"work smb. for smth." vs "con smth. out of smb."

[alikim]

Do those two expressions have the same meaning?

[emsr2d2]

Do those two expressions have the same meaning?

I've never heard "to work somebody out of something" (or vice versa) used in the context of a con, no.

In fact, now I think about it, I haven't heard "to work somebody/something out of something/somebody" as any kind of idiom. The only use I can think of is in DIY when you have a nail stuck in a wall you need to "work the nail out of the wall" - in this context it means to extract it slowly and gradually, probably using the pointy forked end of a hammer, or with pliers. Even then, it would be "to work something out of something else".

[alikim]

Where did you read "work OUT", I'm asking about "work somebody FOR something" versus "con something out of somebody" - read the title.

[bhaisahab]

Where did you read "work OUT", I'm asking about "work somebody FOR something" versus "con something out of somebody" - read the title.

If you want people to understand your titles, don't use text speak. "Work somebody for something" vs "Con somebody out of something" would have been much clearer. I don't much like the tone of your response to emsr2d2, it costs nothing to be polite and rudeness will not be tolerated on this forum. For the record I have never heard "Work somebody for something".

[alikim]

Oh really, since it can not be that a teacher totally misread my post and the reply is rubbish, it must be always my fault.

Lets see what we can quickly pick on... ah! "text speak". Apparently it converts FOR into OUT and I deliberately mislead the teacher. OMG

Simple "I'm sorry, I posted rubbish" would do, but that's not what you can hear from an English teacher because they are infallible. Firstly because they are teachers and secondly because they are English, or is it the other way around?

And of course the watchdog swiftly jumps in to cover the embarrassment and to give ME a notation for being "wrong" and to threaten because "we will not tolerate here".

Really?

One is coward unable to admit publicly a simple mistake, another one... well, watchdogs, talking to them is a waste of time.

Sorry sight...

[5jj]

Alikim, all the people who respond in this forum do so in their own free time. They are always civil to others, and rather expect people they are attempting to help not to snap at them.

If you don't like the way the way we expect normal people to behave, there is no obligation for you to stay.

Have a nice day.

[Tdol]

One is coward unable to admit publicly a simple mistake, another one... well, watchdogs, talking to them is a waste of time.

Do please mind your manners. No one here has every suggested that we're perfect- people do misread things. How do you know the person is a coward- they may not have seen your reply and it's a crass thing to say. Your xenophobia is a breach of TOS. No one asked or forced you to come here. Please do not over-react in this petulant manner again.

Your reaction to a simple misreading was over the top. An attempt to calm things down was met with xenophobic abuse. Please calm down. If you continue, repeat or escalate, it will be a straight red. You are free to put that down to the trigger-happy acts of a spineless, fascist, contemptible, egomaniac mod exercising their powers to seem like a nano-heavyweight in front of their clique of sycophants. I can live with it.

As I have said before, William Burroughs advised gunslingers to shoot the bartender first because he has a shotgun and will always side with the locals. He's probably right, though the analogy breaks down as you can't actually shoot me, even virtually. I have the shotgun and I always win- it's not a fair fight. Forums are a bit like the Wild West, and we like to maintain an orderly house here. You can get drunk and smash the furniture up once, but don't do it again.

I am closing this thread.