| |
Scott A wrote:
That is not my main point. My point is that by giving a little they will
also gain. I did not view it as a 100% altruistic effort on their part.
So what??? Show me *anyone* who gives 100% altruistically-- it doesn't happen.
My point is that *your* point misses the point. They provided a unique way
for AFOLs to assist people in need-- why in the world would you criticize that?
Further, if you take a look at the auctions you will see that I have bid on
them (~$850 so far).
BFD-- will you actually *win* any of them, or are you merely looking to garner
kudos for being a shill?
> And where is the chart that ranks needy causes (or is that just
> your opinion?)
Do you agree or disagree with the "rank" I gave?
Again, you miss the point. It is not for you to rank. Rank *your own giving*
(and yet you contradict yourself by admitting that you bid on the ebay items--
why not give *that* money to your pet charity??? Hypocrite.). That aside, how
do you know that that is the only time and place TLC is contributing charitably?
Fact is, you know precious little about what you are speaking so why not quit
while you are behind.
> Your arrogance is only exceeded by your stupidity.
Read what I have said again.
I've got an idea. Why don't *you* read it again and maybe you'll see how silly
you sounded.
> >
> > By acting in this way, Lego is exploiting the current kudos associated
with
> > this area of charitable activity, rather than supporting those who really
> > need it most.
>
> B as in B; S as in S. Giving is giving-- why must you taint it with *YOUR*
> cynicism?
What is Lego giving? Take a look. What do you think those things cost them?
Once again, you miss the point. It really has nothing to do with what costs
were incurred by them, but by the *value* they have put into those items. We
are talking about creative and unique ways of involving people coming together
to help one another. So now they have made it possible for some lucky AFOLs to
acquire some unique items, provided a unique way for some AFOLs to give
charitably where they might not have otherwise done, and helped raise
potentially $1000s for people in need. Sounds like a win-win all around to me.
I stand by my words.
Then stupidity has company. I am not interested at all in debating this issue.
Frankly, the reason why I responded in the first place was because I was
embarrassed on behalf of all AFOLs by your post.
Again, I set the follow-up to .debate, not because I will engage this
conversation anymore, but because it certainly *doesn't* belong in .lego.direct,
so kindly refrain from redirecting here!
-John
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
| (...) Do understand that question? A person who gives 100% altruistically will/may not shout about it - so we would not know. (...) I have said why. (...) I doubt it at the current prices, but they were serious bids if that is what you are asking. (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: eBay's Auction for America
|
| (...) That is not my main point. My point is that by giving a little they will also gain. I did not view it as a 100% altruistic effort on their part. Further, if you take a look at the auctions you will see that I have bid on them (~$850 so far). (...) (23 years ago, 15-Oct-01, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
17 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
|
|
|
|
