Topic: the red cross is stealing your money
started by: CatKnight
and i absolutely agree with CK on this one
the money were donated for a perticular purpose, but never got to the people they were really intended for
it's a shame
------------------
"Marla said that she might die at any moment, and the only tragedy is that she didn't"--fight club
please feel free to ignore anything i happen to incoherently utter, because, yes, i am a pompus ass.
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
The red cross recieved around 900 million in donations for aide to the victims of 9/11. however, they have decided that only about 20\% of the money will go towards the victims. the rest will be used for programs the red cross wants to fund. It's classical liberal money wasting. If there is a problem, just throw money at it. Doesn't matter who's money it is (taxpayers, donations etc). Does anyone else see how wrong this is?
Eh...could they really have used the whole 逤 mil though? It's likely the medical expenses just didn't go anywhere near using up the money...and as for helping the victims financially, that isn't really the Red Cross's purpose...
Besides, 720 million dollars spent on things that are for a good cause, which people would probably not have donated because they wouldn't think it's patriotic, or their duty, or they would not have been as emotionally touched by the 9/11 incident.
quote:
Originally posted by sHuoReNviOLiN:
Eh...could they really have used the whole 逤 mil though? It's likely the medical expenses just didn't go anywhere near using up the money...and as for helping the victims financially, that isn't really the Red Cross's purpose...
actually, people donated to the red cross under the pretense that it would go towards relieving victims and medical supplies, etc, not for new research projects and completely unrelated topics. if all of the money was given to the victims, which it was supposed to, then every family who lost a father or mother would recieve somewhere around โ,000, enough to compensate the loss of a full time employee for a year.
and solid-the issue isn't what good they could be doing with the money, which is in dispute by itself. the point is that the red cross basically said "everyone in america, give us money, for the sake of the 9/11 victims", then went back and said "hey, we get all this money, we don't have to give ALL of it to the victims do we? i mean, we could give ourselves pay raises instead!"
The sad thing is that I'm left wondering how corrupt the Red Cross upper echelon is. They are full time employees right? Hmmmm I just hope there are enough checks and balances there.
it's as if a mother were to give her young son a ฤ to go get ฤ worth of groceries, but then the kid spends ภ on impulse purchases!
quote:
Originally posted by sHuoReNviOLiN:
as for helping the victims financially, that isn't really the Red Cross's purpose...
True. Remember, the red cross helps out all over the world. Even down here. 
quote:
from< http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/0109wtc/donationwork/myths.html >Myth: Money donated to the Liberty Fund is being diverted from its intended purpose or placed into the "general fund."
Fact: All money that Americans have donated to the Liberty Fund is being used for its intended purpose: to help everyone across the country touched and impacted by these tragedies. Millions of dollars in financial assistance is going to families who lost a precious breadwinner. Facilities that are open 24 hours a day are helping the rescue workers with important needs such as food, shelter and emotional support. As well, countless volunteers are helping thousands of individuals and families who lost their living environment.
Emphasis on "intended" not added by me.
quote:
from< http://www.nyredcross.org/news/011106_recorddistribution.asp >As of November 6th...
"The incredible generosity of the American people has led to pledges and contributions totaling 軔 million," [VP of Chapter Fundraising Mike] Farley said.
564. Not 900.
btw , emphasis added.
quote:
from < www.redcross.org > front page headline"153,800,000 committed or spent on relief efforts."
Now, the question still remains as to what will happen to the other 踻 million or so. I'm not sure.
However, from all I have read around the net, I have found neither a) any support to Ck's claim, nor b) what the Red Cross intends to do with the money.
Still, the RC does claim (as posted above), that "all money that Americans have donated to the Liberty Fund is being used for its intended purpose: to help everyone across the country touched and impacted by these tragedies."
I can’t imagine they can get away with lying about this.
Ck, please post some sort of link (aka evidence) before disseminating serious claims such as this.
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on November 09, 2001 at 10:20 AM
"The red cross is stealing your money" sounds like one of those late night infomercials "lose 10 pounds in 4 days". At least post a link to something...
