way and therefore with the best intentions.  That's a fair point if I have understood you correctly, but I think it's a concern that will turn out to be unfounded I will try to explain why:

One fascinating idea that I have come across in articles about this new reward system is the concept of the gift economy.  People who gain rewards may in fact simply decide to put their rewards back into the system as it were by rewarding the good contributions of others.  Thus, altruism may in fact be encouraged by such a system.

This reward system is a revolutionary new way of doing things, it blurs the line between content creators such as Stefan, and people who respond to the content.  Some of those people responding however are not just consumers, they are also content creators.  For example, I write articles at a website but I also do a lot of commenting under other people's articles as well - I get involved in the debate in all the ways I can, it is literally a full time occupation at the moment.  Many other commenters put almost as much thought into writing comments as the article writers do into their articles, and sometimes they even make much better arguments than the content creators what's more.  I have seen this happening at many websites.

I don't think this divide between content creators and consumers is healthy, it creates an artificial divide and I think that a lot of good voices are not being heard.  People might start commenting in their spare time and find they are receiving enough rewards to make a career out of it, so it could create an easy avenue for the best voices to rise to the surface.  Their rewards could enable them to start new ventures and invest in projects that they could only have dreamed of doing otherwise.  The number of content creators currently is very limited, I would like to see thousands and thousands of people doing this sort of work (and it is work, believe me).

Imagine someone is working in a dead end job and they start commenting or even creating podcasts etc. in their spare time.  Gradually they begin to earn a bit of income from this and after a while they start to realize they could make a living this way.  This could be an avenue from a pointless existence to a meaningful one for bright people who get trapped in a rut.  I have been there myself in the past when I was younger, I have done low paid dead end jobs myself.

If we want to see more of this then we need to reward the people who make the best arguments so that they can simply dedicate more time to the activity.  Less successful commenters will not be able to earn significant rewards, it will be hard to do, but the odd reward they do get may spur them on to reward others.  Having just received my own first comment rewards on Steemit I have done just that - I am putting it back in, and it feels really good.  This gift economy concept really could take off.  At first I thought oh there will be winners and losers but actually I feel like a winner when I am giving rewards as well as receiving them, because I feel I am doing good by giving.

I've come across plenty of intelligent young people with inquiring minds who don't go along with this whole safe space culture.  Quite often you hear such calling in to Stefan's call-in show.  There is an impression created by the media and by those in universities who "no-platform" and so on, that may be the prevailing mood, but it is suppressing a lot of people with more inquiring minds from speaking out.  In short, I believe the picture is a lot more mixed than it appears.  Remember that small rewards would have a lot more value for younger people on the whole, as they are unlikely to be earning much.  Such a platform might then give such young people an added incentive to speak out.

As far as managing disruptive behaviour goes, the exact same problem exists with trolling - who do you get to police the trolling, so I don't think adding rewards will make this substantially more difficult.  Every website has this problem already, and believe me it is a substantial problem, especially when you're talking about political issues (I am speaking from first hand experience here).

De-centralization is an interesting avenue but that's something that can be incorporated along with this approach.  You may be thinking of a more technical idea, but de-centralization is very much happening as a result of people simply starting lots of blogs, and other websites.  For example, the website where I contribute is attracting mostly people who think quite deeply about UK politics and the wider scene, it is I think quite unlikely that those motivated PURELY by the chance of financial reward will be ever likely to visit it anyway, but rewards could be an ADDITIONAL draw.  A system like Steemit could be easily integrated into multiple sites, reducing the work for people like me - thus it could ENCOURAGE de-centralization.  We use a commenting system at the moment called Disqus but it has no in-built reward system - FDR has built a system from scratch but this requires an independent login.  That is another factor discouraging people from joining the forum in my opinion.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[barn]

Hi Chauncey Tinker,

2 hours ago, Chauncey Tinker said:

If I'm understanding you correctly then, your concern is that the reward system might attract people with the wrong kind of motivations and they would damage the quality of debate. 

