Thank you for helping NikeTalk donate over $2,500 to UNICEF!

[what are you gonna do]

its good to see meth shutting nonsupporters down

its also good to see that NT is supporting charity which i never would have guessed, good looks meth. ISS isnt up on this level (not yet at least, but im sure someone over there might come up with the idea and claim it as their own

)

i didnt know clicking ads would help out, but this has caught my attention so im down to help
Karmaloop 20% off total purchase code: KN8537

 

[blondsoccerplyr]

Quote:

---

&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp
Barcelona soccer club to help children with AIDS
UNITED NATIONS, Sept 7 (Reuters) - The Barcelona soccer club and the U.N. children's agency, UNICEF, announced a deal on Thursday in which the team will donate $1.9 million (1.5 million euros) a year over the next five years to help poor children with AIDS in developing countries.
The first installment of the club's money will pay for AIDS programs in Swaziland, a tiny, impoverished country in southern Africa where some 40 percent of adults are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.
The money will fund efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission and infection among adolescents and to support and care for children orphaned by the disease.
As part of the deal, the Spanish and European champion's scarlet and blue jersey will have UNICEF's logo on its front, the first time in the club's 107-year history it has allowed such an arrangement. (1 euro = $1.272

---

Barcelona + NikeTalk = good people.


[/i]

 

[sonickicks]

Quote:

---

UNICEF is a good very good choice. It's nice to wake up and see that the first news I see is something postive.

---

You can say that one again.
[size=+1] Nike Air Jordan XVI Size 10 DS & Wizards Warm up together in one auction[/size]

[size=+4]My Ebay Auctions[/size]

http://

 

[skype23]

Luv What Your Doing, Niketalk

The game is my wife. It demands loyalty and responsibility, and it gives me back fulfillment and peace. - Michael Jordan

 

[snackworm]

Meth,

That's awesome.

But thanks to you and the rest of the staff for giving us a place to congregate.

 

[gxrpx]

not gonna lie, have no time or patience to click on ad like 10 times a day.

but i WILL click it at least once a day when i visit NT

charity is charity, we can only do our part and hopefully others (charitble organizations) will do their part. then the workers who distribute aid do their part and so on n so on.

the main point is that WE start this reaction by contributing

@ NT community

 

[the master shake]

i used to see the ads.........now i dont.

i wanna get clicking and make more money for charity!!!

[/b]​

 

[lil black jean jacket]

no prob!!

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

At this point, I think itll save us some time if we just give you your 15 minutes right now and get it out of the way. Everyone pay attention to Rex the iconoclast.

---

Methodman, you know better than anyone that there ar ea multitude of ways to get attention on Niketalk. If wanted to garner attention I would do something beside posting about adminstrative costs of UNICEF. The mere use of the word "administrative costs" puts mots people to sleep. If I wanted attention I could have made my own thread about a fictional trip to Brazil or a detailed account of being shot multiple times and my proceeding to just shrug it off.

So please, give me the beneft of the doubt and not declare my own thoughts and attentions.

Quote:

---

until you started spouting off about our members were fellating each other merely for expressing their approval of this donation.

---

I'm surprised that you have, apperantly, never seen Pulp Fiction. The line I was alluding to can be more precisely paraphrased as "let's not get ahead of ourselves." It did have to do with oral sex so I 'm sorry if my choice of allusion caused any spikes in your blood pressure.

Quote:

---

Judging from your FIRST post in this thread, it mustve occurred in the last 24 hours.

---

My first post and my second post are consistent. It is good that we are giving money, the recipient organization does do good things. It was good news that this happened.

It is also true that UNICEF has had a growing percenatge of its budget going to administrative costs and to programs beside the immediate types of aid it was created to provide.


It's clear, based on the fact that your post spent little time even talking about UNICEF, that you had an agenda to somehow belittle me personally. You threw a series long, elaborate and false analogies at me and several barbs about where I got my information and what motivated it.

If you want to be petty and intimidate people into never voicing diagreement with you, so be it. The immutable fact is that UNICEF has flaws that should at least be made known.



Now if you'll excuse me, I'm out for more attention, perhaps I'll post in threads about public policy that struggle to break the two page barrier or maybe I'll really rock the house by starting a thread that features a link to a BBC article about Canadian lumber subsidies.

That's Rexanglorum's life of e-fame seeking. Sometimes, I don't know how I handle this life in the e-fast lane.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[bastitch]

Honestly, I really don't think anything would have been said if you didn't add your cute Winston Wolf "Self-Fellating" comment.

That alone put your motives out there for all to see. As if saying, "You know, it's cool at that your'e doing this BUT let's not be happy about ourselves".

If that's not undermining the donation in the first place, I don't know what is. It was completely unnecessary and out of line. We can't feel good about giving over 2 g's to charity? Was your whistling blowing evne appropriate at the time?

Hell no. You just make yourself out to be some Debbie Downer in some "Hey look, I know what's really happening" kind of way.

I'm not buying it.

​

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

We can't feel good about giving over 2 g's to charity? Was your whistling blowing evne appropriate at the time?