------------------
All that I know there was no God for me
Force that shatters all, absence of mortality
This message has been edited by Greasemonk on November 09, 2001 at 10:33 AM
------------------
When 1337 hax0rs start impaling each other with swords and typing code with a hook on one hand, then they can modify the term "pirate."
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
I see your point Demonk, I agree with the funds being helpful and used for the good of mankind in general. I think it would be better if they avoided the whole "false advertising" approach that seems to be turning up. Just ask people to donate to the RedCross. If they feel the need to associate themselves with the WTC tragedy, they can do it in a slightly less misdirected manner.
here's another example.
liberals: we need to fund more programs, raise raxes!
conservatives: taxes are bad, the government needs to be small!
liberals: well we need money for these essential programs!
conservatives: well ok, but just a little
a few presidential terms later...
liberals: wow, look at all this excess tax money we have! imagine what new useless programs we could start!
conservatives: no no, that is the taxpayers money, and it is going to go back to the taxpayers.
how this applies to the red cross:
red cross liberals: crap, there was a big disaster. lets campaign to get massive donations to help the victims.
conservatives: fine.
red cross liberals: wow, look at all this money we got! we don't have to give it ALL to the victims, do we? I mean, imagine all the new useless programs we could start!
conservatives: no no, that money is going to the victims to whom which the money was donated for.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on November 09, 2001 at 02:56 PM
quote:
from The New Jersey Record < http://www.bergen.com/news/moneysf200110026.htm >
RED CROSS Oks COMPROMISE TO MONITOR RELIEF FUNDSThe American Red Cross will ask families of World Trade Center victims for a waiver allowing their personal information to be placed in a government database that is tracking the disbursement of more than 軸 million in relief funds.
The decision represents a compromise between the nation's largest relief agency, which wants to keep its clients' information private, and New York officials who want to avoid mismanagement of the massive sum. The database began to be compiled Monday.
Most charities applauded the idea of a central clearinghouse to watch for possible overlapping in how much money each family receives.
I think that speaks for itself.
In case you missed it: THE GOVERNMENT IS TRACKING THE FUCKING MONEY.
quote:
from < http://www.residentassistant.com/contest/faq.htm >
Who is the money going to?The American Red Cross is providing assistance in the form of disaster care and blood to victims and emergency workers in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania, as well as support for the workers, and counseling for those impacted by this tragedy. The Red Cross will stay with these people as this tragedy unfolds. The Red Cross has been on the scene from the beginning providing disaster support in the form of food, shelter and mental health counseling to all individuals affected. The American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund supports the victims of these and other disasters.
You'll notice it says nothing about the misuse you keep talking about.
quote:
from MSNBC [url] < ]http://www.msnbc.com/news/635906.asp >Where the Money’s Going
…So far, the Red Cross has directed 贄 million toward immediate financial assistance to those families…Beyond the first wave of payments aimed at such traditional disaster-relief efforts, organizations are coordinating how best to respond to the long-term financial needs of the families. Replacing the void created by the loss of thousands of primary breadwinners is an entirely new challenge for organizations accustomed to temporarily sheltering people made homeless by tornadoes or floods…
…The Red Cross says providing mental-health counseling will be part of its long-term program.
This article basically explains that while only 贄 million (approx) is involved in immediate emergency assistance, the Red Cross and other charity organizations are currently deciding how to spend the rest. They have spent the initial amount to help serve the disaster, and now are deciding how to invest the remaining lump of cash into the long-term relief effort.
I’d find more links, but the truth is I have better things to do and I’ve already proved my point. You have yet to prove anything besides what an exceptional fool you are.
Who told you this Red Cross crap anyway? The smelly dude from PolySci 101? Or was it the rambling, paranoid bum on the corner? Or perhaps the guy who served you coffee at Donut World this morning?
And what kind of asshole makes a considerable attack upon an entity the vast majority of Americans have given their explicit trust to without providing ANY evidence whatsoever?
Did you even bother to check up on this claim before posting it? I'd like to know.
edit: too many flames. my apologies.
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on November 09, 2001 at 06:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
It's classical liberal money wasting.
Tax cuts for all!
Booo!
Tax cuts for none!
Booo!
Tax cuts for some, minature american flags for others!
Yay!
To paraphrase...