No, I'm worried that people would bend their opinions (publicly most likely, privately not sure) to better suit the probability of earning more money due to popularity... the more earnings would then increase the likelihood of them NOT EVER speaking against their previous points... "any way the wind blows".

2 hours ago, Chauncey Tinker said:

I don't think this divide between content creators and consumers is healthy, it creates an artificial divide and I think that a lot of good voices are not being heard.  People might start commenting in their spare time and find they are receiving enough rewards to make a career out of it, so it could create an easy avenue for the best voices to rise to the surface.  Their rewards could enable them to start new ventures and invest in projects that they could only have dreamed of doing otherwise.  The number of content creators currently is very limited, I would like to see thousands and thousands of people doing this sort of work (and it is work, believe me).

Well, there's a reason why content creators are generally more ambitious, conscientious, productive. The fact that many people are too lazy to put in the effort... If a commenter wanted to be heard on a larger scale, they should do what the content creators had done... most of the times that's not happening because once they realise the effort behind such outcomes, the weasel out. I completely agree with Mike Cernovich's breakdown of how success is usually only seen as a sudden streak of luck, planets being align... when it's in reality couldn't be farther from the truth. (i.e. Katy Perry, Queen, J. K. Rowling, Game of Throne's writer... etc.)

I believe, it's very important to have difficulties especially when starting out. I see aiding some groups of people detrimental to their learning of survival skills on the long run. What is it, Cambridge University now gives extra time for women on their exams?... How's that treating them with respect? I guess you get my analogy, where I'm going with this.

Failing is good. Challenge builds character and teaches people about their dedication/abilities/strength-weaknesses.

b

2 hours ago, Chauncey Tinker said:

Imagine someone is working in a dead end job and they start commenting or even creating podcasts etc. in their spare time.  Gradually they begin to earn a bit of income from this and after a while they start to realize they could make a living this way.  This could be an avenue from a pointless existence to a meaningful one for bright people who get trapped in a rut.  I have been there myself in the past when I was younger, I have done low paid dead end jobs myself.

Oh, absolutely. People who want to have a better life, start side-businesses, pro-actively do stuff to improve their situation. Many never transition and stay in the comfort zone (even if in their own words they're not happy, don't do what it takes ultimately so 'can't hear what you are saying from what you are doing'), a few makes it. Another great majority, in the process of updating their skills/learning stuff earns a promotion at their dead-end job and better off that way... for another decade or two.

I think, given how large pool of free information is out there...breaking out of the mold has to be because only those individuals are dedicated enough to achieving their goals. Little things, that systematically add up to increase in opportunities. Though you need to be consistent, plan and measure every step of the way. 'You can't hear the trees growing, only when they fall'.

(You could read Scott Adams' book 'How to Fail at Almost Everything...')

"people who get trapped in a rut." - Do you mean, people who choose to rot in a terrible place and act passively?

You mentioned that you've had entry level jobs in the past. Me too. Plenty.

How did you get past that? Did you do anything to get a better paying job, or it fell into your lap? I'd assume you seeked out actively what and how it was going to work for you. Did everything you tried, worked the way you'd imagined? Did you persist at some ideas more than others?

I empathise with people who realise their limits. It sucks to see, others are better than us in things. So, what! It just means, the direction should be changed and the lessons learned. People can be still well off and have a meaningful life if they put the necessary effort and work into finding what's the best match for their ability/skillset/circumstances. Plus, they can plan for the future and change that (realistically) if they so desire.

Some additional comments:

° visitors giving money to commenters means they are giving less to the content creator who's been instrumental in the comment ever having been created. Don't like that.

° there are many people who have not yet registered on the forum but did consider it a few times already. Why not register and find out if your ideas actually can stand? (I have a few guesses)

° There's absolutely nothing in the way of me sending 'sheckels' in the direction of any commenter, if I wanted to. I can contact the individual and learn about them/their situation... (I have done) . Sending stuff to people who I don't know at all... it can happen.

° the more direct the route between content and sponsor, the better for the creator. I personally prefer invisible monetary contribution, free of any implemented system.

