Quote:
Originally posted by European Lee
So the thread starter is supposed to wait until a month or twos time when nobody has this type of thing fresh in their minds before bringing the topic up?
I replied without giving a second thought to the motives of the poster, he stated facts, nothing else and, subsequently asked why that was the case.
Regards,
Lee
|
Lee,
I'm not saying what he should or shouldn't do. I'm saying that it's unrealistic for him to expect everyone to accept it's not directed in some way at Sarah. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm just saying - when the only existing threads on this subject currently relate to Sarah - the fact that he says it's so doesn't make it so. He seems intelligent enough to have accepted this probability when he first posted.
I have been around long enough for sure to remember a number of scams. One of the earliest and more famous ones - shitman? Anyone remember that? That was probably the end of the 'heavy hitters' donating to an unfortunate webmaster. Lot of people got burned on it.
Generally speaking, my point is simply this - there is no 'fairness' in charity. People donate with their hearts, not their wallets. If they donated with their wallets - they would never donate. I mean, it makes no financial sense, does it? To give something for nothing? And there will always be scam-charities. But that shouldn't shut down all charitable actions forever.
Charitable-worthiness is entirely subjective to the person donating, IMO.