---

You can feel any way you want.

And i was not whistle blowing. That would be if i some how found out you mods were simply pocketing the movie and lying that it went to charity.

UNICEF's flaws are already out in the open and I simply pointed them out. Before my post the only information about UNICEF was link to UNICEF's own website.


Now if the mere fact that I mentioned the merits and dismerits of the recipient of our funds, is something that is intolerable for you, why not simply mention that is not allowed. You can then be assured a stream of generic praise and I would say nothing even if you choose to give the money to the Bastitch and Melinda Gates Foundation. After all we can not have any disagreements over our leaders' decisions and thus "undermine" our motherland of niketalk.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[bastitch]

Your self-serving whistle-blowing is not allowed.

Anybody else can do it. Just not you. It gets on my nerves.

Happy now?

​

 

[bastitch]

Is "dismerits" even a word?

​

 

[rexanglorum]

Yes I am happy. I out debated you to the point that you have to resort to intimidation and it took one post to do so.

Good night.

Quote:

---

Is "dismerits" even a word?

---

yes

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[bastitch]

Quote:

---

yes

---

In what language?

​

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

Yes I am happy. I out debated you to the point that you have to resort to intimidation and it took one post to do so.

---

And that's all you wanted: to pick a little "debate." How sad and trifling. You had to manufacture an excuse to start a little squabble in, of all things, a post merely intended to announce a significant, voluntary donation to a well respected children's charity? You should've gone with that Canadian lumber post - but then I guess it's only fun if you lure in a "partner" by adopting a contrary position.

In case you couldn't tell, Bastitch was joking. He does that every now and then. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that he wasn't actually enjoining you from making a fool of yourself.

Quote:

---

Quote: Is "dismerits" even a word?
yes

---

No, it isn't.
Need proof?

www.webster.com/dictionary/dismerit
dictionary.reference.com/...q=dismerit

I'd LOVE to see a Scrabble board after a hotly contested game between you and George "Subliminable" Bush.

Quote:

---

UNICEF's flaws are already out in the open

---

First of all, the "flaws" you spoke of aren't exactly public knowledge - otherwise you wouldn't have had to run a Google search to find out about it. You clearly didn't know about this "problem" at the time of your first post.

Second, even AFTER your "research" to discredit UNICEF, what damning scandal did you uncover? What dastardly deeds did we conceal from our innocent members?

*gasp* UNICEF lobbied for formal declaractions of children's rights.

THOSE BASTARDS!!!!

And to think... we actually trusted them. That's what hurts the most. We expected them to help children, and they're using our money to urge developing countries to formalize rights for children.... I think I'm going to be sick. I just pray it's not too late to stop payment on that check.



Do me a favor, ace. Why don't you go heckle a Salvation Army Santa or find a 10 year old with a UNICEF box and kick them in the crotch?

Either one would be every bit as useful and classy as what you've engaged in here.

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

And that's all you wanted: to pick a little "debate." How sad and trifling.

---

The "debate" which I was refering to was the one centered Bastitch's claim that discussing the merits and dismerits of the recipient of charitable funds was "out of line" and that it "undermines Niketalk."

You are right to put "debate" in quotations. Since basically it involved Bastitch being unable to defend his claim and his sudden pulling of rank as his answer.


At least you can cobble together a case for chilling of dissent and intimidation with out flashing the admin badge.



The message is clear from the you and Bastitch "salute us and countinue marching." Thank God your power does not extend beyond this microcosm.



As far as UNICEF's decision to lobby for formal declarations, it is not that action, per se, that is bad but it diverts money from field aid. Money goes from children's survival is truly failed states to relatively better of children in states that are capable of enforcing declarations of rights.

Less people are helped and UNICEF's shift in priorities is a shift of funds from the poorest children to relatively better off children.

If that is fine with you so be it but people who otherwise may not know about this have a right to. You provided a link to UNICEF's own website and I mentioned a few things that people, who care about what happens to the money after it is donated, can have some information other than the organization's own literature.



BTW, it looks like online dictionaries have some dismerits of there own. The word "dismerits" is often times a word that is adbridged when the adbridged version of a dictionary is released.

Here are some examples of the word's use in various types of writing.


www.philosophy.stir.ac.uk/postgraduate/documents/STIRLING3Engel1008.pdf#search=%22dismerits%20oxford%22 (about in the middle of it. It should be highlighted)

www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf4/amazon_products_feed.cgi?Operation=ItemLookup&ItemId=0632045078 (first review)

www.iioa.at/pdf/13th%20conf/MesnardOutputCoincidence.pdf#search=%22dismerits%20harvard%22 (Page two, highlighted)

It would be a fun scrabble game indeed with me, the president and all these idiots from these articles and others.

You can find many more instances of the use of the word "dismerits." If you ever choose to lower yourself and look at google, you will find many articles containing this word.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[bastitch]

Quote:

---

The message is clear from the you and Bastitch "salute us and countinue marching." Thank God your power does not extend beyond this microcosm.