Respectfully,

Barnsley

[Chauncey Tinker]

Ah, OK, I get your point there.

However this goes back again to my question in the first reply - does Stefan tailor his arguments to suit what the prevailing consensus is?  No, he says what he thinks, and the fact that people donate to him doesn't alter that.  Even on reward systems we can follow the people who stick to their principles, and ignore the (probably better rewarded for agreeing with the consensus) others.  Your point about de-centralization can work in tandem with this - different sites (thinking beyond fdr now) can rise up and cater for people who are mainstream and people who are not.

You want things to be tough?  Why not smash up some weaving looms like the luddites did then?!?  Make it tough for the workers so that they have to strive all the harder to escape from their grinding poverty!!  Strife is good, it makes us stronger!  Make it tough for the factory managers as well, so they have to hire more staff to make a living!!  Let's turn back the clock and uninvent the vacuum cleaner and washing machine while we're at it!  OK I'm labouring the point now (pardon the pun :-).

In short though I fear you are trying to stand in the way of progress here, just as the Luddites did.  Once agriculture began to need less people, the people became available to work in factories, and so on.  This is the nature of progress - life gets easier, freeing us up to do other things with our time.

Indeed I worked very hard, I did evening classes and then I got a job above that and before long I was feeling as if I was stuck in a rut all over again, albeit on a slightly higher rung of the ladder.  I would not wish that on anyone.  If there was a fast track for talented people in the future, I'm all for it, even though it wasn't available to me.

As for people falling out over rewards and so on, I think that's another thing that will prove unfounded.  What you may be overlooking is the fact Steemit is already up and running and working, and people seem to be getting along with each other just fine.

I think we've probably reached an impasse by now, I can't think of anything more to add.  What's more, there seems to be no-one else here - perhaps they are all over at Steemit making micro-earnings from their comments there, and perhaps I had better go and join them because I need to start earning a living somehow.

Thanks for debating this with me though, it is good to be challenged on it, not least because I'm thinking of investing a great deal of time and effort into making such a solution work for my own site.  I don't think we can really prove who's right except by experimenting with the system in question in the real world and just seeing what happens..  I would still be interested to hear what others make of our debate here though.

 

[barn]

Strap yourself down, get a cuppa'... tis' will be a long one.

 

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

Ah, OK, I get your point there.

I'm not convinced, that's the case. (Having read your response.)

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

However this goes back again to my question in the first reply - does Stefan tailor his arguments to suit what the prevailing consensus is?

I don't see, how content creators are the same as commenters. There are major differences in the type of content, platform options, visibility, responsibility... etc.

I guess you could draw parallels in some aspects but to say he'd be just as commenters , is to denigrate the work he does, as a whole. Without him, there'd be no comments (or even some commenters, I'm positive) under his videos, discussions on other places, reaction videos. The world would be short of an immensely great amount of highly important conversations, awareness raising slashes of Newton&Occam's flaming laserd sword.

(commenters, in many cases myself could be seen as... Doctor Fish, swimming close to the large fish... I have learned soo much thanks to his rigorous and unrelenting effort in the seeking of truth... Can I say the same about any commenter? Can you? To the same degree? Seriously, just not even a bit. No, the two are two different 'cattle of fish'.)

i.e. I see your argument as = The farmer and the greengrocer are the same because they both sell vegetables.

Does he cater to his audience? Yes, in some aspects, while staying original. (ping-pong ball studio/principles)

Does he warp his message to suit the consensus? No, I'd not have been following him otherwise. (And some of the pills were reeeeeally hard to swallow, I might add.)

Let's not forget our original focus. Steemit (in your own words "...allows people to reward financially those who make good comments, as well as the big players.") 

That's nothing 'new under the sun' because

° if you wanted, you could have got in contact with any commenter and asked if they accepted donation.

° steemit is like the new & added middle-man, taking the role of the porter who offers to take the pizza from the pizza guy when he presses your doorbell and asks for a small fee to put it onto your coffee table in your living room. Since I want to maximise the creation of content, not the number of comments (farmers vs. distributors), I dislike the idea of content creators receiving less.