------------------
quote:
Originally posted by RenegadeSnark:
If you have a problem with the average IQ around here, don't do things to lower it.
And you have still yet to tell us where you go this info. I smell a person who's ass isn't covered and doesn't want to admit it.
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
"(Chicago) - A Red Cross official looks aghast as she is hauled to jail by city Police. Mary Henderson is to be indicted Monday morning."
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on November 10, 2001 at 01:08 AM
demonk-one man's waste of money is a waste of money for that person no matter how you look at it. the federal government should not have the right to raise taxes to pay for programs that do not benefit the taxpayers atleast indirectly.
If they have such an excess of funds that have not been used yet, why are they STILL asking for money??
This message has been edited by Pickle Therapy Lady on November 09, 2001 at 12:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
my info came...from the psu college republicans.
Well, there's the problem right there!
(j/k)
btw, that pic above was poking fun at me...as in, watch Ck is right tomorrow...
just covering my own ass. 
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
actually, people donated to the red cross under the pretense that it would go towards relieving victims and medical supplies, etc, not for new research projects and completely unrelated topics. if all of the money was given to the victims, which it was supposed to, then every family who lost a father or mother would recieve somewhere around โ,000, enough to compensate the loss of a full time employee for a year.and solid-the issue isn't what good they could be doing with the money, which is in dispute by itself. the point is that the red cross basically said "everyone in america, give us money, for the sake of the 9/11 victims", then went back and said "hey, we get all this money, we don't have to give ALL of it to the victims do we? i mean, we could give ourselves pay raises instead!"
I believe it would be something more along the lines of:
"Wow.. what a horrible tragedy, this is awful... we need to help out on this immediately, but we'll need resources- probably a LOT of blood. Start a fund and collect donations to help the victims of this nightmare, get blood donations too- I'm sure the American people are more than willing to help in this crisis."
So should they give this extra money back? Or have you forgotten the definition of < donation >?
Is this bad? Did you donate? Do you feel lied to because you gave a donation and it's not being used for the cause it was said to be used- but only because they don't need to? This isn't the equivalent of false advertisement, you know.
And what about billions and billions of taxpayers money which was used to create a failed NMD system? Taxpayers money that funded arms races, etc.?
I'm ticked off because you're mad at the organization which is promoting peace.
quote:
I'm ticked off because you're mad at the organization which is promoting peace.
wtf?
quinn's first law: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent.
I have never seen an exception to this rule so far.
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
), I'll just leave you with this:
quote:
From < http://www.southwest.com.au/~kirbyhs/boatdamage.htm > :
The famous dolphins at Monkey Mia are fed only small amounts of fresh fish under VERY strict conditions and under CONSTANT ranger supervision to ensure the health of the dolphins is not affected. Even so, there are many people who believe the feeding should cease, and believe the feeding increases the wild dolphins dependence on humans. Only a small number of dolphins there come into shore to receive these irregular handouts, most of the dolphins at Shark Bay do not come into the shallows and have never accepted food from humans.
quote:
There are other groups and enthicities in this country besides your CK that are staring life out at a distinct disadvantage that you. These programs try and level the playing field. How can that be a bad thing?
first of all, you are a racist.
second:
quote:
THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER
The Original Version..
The ant busts his ass in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.
The New Liberal Version...
It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."
Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".
Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on November 10, 2001 at 02:58 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
first of all, you are a racist.
Ya, that was an informed, well thought-out, logical response. And besides, you have it backwards: YOU are the racist, as evident by your stupid little story. You really aren't in touch with reality are you? I guess you are a lost cause. Enjoy life it your self-reinforcing dilusion. I'm going back to the real world now. Bye.
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
Date: 1936
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
in case I havn't been transparaent, YOU JUST USED RACIAL PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION TO DISTINGUISH PEOPLE IN DIFFERENT ECONOMIC SITUATIONS, BASED ONLY ON THEIR RACE.
furthermore, how the fuck did you conclude that I was a racist based on that story (which I did not write)?
*sigh* it's sad that when you are so overwhelmed by the TRUTH that you just go into denial and leave the argument. Because you can't handle it. Classical liberal strategy. I give up, you are too far gone.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on November 10, 2001 at 04:02 PM
Now, as for your retarded story, the only thing I read off of that is your declaring that other races in this country are lazy. Now that's what's called retarded, arrogant thinking.
