I am listening to what you are saying. ok, so you did imply this is not the first contact. Just using a phrase to do so. Obviously you meant something different.
Walking out the door, also a phrase. Again, one that’s situational. It means they are on site. For talking on the phone, I’d say hang up. So again, implying its not the first contact.
Look, I also think it can be correctly handled, but your whole post makes it sound like a pushy sales narrative that is deceptive. Youre not outright calling for deception but the implication is there. I’m not the only one noticing it.
Maybe your choice of words is wrong, but when someone tells you who they are, listen.
Just like in this discussion, youre changing the narrative deceptively.
Now they are on the phone. They weren’t before, that stage had passed.
Sure, you are now retroactively changing your intent but it doesn’t change the meaning of your words.
You say listen to what youre saying. I did.
If you said, when they call advise of the current rate, is agree. Your version seems to be past that stage. In no world does anyone think that you would be obliged to honor the quote. So either your advice is not really advice, to do what is normal and advise them of your actual rate. Or, as appears more likely, you want to leverage the mistake using their sunken cost of time after arranging a meet, knowing in advance their expectations dont match the rate.
If everyone else gets it why is there another comment calling you a LinkedIn lunatic? Its not a term I would use, but I see their point. Your comment is one of two things:
A pointless comment offering no advice as of course they would clarify.
A comment to say leverage it to your advantage, using deceptive tactics.
Walk it back all you want but in context its clear to me which was the intent. Perhaps you meant no I’ll will, but it reads as exploitative. In quoting for any kind of work, but especially programming based work, there is a knowledge differential. This justifies fees, but the same knowledge differential is often used to take advantage of those with no concept of the work involved.
Dudes just saying you can be deceptive without intending it. Its not the craziest idea is it?
To avoid abusing the sunk cost fallacy, it would be best to tell the dad that is not the correct rate, and to please reach out to their friend with the correction.
No chance of someone feeling like they might as well choose youre higher rate because they are already talking to you.
In my opinion its a direct response to the advice that this can be turned into a positive, and is just pointing out that its technically based on a deceptive principle so you should not make a habit out of it.
I think its fair to consider the situation from all involved perspectives, including the Dads friend.
The guy literally explained he was using sales idioms and you are taking it like someone is actually trying to lock prospective clients in. If he told you they decided to get off the pot instead of walk out the door would you assume he’s a voyeur watching them poop?
deleted by creator
I am listening to what you are saying. ok, so you did imply this is not the first contact. Just using a phrase to do so. Obviously you meant something different.
Walking out the door, also a phrase. Again, one that’s situational. It means they are on site. For talking on the phone, I’d say hang up. So again, implying its not the first contact.
Look, I also think it can be correctly handled, but your whole post makes it sound like a pushy sales narrative that is deceptive. Youre not outright calling for deception but the implication is there. I’m not the only one noticing it.
Maybe your choice of words is wrong, but when someone tells you who they are, listen.
deleted by creator
Just like in this discussion, youre changing the narrative deceptively.
Now they are on the phone. They weren’t before, that stage had passed.
Sure, you are now retroactively changing your intent but it doesn’t change the meaning of your words.
You say listen to what youre saying. I did.
If you said, when they call advise of the current rate, is agree. Your version seems to be past that stage. In no world does anyone think that you would be obliged to honor the quote. So either your advice is not really advice, to do what is normal and advise them of your actual rate. Or, as appears more likely, you want to leverage the mistake using their sunken cost of time after arranging a meet, knowing in advance their expectations dont match the rate.
If everyone else gets it why is there another comment calling you a LinkedIn lunatic? Its not a term I would use, but I see their point. Your comment is one of two things: A pointless comment offering no advice as of course they would clarify. A comment to say leverage it to your advantage, using deceptive tactics.
Walk it back all you want but in context its clear to me which was the intent. Perhaps you meant no I’ll will, but it reads as exploitative. In quoting for any kind of work, but especially programming based work, there is a knowledge differential. This justifies fees, but the same knowledge differential is often used to take advantage of those with no concept of the work involved.
deleted by creator
Dudes just saying you can be deceptive without intending it. Its not the craziest idea is it?
To avoid abusing the sunk cost fallacy, it would be best to tell the dad that is not the correct rate, and to please reach out to their friend with the correction.
No chance of someone feeling like they might as well choose youre higher rate because they are already talking to you.
deleted by creator
In my opinion its a direct response to the advice that this can be turned into a positive, and is just pointing out that its technically based on a deceptive principle so you should not make a habit out of it.
I think its fair to consider the situation from all involved perspectives, including the Dads friend.
deleted by creator
The guy literally explained he was using sales idioms and you are taking it like someone is actually trying to lock prospective clients in. If he told you they decided to get off the pot instead of walk out the door would you assume he’s a voyeur watching them poop?
Their idioms have implications beyond what he’s saying. He’s either changing his story or doesn’t fully understand them.nor my point.
Given the lady doth protest so much, my money would be on retrospective shanging of the story, not clarification.