|
Brilliant 
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't that just show who reported you as a member, not who reported any of your messages, although it would be fair to assume that when they reported you it was probably prompted by a message they also reported.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: prompted by a message they also reported.
Agreed. Still doesn't give you a hint on the univoters, which would be by far more interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I did report your account.
As far as I'm concerned (and can remember) I did it while you posted a few messages which were too far away from the rules.
I often not only report accounts because of the reports in the S&A watch, but based on my personal opinion, and my personal opinion was that you crossed the border a few times too many.
Mind you that my opinion is not bound to the people behind the accounts, and a report is nothing personal, or a revenge for something.
|
|
|
|
|
No need to explain. I realise I sail close to the wind sometimes. Abuse reports mean nothing and I expect them, when I first joined the rules seemed to be far laxer here it's only you relatively newcomers that impose them so strictly, I wasn't actually surprised to see your name. As long as you didn't report me for calling you Mario that time. 
|
|
|
|
|
Pompey Three wrote: As long as you didn't report me for calling you Mario that time.
No, definitely not.
I try to apply the rules with common sense - I more than once dropped an email to Sean instead of reporting someone at the S&A watch, even if the case was clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: nothing personal
It's just business.
What we got here is a failure to communicate
|
|
|
|
|
I've just been in a local charity shop to browse the books and DVDs, having had some bargains lately.
In the computer section of the bookshelves were such up to date tomes as "Programming Windows 3.1", "Windows Vista for Seniors" and "Windows NT4 Fundamentals". I'm sure they'll fly off the shelves, along with "The Internet Encuyclopedia (2007 edition)"
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
I use my laptop rested on a book to keep the air vents free...a WROX VB6 COM book.
|
|
|
|
|
The TV in my bedroom stands on a VB.net (.net v2) manual
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
Mad as it may seem my Dan Appleman VB6 API book comes in useful about every second month these days...and is of a similar vintage.
|
|
|
|
|
A great book.
=========================================================
I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka.
=========================================================
|
|
|
|
|
If they're cheap (like a couple of quid) they might be worth buying to re-sell on Amazon - some of the older books there go for well over their original price (if they sell)
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Surely you'd have to give any profit back to the charity though.
|
|
|
|
|
A long time ago I worked for a company that developed websites (mostly online shops and donation sites) for a large number of charities..
We had lots of the top guys coming over, and all of them had multi-million pound houses in Oxfordshire and the home counties, and all of them arrived driving top of the range Mercedes, BMW's and Audi's. There were a couple of more expensive vehicles too.
I came to the conclusion then that charities really don't need my couple of quid (quite a few of them were paying the company I worked for over £5k a month to host a handful of pages), they're much better off than me. On top of that, I struggled to think of any charity that's ever solved the problems it set out to solve.
It got me thinking that perhaps it's not in their interest to solve anything, what do you think?
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: I struggled to think of any charity that's ever solved the problems it set out to solve.
RNLI?
Air Ambulance?
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
Well technically, they haven't actually solved their specific problems 
Seriously though, I don't think that either of these should be charities - they both provide essential services across the UK and should be funded by government. It's arguable that because people donate to these, the government gets away with offloading it to the charity sector.
Historically, charities were actually set up by the wealthiest in Britain to benefit the general public. These days, charities seem to work the other way around.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
The specific problem the RNLI wanted to solve was too many people dying in the sea. Problem solved, now far less people die in the sea.
Our allotment association holds a charity thing each year, and when they were having a meeting to decide which charity should benefit the Air Ambulance was suggested (as someone's relation had their live saved by it). An objection was raised by someone whose brother was in the RAF as he believed the RAF should fully fund and staff the Air Ambulance, and them continuing to get lots of donations means the government can shirk their responsibilities.
And I agree with him, and you, there are lots of charities which shouldn't exist, and the government is passing off their responsibility because of the hundreds of millions that are donated each year.
We eventually chose a couple of local charities to split the money between, and that is the approach I generally take, something small, local, meaningful to me or those I know.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
chriselst wrote: The specific problem the RNLI wanted to solve was too many people dying in the sea. Problem solved, now far less people die in the sea.
But you could argue that even one is too many
chriselst wrote: We eventually chose a couple of local charities to split the money between, and that is the approach I generally take, something small, local, meaningful to me or those I know.
I'd agree that's probably the better approach. The big charities are really businesses taking advantage of the tax breaks they get as charities. If you look at how much some of the big cancer charities have had over the years, it's staggering, yet the big advances seem to come from the pharmaceutical industry or universities (although the charities can always provide a spokesman for the news applauding the latest advance).
I looked at the accounts of one such (very well known) charity a few years ago which had around £500 million income and spent over £150 million just on marketing, for a single year. Like I said, they really don't need my £5 a month.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Brent Jenkins wrote: But you could argue that even one is too many
Yeah, I realised I was leaving myself open to that but as we're having a flippant argument irrelevant to main point with that bit I couldn't be bothered firming it up.
Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
It's the standard line you get from the charity sector to justify asking people for even more money 
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: should be funded by government.
There's a very sound economic reason that they're not and indeed nor are specialist services like this all across the world. Nor would you find anyone within the organisations themselves that would have time for any suggestion that they be brought under Government purview. Right and proper as it may seem to you, it's something that nobody on either side wants.
|
|
|
|
|
Royal Air Force Search & Rescue has been funded by the government for decades..
Member 9082365 wrote: Right and proper as it may seem to you, it's something that nobody on either side wants.
You could argue then to make every service a charity.. ambulances, police, water purification, government..
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
As an adjunct to the RAF, yes it has. As an independent service (if Mr Corbyn gets to abolish the military forces, for example) it would be rather different.
You could well argue that some services might be the better for charity status. In most cases it's an argument that's already taken place however and decided in favour of taxation rather than donation (although you could also argue that that's merely compulsory charity!)
|
|
|
|
|
Things that are essential services should really be funded and run by the government in my opinion.
A lot of focus has been placed on profitability and value for money. This is right for some areas, but there are some services are worth more to the country than you can put a price on.
Perhaps if we didn't just throw tens of billions away we'd have some money spare to spend on the things this country needs.
How do you know so much about swallows? Well, you have to know these things when you're a king, you know.
modified 31-Aug-21 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