------------------
~Anztac [ Pertinaciously disconsolate ]
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
um solid the difference there is that those are TAXES not DONATIONS. big difference
Your first post stated 'donations' :/
The topic emoticon gave me the impression you were mad or angry.
Edit:
Oh, and in case I missed something- the main difference between taxes and donations are that you are not forced to make donations, and you HAVE to pay your taxes (well, if you don't, it's punishable by law, unlike donations)...
---
Elaborate what you meant by "big difference" because there's too many ways for me to interpert it...
This message has been edited by solid on November 10, 2001 at 08:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by demonk:
Watch the funding for public education get smaller and smaller, even though the number of school age children keeps growing at a faster and faster rate.
Or maybe the problem there is that the public education system needs to be replaced. I mean, do we really need to train "our" children how to be good obediant factory workers? Just blindly throwning money at the problem isn't going to fix things, I think Clinton proved that.
------------------
Veistran
- Sarcasm is just one more of the free services that we offer.
< Here >'s the source of any controversy you've been hearing about. It boils down to some vague statements about the how the Red Cross was going to use the WTC donation money, and whether they are going to spend it immediately or wait to see if any unforseen needs arise.
quote:
Now, as for your retarded story, the only thing I read off of that is your declaring that other races in this country are lazy.
that is EXACTLY my point. when lower income class families recieve money from the government, they become dependant and reliant on the government! they don't go out to get a job or 2 jobs or whatever is nesseccary to improve their lives, because they think the government should be responsible then. just like the dolphins become dependant on handouts. this is the inherent problem with socialism.
covering my ass:
someone is going to call me a racist for saying all black people are lazy or some such nonsense. this has nothing to do with race, or even species (e.g. dolphins)! it is human (or rather biological in general) nature.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on November 10, 2001 at 10:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
that is EXACTLY my point. when lower income class families recieve money from the government, they become dependant and reliant on the government! they don't go out to get a job or 2 jobs or whatever is nesseccary to improve their lives, because they think the government should be responsible then. just like the dolphins become dependant on handouts. this is the inherent problem with socialism.covering my ass:
someone is going to call me a racist for saying all black people are lazy or some such nonsense. this has nothing to do with race, or even species (e.g. dolphins)! it is human (or rather biological in general) nature.
So you'd rather they starve then you lose some money off your paycheck?
Anyways your sounding more and more like a social darwinist to me, which is just scary.
------------------
~Anztac [ Pertinaciously disconsolate ]
This message has been edited by ASCIIMan on November 11, 2001 at 06:32 AM
i've seen thise written in newspapers, on TV. i have even seen people on TV shows cpoplaining that they got no money at all or something really close to nothing. all because red cross spent the rest on other purposes. and if i was donating a lot of my money for the 9/11 fund i would certainly only want to go to that cause. if i wanted my money to go elsewhere, i would donate them there.
as for excess, when people lost all of their families and children are left without parents, what kind of excess are they talking about. they will never gather enough money to compensate for the tragedy. how can they say that 100 million is more then enough and the rest shouls do for their own payraises. i think that is totally gay. and think of all the other smaller cherities, where nobody has a way of tracking where the money went and how much money was gathered.
i find all civilian people in US feel this tragedy, where as all big corporations are just trying to make money off of it.
quote:
Originally posted by kornalldaway:
i find all civilian people in US feel this tragedy, where as all big corporations are just trying to make money off of it.
First of all, if by corporation you meant the Red Cross, then the Red Cross isn't really a "corporation" it's a charitable organization. And how are corporations trying to take advantage of this? In many cases they have donated lots of money and supplies. It really pisses me off how people always jump to blame things on "corporations." Oooh, let's all heavily punish the corporations which provide the products we need and our country's economic vitality! That's a great way to get rid of those right-wing aristocratic rich bastard corporation type people!
quote:
Originally posted by DeadAnztac:
So you'd rather they starve then you lose some money off your paycheck?Anyways your sounding more and more like a social darwinist to me, which is just scary.