(further increasing the number of people between consumer and producer, also creating the added option to tip not just the pizza guy but the porter itself... because the porter charges you for starters too. Nothing is for free. If it's advertised as such, you yourself is the product.)

Like I said, my discontent isn't with 'rewarding' itself

On 03/07/2018 at 10:57 PM, barn said:

No. There shouldn't be more than 'lunch-money' amount of cash in being a commenter on a philosophy platform. Sorry, lunch money is too much... not even that. 'Brownie points'?! Maybe. Quicker moderation privileges? Eh, probably.

The thinking behind it, is that:

a. the truth should be enough of an incentive to be involved, granted the fruits of labour could be appreciated by those who deemed it valuable SEPARATELY FROM THE PLATFORM.

b. the more walk the walk and less talk the walk, is, imho preferable... monetizing would be an incentive for the later. Not good.

c. People who have nothing to loose talk more honestly.

Think about just how easy it is to change your profile, alias, appearance, persona when a commenter. Creators can't do that. Having the general incentive to make money will and does encourage people to not hold on to their identity if they see their comments aren't making money. (emphasizing, if money is the main driving force)

If it isn't money that's drawing people into debates, then little did it matter if steemit had existed. I think that is preferable for commenters. Let the arguments' value be the sole motivation for anyone to want to be part of the discussion, not that if they can get money typing the desired/undesirable words.

It's a good filter imo, we'd see much more of financially motivated comments otherwise(highly partisan, dubious origin, one-off testers... etc).

On 03/10/2018 at 2:19 PM, Chauncey Tinker said:

People might start commenting in their spare time and find they are receiving enough rewards to make a career out of it,{1} so it could create an easy avenue for the best voices to rise to the surface.  Their rewards could enable them to start new ventures and invest in projects that they could only have dreamed of doing otherwise.{2}  The number of content creators currently is very limited, I would like to see thousands and thousands of people doing this sort of work (and it is work, believe me). 

Apart from money being the wrong incentive on a philosophical forum...

{1} Easy is not good. Have you heard about the concept of 'muscle atrophy'? It happens to astronauts, people's limbs when in a cast for an extended period of time...etc. Without gravity, resistance, pushback, certain 'muscles' (can be skills too) degrade. Providing people to skip the rangs of becoming known, strips the natural process of having to upgrade their skillsets to become consistently valuable. It's why many (conscious) content creators did not enable adds, veer away from superficialities, in general. Now, I'm not saying there are no such highly skilled individuals on steemit or there wouldn't be more if it went much more popular...

BUT I do say, it does benefit the shortcut takers immensely to not have to create content but just ride the back of some hardER working individuals. We wouldn't want that on the long run, as people seeing how easy it is to make money not trying different venues would simply opt for the easy route. (old telly vs. remote control?)

{2}

Me too but that doesn't mean it isn't due to people not doing the work it takes. No, wait. It is, because of that.

Nobody is preventing anyone from commenting here, yet not everyone does it. To assume that it's down to not having a strong enough financial incentive is perhaps (imo definitely) for the better, since those individuals are demonstrably care far more of the 'skeckles' than truth or good arguments. Fantastic, less people trying to virtue signal for hopefully making money with it. If you see someone taking the effort to debate/respond as of now, you don't have to wonder if they're only doing it for the sake of popularity or a hidden monetary gain. It's just you and your arguments. Splendid.

Also, why do you think people are less inclined nowadays to read books and seem to have the 'twitter attention span phenomenon' , while others (a smallllll minority) choose to listen to hundreds of hours, pages of J. B. P., Stefan Molyneux's... etc. material?

Which would you like to help more, the short comments or the unimaginably laborious long-format producers?

Shouldn't we incentivise more the later and by introducing steemit we're actually telling people 'it's okay to stay short-format, you can still make enough-ish cash'?

