Re: Donations sought for victims of terror in Beslan, Russia

From: Paul Lutus (nospam_at_nosite.zzz)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: Sat, 04 Sep 2004 22:38:38 -0700

Nikita Tovstoles wrote:

>
>> Also, the described organization doesn't transfer "100% of donations
>> directly to the families". This is very simply false, and the claim
>> raises immediate suspicions about the organization's credibility. But you
>> made that claim, not the organization. No organization that expected to
>> be taken seriously would say such a thing.
>
> from their FAQ at http://moscowhelp.org/faq.htm:
>
> Q: WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES?
> A: As in the past, all personal donations will be distributed without
> any administrative expenses. With donors' permission, corporate
> donations may be partially used for administrative expenses.

So, as I said, your stament was false. Your claim:

"This organization is an IRS-recognized US Public Charity and transfers 100%
of donations directly to the families, with no administrative overhead."

This is a lie. Actually, it is two lies, as the organization is also not an
"IRS-recognized US Public Charity".

> In the
> past, the only donations used for administrative expenses were
> specifically designated by corporate donors for that purpose.

Yes, I know the arrangement, having been in charitable activities for
decades. Never say about such an arrangement what you did in fact say. It
insults any intelligence that may happen by.

>>>Moreover, web
>>>site of Embassy Of Russian Federation in the US,
>>>http://www.russianembassy.org on its home page has a banner pointing to
>>>the foundation's website, http://moscowhelp.org.
>>
>>
>> And? What conclusion is a thinking, skeptical person meant to draw from
>> this?
> A skeptical and stubborn person perhaps will never change his or her
> mind.

Not until the evidence is in. I am fully prepared for you to object to this
"stubborn" outlook on the part of potential donors, whose trust and
goodwill is crucial to the endeavor.

Think: you are trying to appeal to people who by definition are skeptical
and cautious, e.g. people who have more than a few pennies to their names.
Obviously therefore, you need to tune your appeal to the target audience.
In particular, avoid making ridiculous claims and logically absurd remarks.

> A thinking person will deduce that a link from a government site
> is a form of endorsement of an organization to whose site the link
> points.

A thinking person will do nothing of the kind. Your idea of what constitutes
a thinking person differs from the norm.

> Therefore if one recognizes the referring site as legitimate,
> then site in question can be considered legitimate as well.

If what you claim made any sense at all (it does not: remember the famous
photo of US President Jimmy Carter standing next to Reverend Jim Jones?),
that would be called "guilt by association". So, according to your
interpretation, if two criminals vouch for each other, that simultaneously
legitimizes both of them?

>> Also, I think you are hurting your own cause by using a shotgun approach
>> while posting to Usenet. Limit yourself to sites where your post is
>> topical, and stop making silly, easily refuted claims.

> at 9/11, when even ESPN was broadcasting live from new york, i doubt
> many sports fans were outraged that the topic of their reports was not
> according to the channel's typical programming.

This is not television, and an appeal by a specific charity is not
legitimate news reporting. Your comparison is absurd, as absurd as all the
bogus charities that came out of the woodwork after 9/11, trying to
capitalize on the extraordinary events in the hope that people's ordinarily
small reasoning skills would evaporate entirely (with no small measure of
success).

> So if you don't care
> about the events to which i referred, feel free to ignore my posts -

You posted off-topic and therefore, along with eroding trust in the
institution you represent, you have given up the right to complain about
legitimate topical objections.

> it's much less time-demanding than replying to them.

It will be vastly more time- and energy-saving for you to stop posting
anywhere, on any topic, than to post as you do.

>> Finally, don't make the mistake of assuming that Americans are all
>> stupid. Only most of us are.
> Thanks for the input. As an American living in SF Bay Area for half of
> my life, I partially agree.
>
> If you have further personal comments, I'd appreciate if you were to
> direct them to me only at nikita.tovstoles@alumni.duke.edu

This is Usenet. You posted in public, this was your choice, and therefore
all subsequent posts will appear in this public forum. It is disingenuous
for you to expect to be able to start a controversy in public and then move
it into private when things get messy. 

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Please this service is NOT free.
    ... The Children in Need charity is AFAIK purely a fundraising and granting ... In the UK only *some* tax payers are required to file annual tax ... The Gift Aid ... And it works for all sorts of donations. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: The most pushy charity adverts..
    ... thinking about which charity I could donate to when I was cold called by ... someone from NSPCC. ... up to monthly donations but he still went through his script about the ... Though there was the surveyor outside the bank ...
    (uk.media.tv.misc)
  • Re: your research dollars working hard for you
    ... Churches operate on donations that were already ... You are ignorant of US tax law. ... If you get a tax deduction it means you do not pay income tax on the money ... earned and given to the charity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Substandard US medical donations rejected
    ... Substandard US medical donations rejected ... donated by US charity organizations, which included stained bedding, ... Hebei provinces and Beijing. ... Beijing Charity Federation told China Daily it received more than 3 ...
    (soc.culture.china)
  • Winning the hearts and minds of the chinese people.
    ... Substandard US medical donations rejected -- ... The supplies entered China via Tianjin, ... Hebei provinces and Beijing. ... Anhui Provincial Charity Association disclosed that ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)