Quote:
People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, "start fellating each other" as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children.
It looks like your emotions just betrayed the pettiness of your motives.
We promised to donate ad revenue to charity and we did. Thats it. No one said it was earth shattering. No one claimed that wed eradicated child poverty. Here we have one announcement, a few questions, and a handful of mild one-line assertions of encouragement. Youre trying to distort this into preening? What the hell were we supposed to do, PROMISE to donate money and never speak of it again? Lock the post to prevent our members from congratulating each other?
Let the records show, you were ONE of the people congratulating NikeTalk for the donation.
Yet in under 24 hours, you changed your tune from warble to whine to war cry.
You went from this: UNICEF is a good very good choice. It's nice to wake up and see that the first news I see is something postive.
To this backhanded garbage: UNICEF is not perfect. It spends a large amount of its money on "administrative costs" and recently it has been lobbied into diverting funds from health and welfare programs into poltical lobbying for the symbolic issue of poor countries issuing formal declarations of childrens' rights. Formal declarations against child labor and child impressment are noble but it is ignoble to sacrafice actual help for empty proclaimations.
Nonetheless, it is a sad fact that many charitable funds are grimey and UNICEF still does more than most charitable funds. Niketalk donated about $2,500 and about $1,500 will actually help children and protect against starvation, AIDS and other maladies. The full amount helping children would be ideal but many funds would have very little or none of the donations helping children so it's still a victory.
And then THIS:
People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, "start fellating each other" as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children.
What was it, were people getting too happy even though their praise was no more ornate than your own? Did you just want to show off freshly google-fetched knowledge about UNICEFs purported warts to come off as well-informed? Level with me.
Quote:
To praise any donation in a blind and unqualified manner cheats those who helped to raise the funds and the supposed recipients of the funds.
Yuh huh. And until a few hours ago, you were one of them. You blindly praised the donation along with everyone else without regret or qualification.
Quote:
If you truly cared about the people you claim you to want to help, you would dedicate your energy to denouncing the intermediaries who siphon off the money and not those who point this fact out to you.
Youre right. THANKS, GOOGLE! Google, how is it that youre so wise? How do you always find the right thing to say? Is it because youve indexed 20 billion items?
The problem isnt that you discovered administrative costs or the occasional acts of a charitable organization.
The problem is that you went from saying wow, this is great news to I guess its a net gain, if you dont mind flushing half the donations straight down the toilet. But yeah, rock on NT. Your motives here are clearly suspect. Spare me the noble pretense. You werent concerned about where the money went so much as you were with the reaction this thread was getting.
I guess it was too much to ask to allow our community members to celebrate this accomplishment for ONE FREAKING DAY. We didnt issue a press release. I dont think ANYONE in this thread made the donation out to be more than it was. Why you thought you had to come in here 18 hours later and minimize this is simply beyond me. Whatever the reason, though, at this point I think we all know that the selection of UNICEF itself has little to nothing to do with it.
. 