Um Anztac, they are ALREADY starving because a lot of them spend their welfare checks on crack. Your logic is that they are unable to work, so they need welfare to survive, or else the die. The reality is that EVERYONE has the ability to work and to support themselves, if so motivated. Also, if they have to work for their own money, it's more likely they won't waste it on drugs because they earned it. They get a feeling of acomplishment.
Social Darwinists would have them die in the streets. How... human of them.
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
as for the social darwinism--well here is my opinion. I think it is the government's responsibility to make sure everyone's civil liberties are guaranteed, and look out for the countries saftey, and that's it. when everyone is on equal footing, everyone has the same opportunity to do well in life if they so desire to work hard. here is my main beef: IT IS NOT UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LIFE FAIR FOR EVERYONE. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. you were supposed to learn that in elementary school but because of the liberal education system, our generation has been seriously fucked up with ideas that life should be fair, that each should recieve according to his need, moral relativism, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by CatKnight:
when did I ever make any comments on what to do about welfare? I just mentioned the negative consequences of dependancy. I never suggested getting rid of welfare.as for the social darwinism--well here is my opinion. I think it is the government's responsibility to make sure everyone's civil liberties are guaranteed, and look out for the countries saftey, and that's it. when everyone is on equal footing, everyone has the same opportunity to do well in life if they so desire to work hard. here is my main beef: IT IS NOT UP TO THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LIFE FAIR FOR EVERYONE. LIFE IS NOT FAIR. you were supposed to learn that in elementary school but because of the liberal education system, our generation has been seriously fucked up with ideas that life should be fair, that each should recieve according to his need, moral relativism, etc.
Ok, so do you think we should all have the same access to the same education? Because that's a major issue right now. People in lowwer income housing tend to get much worse educations then say, people who live in suburbia. Then they tend to have less likelihood of getting a college education, which in turn gives them less turn to make more money in life, which makes it hard for them to move to a place where their children can get a better education then they did. "The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer" and this is a fact.
------------------
~Anztac [ Pertinaciously disconsolate ]
In the United States, there is all this talk of educating the underclass out of its condition by providing it with 'the basics skills needed in the economy'. ::shrugs:: Personally advanced economies do NOT need basic skills, they need them less and less. And all these false remedies of rehabilitation, moral values, policing.. etc.. cram it i say! Geez.
Are there remedies? UH YEAH.. there certainly are, but most people would consider them worse than the disease. Once it is accepted that the underclass is the human residue left behind by the progress of a highly dynamic economy, who is going to want to reduce the pace of economic change? This would certainly reduce social disruption, but also growth. I have an example here somewhere ::hits self with 2x4:: oh yeah.. If, for example assembly line jobs were protected from foreign competition this would stop the downward spiral of underclass jobs and firms would become less efficient and i kno i kno ikno make the country as a whole a lot poorer... BUT.... the poorest richer.
------------------
For future reference i suggest calling your 4 remaining brain cells together and having them consult with each other before posting any more B.S
quote:
Originally posted by DeadAnztac:
Ok, so do you think we should all have the same access to the same education?
yes!
quote:
People in lowwer income housing tend to get much worse educations then say, people who live in suburbia.
and why do you think that is? it's because of the liberal education system, which when something goes wrong, they cover it up instead of fixing it. e.g. teachers who dont know how to teach. e.g. when 95\% of students fail standardized tests, they lower the standards. etc.
quote:
"The poor are getting poorer, the rich are getting richer" and this is a fact.
that is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of capitalism. the only thing you can do is give all people the means to do well and hope they take the chance.
Do I have an answer? No. If I did, I would be going door-to-door campaigning for president in 2004. But we need to fix the problem, and yes, some of that will involve increasing the amount of money the school system needs. Schools NEED more money in order to buy more updated text books and to pay teachers. You want to have teachers who can really teach? Pay them a decent salary and you'll get good teachers. It's hard living on only ฤ,000 a year, and having to pay some of the class room costs out of pocket.
The classic conservative solution: tie a schools performance to the amount of money the make. Ok, let's think about this: a school is doing bad, so we cut their funding. This forces them to reduce certain programs/teachers, thus making the next batch of students even worse than the previous. Then their funding gets cut more. You see where I'm going with this.
I agree dropping the standard test scores is not the answer. That is just covering up the real problem.
It is my firm belief that education will be the salvation to our country. If we can get equal education to all students in the entire country, from pre-school to highschool, then we will truely have a country where people succeed/fail based on THEIR actions. But until then, the rich kids will always have an advantage over the poor kids, with the poor kids having no way to break the cycle.
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
quote:
But the fact of the matter is CK, the children living in the poor areas of the country(south central, ghetto, whatever) have a lower per student budget than those living in suburbia.
wrong! wrong wrong!! they have MUCH more funding per student, and they still do much worse! another classic liberal strategy--any problem can be solved by throwing more money at it. Things just don't work that way!
Many districts are trying to pass school vouchers, where the government gives the family about 50\% of the cost of public education towards a private education. The bill failed, because the socialized school system doesn't want to have to compete. That's the problem! Competition leads to vastly improved goods and services. They know that their public school system is in shambles and that if they were forced to compete, would be blown out of the water.
This message has been edited by CatKnight on November 11, 2001 at 10:38 PM
------------------
Oh and by the way, if you see your mum this weekend, be sure to tell her SATAN!!! - Orbital
Now doesn't that say something about you as a person?
------------------
Bill Gates's Honeymoon
After Bill Gates's wedding night, his wife finally knew why he called his company Microsoft.
This message has been edited by Dysorderia on November 13, 2001 at 05:41 AM
Going for 3K posts now, are we, CK?
------------------
Bill Gates's Honeymoon
After Bill Gates's wedding night, his wife finally knew why he called his company Microsoft.
quote:
Originally posted by Dysorderia:
CK, you have been on here longer than I have, yet your posting style is exactly like the way I posted when I first came to this Board(I.E. Trolling aimlessly).Now doesn't that say something about you as a person?
Crobar should make his title say L33t Tr0II when he hits 3000 posts.
------------------
All that I know there was no God for me
Force that shatters all, absence of mortality
quote:Heh
Originally posted by Greasemonk:
Crobar should make his title say L33t Tr0II when he hits 3000 posts.
< http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011114/ts/attacks_red_cross.html >
The Red Cross has publicly stated that they are now going to give 100\% of the Liberty Fund (the fund CK has been bitching about) to the victums. They have reversed their previous decision because of public outcry. In my opinion, and many others, the Red Cross has completely redemed themselves.
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
------------------
Oh and by the way, if you see your mum this weekend, be sure to tell her SATAN!!! - Orbital
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on November 15, 2001 at 04:53 PM
------------------
10 PRINT "HOME"
20 PRINT "SWEET"
30 GOTO 10
quote:
Originally posted by demonk:
Ya, no kidding. CK, you just proved how idiotic and unrealistic you are. I can't wait till you enter the "real" world.
The real world?
So what is he living in now? A magical fantasy land of leprechauns and unicorns?
The point is, whether you fix your mistake or not (especially on something this important) it's still a mistake that needs to be acknowledged. The public perspective of the Red Cross has probably become a bit more skeptical and that shouldn't be ignored.
------------------
"just pressin y0 butt0ns f00" -- miNus
quote:
Originally posted by demonk:
CK...I can't wait till you enter the "real" world.
quote:
Originally posted by chmod:
The real world?So what is he living in now? A magical fantasy land of leprechauns and unicorns?
Well...
This message has been edited by whiskey@throttle on November 18, 2001 at 08:15 PM
quote:
Originally posted by whiskey@throttle:
Well...
Hahahahaha.... that was fucking brilliant
Any other suggestions?
< non-caption version >
well anyway to address demonk's point-of course it is ok to make mistakes. however, there are two caveats. 1-if you are in a position of public trust (i.e. red cross handling massive donation money), it is expected that you won't go off and do something idiotic. 2-this wasn't really even a mistake to begin with. no one accidentally wrote a check for 200 grand to that law firm. it took cognisance to intentionally to that. then go read caveat 1 again.
Perhaps a bit exploitive of the post button, and possibly politically obnoxious ( ), but overall Ck's a good guy. I'm impressed the det.net abuse doesn't rub you the wrong way. Excelente.