|
|
Posted by Kurt Ullman on 04/18/06 12:29
In article <ZeW0g.3395$DH2.794@trndny06>,
"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kurtullman-B87E51.20014417042006@news.west.earthlink.net...
> > In article <scott-B4911E.16115917042006@news.west.cox.net>,
> > Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <o52742d38vudq0408cjdvdh7av6h24mgcb@4ax.com>,
> >> Steve House <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
> >> > does it for a source of income.
> >>
> >> Without getting into semantics, there seems to be an operational
> >> definition of an app targeted for professional users.
> > There are only three true professions and thus professionals. They
> > are doctors, lawyers, and clergy. At least according to one of my Soc
> > profs. Thus, this whole thread seems to be silly.
> >
> All those girls in the oldest profession are all amatures
> as far as you have been able to tell?
>
But it isn't a profession according to my Prof., it is an
occupation. While those in the occupation in question, probably have a
unique body of knowledge, I would submit that automony is what is
lacking. They have no legal standing, they don't have their own
standards of education and training, the practitioner is not relatively
free of lay person evaluation and control. Some would say that most
legislation concerned with the profession is shaped by the profession,
but that is probably more related to the high percentage of whores in
the legislature.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|