---

See, that's the problem. It's not even "salute us". It's "pat yourself on the back".

That's why you're coming off as such a jerk.

That's where your problem is. You're "self-fellating" comment isn't a slight to us. People take shots at us all the time. It's your, "yo, don't feel too good about yourself" to our USERS that's inappropriate.

​

 

[rexanglorum]

If you interpret criticizing UNICEF as a proxy bashing of our members, I'm sorry that you see it that way.

It is also unfortunate that you see it as such because it makes discussion of the organizations that recieve NT donations impossible since you and Methodman interpret it as bad for the community.

Niketalkers should be able to feel good about the raising of the money, the donation of the money and the good work that it will do but at the same time be mature enough to be able discuss the recipient of the funds' actions.

The community should feel good about its donation but how much should we limit discussion of the recipient orgnaization for fear that someone my feel less satisfied because they may see cricism of the recipient of the fund's actions as a personal slight?

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[bastitch]

Quote:

---

If you interpret criticizing UNICEF as a proxy bashing of our members, I'm sorry that you see it that way.

---

Doggie, I'm tellin' you straight up what I'm interpreting as "proxy bashing".

Quote:

---

I just wanted to point out the harsh reality that charities often times will skim off money. People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, " as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children.

---

[/center]

 

[rexanglorum]

The Wolf comment was no worse than the most of the banter on this board including banter that mods and admins sometimes indulge in.


I would say that I'm sorry that I used a term that drew so much attention. If I knew the focus could have been on UNICEF instead of myself, I would have used a more sterile phrase.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

The community should feel good about its donation but how much should we limit discussion of the recipient orgnaization for fear that someone my feel less satisfied because they may see cricism of the recipient of the fund's actions as a personal slight?

---

If u feel that way then make a seperate post about it.. the fact that u placed in this thread which is only about informing the memebers and congratulating each other about helping the community. U come off as arrogant and holier than thou in ur postings. Its quite embarrasing
[/center]

​

​

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

If u feel that way then make a seperate post about it.. the fact that u placed in this thread which is only about informing the memebers and congratulating each other about helping the community.

---

I though about that but i figured that that would seem more like a bid for attention than posting in the existing thread.

Quote:

---

U come off as arrogant and holier than thou in ur postings.

---

In your opinion...

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

The message is clear from the you and Bastitch "salute us and countinue marching." Thank God your power does not extend beyond this microcosm.

---

This is the flotsam you're clinging to? We're "chilling dissent" because we're not thrilled with your attempt to take a dump on our community's decision to donate a full 100% of its revenue to a well respected children's charity?

If I wanted to 'chill dissent' I would've deleted your post and banned you from the board. You weren't even warned, so don't hand me that garbage about "intimidation." You were ALLOWED to disparage our philanthropy, but don't expect us to sit around and smile while you denigrate our community and its staff.

Quote:

---

If that is fine with you so be it but people who otherwise may not know about this have a right to. You provided a link to UNICEF's own website and I mentioned a few things that people, who care about what happens to the money after it is donated, can have some information other than the organization's own literature.

---

You had nothing bad to say on page one so you FOUND something bad to say - and obviously it took a bit of digging.

First of all, it's NOT a very impressive little factoid. I'm not upset that you "exposed" UNICEF's misdeeds, but that you were small and petty enough to dredge up something, ANYTHING negative to say about this donation.

The best you could come up with was a formal declaration of children's rights? This was the shocking truth that everyone HAD to know? UNICEF supports children's rights as means of raising awareness and preventing harm to children and they have to pay administrative costs like every other major charity? For shame.

What percentage of UNICEF's annual operating budget do you REALLY think goes toward lobbying for formal declarations of children's rights?

You said,

Quote:

---

Niketalk donated about $2,500 and about $1,500 will actually help children and protect against starvation, AIDS and other maladies.

---

That's PURE hyperbole - and this is what truly exposes you. You intentionally exaggerated this to give people the false impression that barely HALF of our donation would actually benefit children. That is an arrant lie. Clearly, you had no interest in "telling the truth" about UNICEF. You were slinging mud.

Had you performed any RESPONSIBLE research, you might have found out something like this:

"How is UNICEF's budget allocated?

In 2004, UNICEF's total income was $1.969 billion, of which 94 percent went to programs, with the remainder being spent on administrative costs. Of the funds spent on programs, 34 percent went into early childhood development; 22 percent supported immunization; 21 percent was used for girls' education; 10 percent went into improved protection of children, particularly those in countries affected by armed conflict; 9 percent supported programs for children and families affected by HIV/AIDS; and 4 percent supported other programs including youth participation in community development."

94 percent is spent on programs. Wow, those administrative costs are just spiraling out of control, aren't they? SIX PERCENT? Good heavens! What're they running over there, a charity or an executive day spa?


I offered you 15 minutes to make a spectacle of yourself in front of everyone. How much longer do you plan to take?

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

In your opinion...

---

and MethodMan and Bastich.. and probably to other members. I dont stand alone here.
[/center]

​

​