Subject:
|
Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 May 2000 14:32:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
523 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Dave Lovelace writes:
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > > "LUGNET is grateful for the generous gifts of its donors, which help it to
> > > thrive, grow, and offer new and exciting information and services."
> > >
> > > Sounds like funding?
It does to me too. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm a member, I
haven't finished paying my dues, but when I do, I'll donate. And I pay higher
than (I think) reasonable prices at Auczilla because I know that's funding
LUGNET too (directly or not). And my intent in funding LUGNET is twofold: I
work to help Todd and Suz continue development, and I thank them for the _vast_
amount of work that has already gone into it.
> > How in the heck could it be inferred thus that it is *LEGO(tm)* that is doing
> > the funding here? Do you know what the word "donor" means?
Do you? According to the _The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition_ it means "One that contributes something, such as
money, to a cause or fund." The most applicable definition of the verb fund
from the same source is "To furnish a fund for." So, when someone give money
to LUGNET (or to Todd and Suzanne for LUGNET) they are funding LUGNET. Period.
> I do not want to turn this into an issue,
It seems to already be an issue; I would judge from the responses of Todd and
Dave.
> but my point was that the Lego
> donation, I assumed, was used to fund the further development of Lugnet.
> Further to that, because LEGO does support LUGNET in this way, as you also do,
> it does "support"{1} Lugnet - as you also do?
Clearly.
> > The "donors" are users like you and me, and everyone else in this depressing
> > string and beyond, that have paid Todd our $10 dues. At no time, I would
> > imagine, has TLC ever paid for any of this wonderful free advertising.
What are you talking about? The "donors" are six people (and I suppose some
annonymous ones) listed at
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/finance/donations/?p=donors and TLC as also listed.
Why do you suppose TLC did donate money if not because they think that keeping
LUGNET alive is concurrent with their fiscal goals? To assume anything but,
seems foolish and naive.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| (...) I was umnaware that the American Heritage Dictionary was a resource for legal terminology. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the legal terms "donor" and "funded by" are vastly different. I also think you're oversimplifying. Donor, which (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| (...) The tense of the verb is critical. A statement indicating that someone "funds" (present) or "is funding" (present participle) something is very different from a statement indicating that someone "funded" (past) or "has funded" (past (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: May-June 2000 Mania Magazine
|
| (...) I do not want to turn this into an issue, but my point was that the Lego donation, I assumed, was used to fund the further development of Lugnet. Further to that, because LEGO does support LUGNET in this way, as you also do, it does (...) (25 years ago, 15-May-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
43 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