What incentive is in that so we have a steady flow of great thinkers taking up the staff and carrying it forward, if they are not doing the same preparation, research as the two mentioned above?

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

You want things to be tough?

I was looking for a part that you could have considered when writing this.

Sorry, I failed to find it. Could you quote me directly, please?

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

In short though I fear you are trying to stand in the way of progress here, just as the Luddites did.  Once agriculture began to need less people, the people became available to work in factories, and so on.  This is the nature of progress - life gets easier, freeing us up to do other things with our time.

Well, I can't say your fear is completely unfounded. If you mean I'm against making it easier for people to make money off of content creators' hard work by appealing to some groups of people, not having nearly as much skin in the game as the creators.

On a second note, isn't your analogy highly exaggerated (and missing my focus entirely by the by, because I never said there shouldn't be steemit or any other way to allow for the donating to commenters)?

Please answer this: How it is more beneficial to not have to produce a book/podcast/essay on an important philosophical question, the 'short-format' is adding more value... How? I can't see it being the case at all. For society, the deeper understanding of concepts can't be squeezed into (I'm exaggerating) haikus, twitter type formats don't provide sufficient content if you wanted to grasp concepts down to their essence. Probably it's the reason why twitter/comments sections are highly volatile. Not to mention how 'messy' and disorganised they usually are. Encouraging more of that? I strongly disagree.

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

{1}Indeed I worked very hard, I did evening classes and then I got a job above that and before long I was feeling as if I was stuck in a rut all over again, albeit on a slightly higher rung of the ladder.  I would not wish that on anyone.  {2}If there was a fast track for talented people in the future, I'm all for it, even though it wasn't available to me.

{1} Why did you choose to stop? I don't see why you wouldn't be eyeing the next place to land if you still pro-actively engaged in improving your circumstances. Have you given up?

{2} Actually, there's. The only problem is that it's required, you sign away your soul. There are innumerable 'easy shortcuts', mind you the price to pay is far greater on the long run.

A lot of, plenty of highly intelligent, talented individuals corrupted within choose such "fast track"-s whom opt to be part of generally coercive-in-nature-institutions, juggling several cognitive dissonance simultaneously so that they can hope to forget the fact, that they are dying a little bit with each passing moment. Yes, there are people who choose that. Had a look at Europe recently? Can't say all the statist thinking (or lack of real contemplation) is about to bring the next golden age for the next 5-6 generations. You could if you wanted to seek out a place, where they throw some more money at you, in return for a greater erasure of your true self. Cost vs. benefit.

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

As for people falling out over rewards and so on, I think that's another thing that will prove unfounded.  What you may be overlooking is the fact Steemit is already up and running and working, and people seem to be getting along with each other just fine.

I'd much appreciate if you quoted me directly, here again. Thanks.

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

I think we've probably reached an impasse by now, I can't think of anything more to add. 

Dunno. The dialogue depends usually on both sides.

On 03/12/2018 at 12:54 AM, Chauncey Tinker said:

{1} What's more, there seems to be no-one else here -{2} perhaps they are all over at Steemit making micro-earnings from their comments there, and {3}perhaps I had better go and join them because I need to start earning a living somehow.

{1}

Compared to what? I'm not sure I know what you were expecting or what is missing for you?

{2}

If that's the case, I'm glad they're there.

{3}

Well,... See, when you say (sorry, type) stuff like that, I get a few questions pop up in my mind.

a. aren't you biased in favour of steemit already?

b. if the debate is to generate money, how would I know that you arrived to your conclusions through reason & evidence?

c. why aren't you working something that gives you enough money in the first place, rather than having to rely on the extra income from commenting?

d. why don't you have that avenue covered already? (I assume you aren't fresh out from school, and I'm not asking it from a 'high horse' or anything. I'm genuinely curious as to why do you think you weren't able to provide for your needs sufficiently, until noww?)

Barnsley

[barn]

Hi @Chauncey Tinker

I've noticed that your post has changed compared to the quotes I took. Curious.

Edited March 21, 2018 by barn
+no mention of editing. Curious (*2)