Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Another way of parsing the sentence in question.

Redbeacon requires none of the following things of its contractors: 1) that they show up in Redbeacon attire. 2) work solely through Redbeacon. 3) charge what Redbeacon dictates. 4) follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

>If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, ONLY do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

What probably confused your reading is that the word "only", coming at the end of clause, seems like it changed the sense of the rest of the sentence, whereas I believe the author meant it to apply to the phrase "do work in Redbeacon clothing".



yes, this is what confused me. I made this clear in my second reply. Note that the first clause "only do work through Redbeacon" makes sense because it sounds like you're prohibiting disintermediation - i.e. swapping phone numbers through their site and then cutting Redbeacon out of the transaction.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: