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

[bastitch]

I know I can't speak for Method Man, but I am holier than thou.

​

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

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."

---

Well it looks like our results are at odds here.


I have some very different numbers. According to the National Center for Public Analysis:

# Administrative costs for "regional offices" and headquarters is $346 million -- more than a third of the approximately $1 billion budget.

# This doesn't include spending on UNICEF's 210 field offices or the organization's "national committees," which raise 35 percent of the agency's budget and keep 25 percent to 40 percent of what they raise to cover their own administrative expenses.

# An independent audit in 1994 by Booz, Allen, & Hamilton found bloated overhead costs, lack of financial control and a proclivity for luxury travel accommodations and overstaffing.

# There has also been corruption, with UNICEF's Nairobi, Kenya staff accused of stealing $1 million in relief funds and wasting $8 million to $9 million more.


The source was :

Source: Nicholas Eberstadt (American Enterprise Institute and Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies), "Trick and Mistreat," New Republic, November 10, 1997.



It looks like our facts are loggerheads how can this difference be reconciled? More than likely the facts you presented count administrative costs as simply the costs of running the central offices and the programs have administrative costs all there own.


Whether my sources are right or yours are, it is irresponsible to call someone a liar because they bring facts to the table that are not pleasing.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Chilling dissent does not have to be outright censorship it can take the form of what you are doing. Repeating the lie that the act of dissent is an attack on the community at large as well as misrepresenting and insulting someone as retaliation. Just because you did you resort to concrete censorship does not mean you are not engaging in actions that are meant to curve disagreement.



To Fanatic:

Quote:

---

and MethodMan and Bastich.. and probably to other members. I dont stand alone here.

---

Just because you make a claim and just because you can find someone who agrees with you does not make your claim true.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

Just because you make a claim and just because you can find someone who agrees with you does not make your claim true.

---

Who said it was true or factual

it IS an opinion, one expressed by more than one party. As I said I do not stand alone here.. That was my only statement
[/center]

​

​

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

Well it looks like our results are at odds here.

---

I'll say.

The information I cited may be found on UNICEF USA's CURRENT FAQ page and refer to 2004's budget. The article you scoured from the depths of Google is dated 1997 and the relevant claim is prefaced with "By the 1990s, say observers."

So, first of all, you're using outdated sources - excuse me, that AN outdated source, since you only have but one. You made no effort to determine whether or not the situation had improved in nearly 9 years. You don't know what the most current figures are and you never even bothered to look. You undoubtedly whisked through page after page of search results until you managed to unearth this particular article, and then you proceeded as though you'd struck gold. What does THAT say about your intentions?

Looking to "tell the truth?" Hardly. You were looking to smear this charity. Why? Because we chose it, of course. You didn't choose UNICEF out of thin air. Nor did you come in to this post with anything against UNICEF. You had nothing bad to say on page 1, so clearly you didn't KNOW about the 1997 New Republic article at that time.

What does that mean? It means that, had we chosen the UNCF, you would've gone fishing for UNCF scandals. So, again, this doesn't really have anything to do with UNICEF.


Second, even IF we accept this outside and outdated estimate of 1/3 as valid, you've STILL significantly UNDERESTIMATED the amount of money from our donation that would reach its intended beneficiaries. So, again, why would you go so far as to try and make the situation look as unflattering as possible?

There was nothing even remotely balanced about this. You found the most damning article you could and not only did you take its aging claims at full face value - but you were so petty as to round DOWN!

That's pathetic, Rex. Now everyone can see how petty this little outburst of yours truly was.

You took ONE article from possibly thousands of search results, exaggerated it, then foisted it as CURRENT and indisputable fact just to portray our donation in the worst possible light. At the end of the day, that really speaks for itself.


Keep on digging for dirt if you like, but in reality you're only digging a deeper hole for YOURSELF.

 

[skeeter mcaiyo]

Quote:

---

and MethodMan and Bastich.. and probably to other members. I dont stand alone here.

---

same goes to you Fanatic15. not too many people are fond of your attempts to spit knowledge knowing damn well you know nothing on the topic.

You need to fall WAY back with that mess.
SKEET SKEET SKEET[/center]

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

same goes to you Fanatic15. not too many people are fond of your attempts to spit knowledge knowing damn well you know nothing on the topic.

You need to fall WAY back with that mess.

---

U are allowed to have ur opinion thats fine.. Point out an example and I'll give u proof... I dont talk about things I dont know about.

And I doubt u have any idea about me and what I know considering uve been here since July lol
[/center]

​

​

 

[okiedoqui]

Yall seriously can't dead this already, next time just make it a locked sticky announcing the donation that way the discussion wont infringe upon people appreciating the donation

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

The information I cited may be found on UNICEF USA's CURRENT FAQ page

---

You can not be serious, UNICEF's OWN website is your source. Perhaps you should use google instead of using UNICEF's own reports.

Anyone with half of a brain and a shred of intellectual honesty should be at least a bit weary of a case made for UNICEF based on it's own figuring. You don't think that they might have an incentive to hide adminstrative costs and other types of waste?

Is this really what you call "RESPONSIBLE" research? I guess similar, responsible research may find that the USSR's steel production in the 1950's was ten times that of the US' or that Iraq was winning the war in 2003 or that Jordan Brand's retroes' leather is the finest on Earth. After all, we went right to the source, no pesky third party reports and observations needed here.

Perhaps you should consider digging through Google, or Lexus Nexus, or Yahoo or something other than a subject's OWN website.


One final note about UNICEF. The figure of $1500 out of $2500 is reasonable. You have $800 lobbed off for administrative costs and the other $200 is outright graft, political lobbying for uneforcable declarations and funds for things such as Palestinian TV shows that obstensively encourage palestinian youths to have a spirit of resilience.




Now I am not blessed with your uncanny ability to incorrectly guess people's motives but it seems like your vicious attacks against me and your almost maternal defense of UNICEF betrays an agenda of your own. You seem bent upon discrediting me and if that means breaking your own ROC and accepting the flimsiest of sources to do so, so be it.

It is sad how petty you become when I post and it really is a shame. You're very smart and well read person and usually get along people like that no matter their ideology.

It's just disappointing because I usually am able to befriend or at least be on freindly terms with other smart people that I come across. You seem to be an exception and I won't speculate as to why. I'll just say, once again, what a shame.


Well it looks like we're at end game. You already sprung the trick of claiming I'm desperately clinging to something in the out set of your last post and you've twice appealed to the imagined disapproval from a non existant audience to close your last two posts. It looks like post fatigue is setting in so I yield the floor and give you the last word.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[middle school dropout]

Fanatic comes off to me as "I'm a strong black woman, & I don't need your opinions, because all of my statements are correct"..in most of her posts. And before you say "You haven't been here long enough to know me..", I am a returning member..

And is it me or is joeyslowe the most annoying NT'er ?

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

You can not be serious, UNICEF's OWN website is your source.

---

Do you have a better source of information regarding UNICEF's budget? Oh, right, a 9 year old article from New Republic, yielded after an exhaustive Google search that revealed, apparently, absolutely NO other ammunition for your smear campaign.

Quote:

---

Anyone with half of a brain and a shred of intellectual honesty should be at least a bit weary of a case made for UNICEF based on it's own figuring.

---

wary of UNICEF's own figures than the unnamed "independent" analysis cited in a lone article from back when Michael Jordan's Bulls were NBA champions, I was a high school senior, K Ci and Jojo were tearing up the charts, and the fastest personal computers were clocked at a scorching 300 mhz.

The fact remains that you've yet to come up with anything from this century to counter UNICEF's own figures. I don't even NEED to perform further research. That New Republic article didn't exactly set the world on fire in its own day, and 9 years later it looks even weaker.

If it's your goal to try and embarrass us for donating over $2,500 to UNICEF by discrediting the charity we've selected, you'd damn well better come with some better evidence than that.

Imagine if you were writing an article or even a lousy homework assignment on the evils of UNICEF, would you consider it sufficient to substantiate your point with that one article? Would you dare to submit your 'article' to an editor, professor, or even a TA?

NO ONE I know in the field of writing or publishing would be so irresponsible and very few students - even undergraduate students - would be so frivolous. Yet here we are, in a community with tens of thousands of people, discussing an issue of ACTUAL - rather than hypothetical - significance, and you're not even giving this the respect you'd give a school paper.

This isn't play time. If you're going to make a SERIOUS accusation, you had better support it.


This is a complete fabrication. You have no idea what's actually spent on political lobbying - none. All you seem to know is that political lobbying for formal declarations of childrens rights happens.

Even IF we took your one and ONLY source at full face value, you still underestimated by around 8% or so. How would you like it if someone hacked 8% off your final grade point average? What if 8% were extracted from your paycheck, if you have a job?

You're telling me that around 8% of UNICEF's entire budget goes to political lobbying for formal declarations of children's rights? That's totally unfounded and you have no support for it.

Either way, the numbers you ran with were exaggerated for effect - that's been proven rather conclusively at this point. So, again, any possibility of "objectivity" is flung out the window.

Quote:

---

It is sad how petty you become when I post and it really is a shame

---

You need to put some ice on that ego, put that swelling in check. I don't look for you. I don't come into posts checking to see if you've said something foolish so I can pounce on you. The ONLY time you hear from me is when I'm posting in a topic I GENUINELY care about - and you're in there essentially smearing it with feces as you are here.

Had I not intervened here, a few people might have actually bought in to your borrowed claims. You spoke with a false and unqualified sense of authority: passing off estimates, exaggerations, and one outdated article as indisputable facts to condemn our efforts.

Had you said, "I was checking up on UNICEF and I found this article. What do you guys think?" your motives still would've been suspect, but I would NOT have needed to dress you down in order to uncloak your argument. Only now, after all of this back and forth, have you finally revealed that your little crusade in this post is based on nothing more than a single result from a selectively designed google search engineered to dig up dirt on our chosen charity.

It is the difference between screaming "THE SKY IS FALLING, EVERYONE RUN!!!" and saying "I read in an old anthology of children's fables that a chicken once said 'the sky is falling.'"

You did not present facts. You presented CLAIMS from a 9 year old article and you used it to try and undermine our donation. You're damned right I'm going to throw that garbage into the 10th row.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you should use google instead of using UNICEF's own reports.

---

For someone who leans on Google like a drunken amputee on a crutch, you're not particularly adept at using it. After all, you've yet to come up with ANYTHING other than a dusty old New Republic article to prove your point (more than that, it IS your point. It's argument by proxy. Where the blurb ends, so does your argument) and, when attempting to "prove" that 'dismerit' is actually a word, your trophy results consisted of some random graduate student's paper, a preliminary draft, and a customer review on an obscure website. That certainly trumps webster's online dictionary, thesaurus.com, and my enormous UNabridged dictionary - none of which contain the word "mismerit." ("Obstensively" is another CLASSIC George W. Bush scrabble word, by the way.) So, don't lecture me on the use of a research tool you wield like a toddler with a loaded gun. There's a difference between rigging a Nexis query to obtain second-hand arguments and actually UNDERSTANDING something.

You adopt these ridiculous, indefensible positions and then support them with a laughable harvest of scraps from Google. Do you really think you're impressing anyone with this?

You just seem to like arguing. If you think this is "practice," then go kick rocks. This little game of yours is not a "fun time" for the rest of us. People actually care about this. If I wanted to find a sparring partner to sharpen my boxing skills, you don't suppose I'd just walk outside and start picking fights with random people - do you?

If you want "practice" learning how to properly argue a point, join a debate club. Don't go around picking fights and playing the devil's advocate simply because you're bored and in desperate need of flaunting borrowed knowledge. I speak on issues I actually care about and I suggest you limit yourself to the same if you ever wish to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

it seems like your vicious attacks against me and your almost maternal defense of UNICEF betrays an agenda of your own. You seem bent upon discrediting me

---

This is a brain buster. Why would I want to discredit someone attacking UNICEF and defend the organization itself? Let's see.. I know there's a connection here somewhere.


Ah, yes.... perhaps because you've engaged in a single-minded quest to minimize, mock, and discredit our donation by attacking UNICEF. Wow, that wasn't so hard now was it?

If you didn't consider it necessary to spit on our donation, I'd have no need to take you to task.

This is not a class discussion. This is not a theoretical abstraction.
We're talking about the staff's reputation, the community's reputation, and the reputation a preeminent children's charity. Thought went into this. Care went into this. A great deal of effort and sacrifice went into this.

Yet you came in here and whether out of insecurity, boredom, or spite you decided to spit on our community's donation. You set out to make this charity and, therefore, this act look as ineffectual and pointless as you possibly could - to the extent that the crux of your analysis rests SOLELY on the single most unflattering thing you could possible find on google and, on top of this, you went so far as to exaggerate EVEN FURTHER.

NOTHING I could possibly say to you in the course of this discussion would do you a greater disservice than what you have said for yourself.

[/quote]

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

Fanatic comes off to me as "I'm a strong black woman, & I don't need your opinions, because all of my statements are correct"..in most of her posts.

---

I dont mind other peoples opinions

u must be reading into it differently... If u state something as fact that I know is incorrect then I'll let u know, but if its ur opinion then thats ur own just like mine are mine.
[/center]

​

​

 

[bastitch]

Don't you get it? These kids can't stand a woman with an opinion that is different than theirs.

It goes against their entire world of misogyny. And without misogyny, that's one less thing they can put down to feel better about themselves.

​

 

[unregistered(d)]

I actually think UNICEF was a good choice. Its a great organization and you can see exactly where NTs ad revenue is going to.

Lets set a higher mark for this month!

[/b]
​

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

Don't you get it? These kids can't stand a woman with an opinion that is different than theirs.

It goes against their entire world of misogyny. And without misogyny, that's one less thing they can put down to feel better about themselves. .

---

somewhere in the back of my mind I knew that

[/center]

​

​

 

[xilegacy]

Thats what I love about NT people are real.

​

​

 

[middle school dropout]

Quote:

---

It goes against their entire world of misogyny. And without misogyny, that's one less thing they can put down to feel better about themselves.

---

Right...

​

 

[bastitch]

^^^You should edit your signature before I ban you again. It's way too long.

And it's funny that you'd think I banned you because you were opinionated. I don't even know who you were. And no, don't tell me, either.

I don't care.

​

 

[skeeter mcaiyo]

Quote:

---

Point out an example and I'll give u proof... I dont talk about things I dont know about.

---

says the girl who cant do the same for Rex yet comes poppin off at the mouth with allegations and accusations of stuff that isnt true.

Your only further proving my point that you speak of non sense.

Take a step back yourself and get some facts first before you go "Leeza Rice" on us with your bias and monotonous slander.
SKEET SKEET SKEET[/center]

 

[fanatic15]

Quote:

---

says the girl who cant do the same for Rex yet comes poppin off at the mouth with allegations and accusations of stuff that isnt true.

---

What the hell are you talking about

I didnt say anything about what the Rex guy is talking about regrading UNICEF thats all MethodMan (and a few others not including me)... all I said was he was coming off as Arrogant to ME... my opinion, which I am entitled to. And Meth pretty much gave plenty of examples that this guy is ill informed.. I had nothing to do w/ that. Notice, I dont know the ins and outs of UNICEF, and I didnt make any statements about them... Wow, look @ me not talking about things Ive never researched

.

FYI - Just because u dont believe the facts doesnt make them untrue

[/center]

​

​

 

[rexanglorum]

I resolved to give Methodman the last word in our back and forth but a few things were said that were so condescending and dishonest that I just could not hold my tounge.

Quote:

---

If it's your goal to try and embarrass us for donating over $2,500 to UNICEF by discrediting the charity we've selected, you'd damn well better come with some better evidence than that.

---

That is exactly the error that is the theme of your arguments. It is the idea that criticism of UNICEF is one and the same as criticizing you or Niketalk. Just because you gave them money does mean that you should see criticism of the organization as an attack on those who donated the money.

The US government gives money to so many entities that you, me or any one would find some fault with on those entities and may criticize how it operates. Would criticizing the alocations of an organization's funds be seen, by reasonable, as vicious attack on all the people of America.

You're working with a tenuos line of association. Niketalk's donation suddenly doesn't make UNICEF's folley's become some sort of black mark on you are Niketalk.

You are taking criticism of UNICEF far too personally.

Quote:

---

Imagine if you were writing an article or even a lousy homework assignment on the evils of UNICEF, would you consider it sufficient to substantiate your point with that one article? Would you dare to submit your 'article' to an editor, professor, or even a TA?

NO ONE I know in the field of writing or publishing would be so irresponsible and very few students - even undergraduate students - would be so frivolous. Yet here we are, in a community with tens of thousands of people, discussing an issue of ACTUAL - rather than hypothetical - significance, and you're not even giving this the respect you'd give a school paper.

---

I like Niketalk but, no, Niketalk is not going to get the same attentional to detail or number of sources I use in my academic writting.

I try to be clear and struture by length Niketalk entries but no it will not get the same attentional to speeling and grammar errors and I am going to do more exstensive research for a Niketalk entry.


If you seriously think that you deserve a HIGHER standard of writting and research for Niketalk than for school and that I should pay more heed to you over my professors, you are the one who needs an ice bag for that ego.

I respect you(even if you fail to do like wise for me) but you are not getting priority, in terms of time and deligence in writting, over the the professors who determine my GPA and have to write letters of recommendation.

Quote:

---

you still underestimated by around 8% or so.

---

You failed to read the part about graft. I included graft along with lobbying.

Withe track record of most UN branches, saying that graft takes 8% is a charitable estimate, it may be more.

You are right. I don't know @#%$ much is takem exactly. The folks in Turtle Bay likely don't know but it is safe to say that some money will be skimmed off.

Quote:

---

I don't look for you. I don't come into posts checking to see if you've said something foolish so I can pounce on you. The ONLY time you hear from me is when I'm posting in a topic I GENUINELY care about

---

I am not accusing you of "stalking" me. I'm talking about the nature of how you respond to me. You tend to speak very little on the subject at hand and instead opt to slander m based on "my" intentions or you throw barbs and try to call me stupid, uneducated, arrogant, racist ect.

It can not write this behavior down as a result of our fiffering world views. I can have respectful, if not friendly conversations with others who are similarly opposed to my own world view.

There obviously must be some other reason for the rude and condescending manner which you seem to reserve especially for me.

Quote:

---

You just seem to like arguing. If you think this is "practice,"

---

I will admit that verbal sparring is fun, even if my opponent has a proclivity for hitting below the belt. However, I have abandoned notions that debating you has any value for real world debate.

If your tactics were used in a deabte match and certaintly in a court of law, you'd be kicked out.

I still say that the verbal battle is fun even if you choose to make it no holds bar and it is fun to see your writing. You're like the left wing a Ann Coulter, even if i disagree with you and even when you're trying to tear me down, I have to appreciate the art work in your writting.

Quote:

---

We're talking about the staff's reputation, the community's reputation, and the reputation a preeminent children's charity. Thought went into this. Care went into this. A great deal of effort and sacrifice went into this.

---

One again, I'll close by saying, you take criticism of UNICEF far too personally.

The decision to donate to charity is admirable but some how believing that NT's money makes the recipient organization beyond reproach is ludicrous.

If we can find time and bandwidth to discuss the merits of PSPs vs iPods, the right way to eat a Wendy's Frosty and the latest Episode of Entourage, I think we can have some room to talk about UNICEF and in light of our donation, the need to openly, freely and without intimidation discuss UNICEF is more important, to this community, than ever before.

If in the future you want discussions, centered about the recipient organization, placed in seperate thread, please just say so.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

If you seriously think that you deserve a HIGHER standard of writting and research for Niketalk than for school and that I should pay more heed to you over my professors, you are the one who needs an ice bag for that ego.

---

If you write out a little fantasy hack job on UNICEF for a class project, nobody gets hurt. Sure, any teacher worth her or his salt would've flunked you had you insulted them with such a paper, but other than a poor grade, a little dent to the ego, and a waste of the professor's time, there are no real damages. You're comfy in the sheltered realm of hypotheticals - and most posts on NT fall in that category.

This wasn't a hypothetical situation. Our staff actually donated 100% of its revenue to UNICEF. NikeTalk's receiving around 80-85,000 unique visits per day and the General forum is easily one of our most popular and active forums.

You insulted our staff and our donation by singling out the most damning article you could find on Google and posting it up here, foisting someone else's 9 year old claims as both current and relevant. That's a SERIOUS charge - and you did not treat it with respect or even honesty. You didn't say, "here's an article I found about UNICEF." You said, "about $1,500 will actually help children and protect against starvation, AIDS and other maladies." First of all, that is not FACT - it is a poorly researched opinion, and yet the EFFECT of this statement is to undermine our donation.

If you're feeling lonely or suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and you feel like pontificating on how "PSp OWwwNnZ00rZ," boast about how you broke the sound barrier while drag racing in your M3, set about mimicking Fox News or your econ professor in a current events topic to sound educated, or post pictures of your sneakers, outfits, and jewelry - it's all more or less fun and games. Those posts don't have to be well presented or researched (though it helps, if credibility matters.)

However, we were in here talking about the actual business of our website - and your charge against our $2,500+ donation was as serious as it was poorly researched. If someone walks away and thinks, "Oh, what was the point... these charities are all crooked. Barely any good came of this." that carries consequences. This was a public announcement to tens of thousands of people regarding a donation that was VERY real. In the grand scheme of things NikeTalk may seem rather trivial, but this was as serious as anything that's ever been posted here - this directly pertained to the site's staff, its operations, and its mission. If you're going to come in here and take a cheap shot at something that affects so many people's lives, you had better treat it a bit more seriously than you treat your homework. Had you made that same unqualified and irresponsible allegation in front of a few thousand people on television or in an article, you'd probably be facing a libel suit right now. Of course, it's just NT, so who cares if your misrepresented claims cause a few people to withdraw support from UNICEF or view them in a negative light? There's no consequences on NikeTalk! It's the Internet! Surely it's not as important to get the facts straight in an appeal to potentially thousands of readers as it is to support your arguments in an undergraduate homework assignment.

When you write a school paper, how many people read it? You, the professor and, after you get it back, perhaps whoever's within eye shot of your mother's refrigerator. Unless you post on a larger message board, I sincerely doubt you'll ever have a larger audience for your writing than you do here. If you so much as posted a buy/sell listing on here and someone called you a fraud because, according to a friend of a friend, 10 years ago you used to shoplift from convenience stores - I don't think you'd leave that claim unchallenged because you know damned well that someone has just attacked your integrity in front of hundreds or even thousands of people - and if you EVER plan to use this site to conduct business again you'll defend your credibility.

In front of who knows how many readers, you attempted to MINIMIZE the effectiveness of our community's donation by concealing, stretching, and selectively interpreting the truth.

And, again, it's not like I've warned you or banned you - but you are damned right I'm going to refute your reckless allegations and question your motives.

If it were your reputation, you'd defend it too - and that's why you keep coming back for more like an inflatable children's punching bag, because you're trying to defend your reputation. Your posts aren't even about UNICEF anymore, they're about Rex trying to save face and make a dignified retreat. If there were no consequences, if it didn't bother you, you'd have let it go by now. But no, apparently you don't like it when you're portrayed in a negative light in front of the NikeTalk audience, do you? Of course, what's the worst that's been said about you in this thread? In groping for words, you got called out on using a couple that don't exist? You were called petty and vindictive for single-mindedly finding a way to paint our community's donation of $2,500 and its recipient, an international children's charity, in the most insulting manner you could?

When most people detonate a bomb, they run. You stood by it.
This is a situation of your own making, and you can't possibly sit here and tell me that it's essential that you defend what's left of your reputation on here while attempting to deny me the right to defend the reputation of my community and its staff on the grounds that, by doing so, i'm "denying" your "right" to free expression... on a privately run message board with restricted posting acccess.

No one PREVENTED you from launching vindictive, poorly supported accusations - but I WILL expose them as such after the fact.

Quote:

---

If your tactics were used in a deabte match and certaintly in a court of law, you'd be kicked out.

---

If your tactics were used in a debate match and CERTAINLY in a court of law, you'd be

Quote:

---

Niketalk's donation suddenly doesn't make UNICEF's folley's become some sort of black mark on you are Niketalk.

---

Given how ridiculously biased your "research" was, you were obviously trying to make someone look bad. As you came in to the post high on UNICEF, I don' t think making UNICEF look bad on NT serves much purpose. There is, however, some value for an especially insecure person in attempting to "deflate" a group of people during a moment of celebration. I'm sure you've seen people like this in action before.

"Hey guys, I just got into my first choice of colleges!"

"Oh, that's really cool. I guess affirmative action pays off. Say, didn't I hear something a few years back about how that's just a party school? Yeah, I think Maxim had it up pretty high on their list of party colleges. Their basketball team's probably going to suck this year, too... and I a friend of mine visited there in the fall - you know, as a last resort - and he said he didn't see an attractive looking girl there all day. But yeah, congratulations on getting accepted... I'm sure you'll fit right in there."

 

[rexanglorum]

Methodman, you say how much you dislike long discussions with me yet you do everything to extend them.

As much as you claim that you are just disagreeing with my claims, you have spent far more time throwing in rude and condescending barbs.


You almost demand a response because you can not leave a post with your counter argument. You have to throw in some paternalistic jab and call me uneducated, brutish, evil, racist ect.

If you want brevity when dealing with me, just follow your own advice, disagree with the position not the person. If you want to slam my argument or my sources and present your own counter arguments, that's fair, I love that back and forth type of battle. It could end after a few posts, we'd agree to disagree and shake e-hands and move on.

The problem is that you have to throw in some barb about where I live, what I study, my current level of education, what I read and watch (or at least what imagine I read and watch) and all this despite knowing very little about me.

The fact is, and any neutral observer, would see that when we have these back and forths I come out as the bigger man every time. You come out swingging every time and I always try to stay on topic and be respectful, it my get me some extra e-bruises but it indicates real class. That's a trade i'll take any day.


To top it off, you have a habit of spinning people's tiredness of your repetative and insulting personal as a withdrawl and therefor victory for you certiantely doesn't help to end threads. Again, if you hate long arguments, don't do what ever it takes to extend them.

And, for your information, I did know what UNICEF was and it is a good organization but it has flaws and it is not beyond reproach but your thin skin made you got ballistic and see a negative statement about UNICEF as some sort of mortal attack on you and your reputation and you felt like responding in kind by going after me.

If you just stick with the preamble of the ROC, we could have saved a ton of time and blood pressure points.



BTW, I'll see you in October and I'll have more and better information next time and I'm not biased against you and if it's a very good charity, who knows, it may very positive. Time will tell.



Peace,





Rexanglorum

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

The fact is, and any neutral observer, would see that when we have these back and forths I come out as the bigger man every time.

---

I see you still haven't grasped the difference between fact and opinion. Let's see, in this very post we have a neutral observer in Fanatic15 and she doesn't quite see things the same way you do. She found your posts "arrogant," "holier than thou," and "embarrassing." We all know she's not the only neutral observer who might have a problem with your shameless behavior in this post.

Quote:

---

You come out swingging every time and I always try to stay on topic and be respectful, it my get me some extra e-bruises but it indicates real class.

---

Right, because slinging mud at a children's charity is an act of class. Downplaying the effectiveness of our community's donation was very classy. Concealing your source was pure class. Ignoring everything positive about UNICEF's track record while treating a 9 year old New Republic article like the indisputable word of god was both objective AND classy.

You demonstrated an abject LACK of class throughout this thread. Your attempted hatchet job on UNICEF showcased ABYSMAL ethics.


Had you NOT intended to insult us, you would've been apologetic. Instead, you've been nothing but hostile and recalcitrant since being called out for your laughably ill-"researched" claims against our chosen charity.

Imagine you're out somewhere when, suddenly, someone splashes you and your companion with their drink. Whether the product of carelessness or aggression, the damage has been done. You pull aside the individual reponsible and say, "Hey, you just spilled your drink on us." at this point, how would a CLASSY individual respond to unintentionally offending someone? Most of us would imagine it to sound something like this: "Oh, did I? I'm so sorry. I thought someone was trying to get my attention, so I turned around quickly and I must've spilled my drink. Please, let me pick up the bill for your dry cleaning and your drinks." A classy individual wouldn't dig their heels in and say, "Hey, jerk, you shouldn't have been standing there in the first place. You can't PROVE I did it on purpose, so I don't owe you jack. If anything, you owe ME another drink." If you spilled your drink on somebody and responded like that, don't pretend you're a class act because you weren't able to land a single punch afterwards.

You weren't honest. You didn't apologize for giving off the wrong impression. You could've said, "You know, I researched UNICEF after reading that you donated to them and actually almost everything I've ever read or heard about regarding UNICEF has been incredibly positive. But I also saw this 9 year old article from New Republic and it had me a little concerned. Again, I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that this donation wouldn't be doing what it could or should be doing. Like I said at first, UNICEF IS a very good choice - I just wanted to share something I'd found. It was reckless to withhold my source and I realize that doing so may have been misleading. It was 9 years old and I intentionally held that out because it weakened my case, so I can see why you'd think that I was intentionally trying to prove that this was a wasted donation. I was just trying to be insightful and make a unique point and I guess I got carried away. I really didn't mean to take away from this." Instead, you said, "People should not, to cleanly paraphrase the Wolf from Pulp Fiction, "start fellating each other" as if all of the $2569.92 will be turned into AIDS vaccinations or other tangible relief for suffering children." and it only got WORSE for you from there.

There's really NO defending your "research" - which is probably why you stopped trying. Your case was so shallow, you couldn't drown an ant.

Now, it's all about saving face and trying, oh so desperately, to act like you were the bigger man for defaming a children's charity and offering only mild insults afterwards. Whatever gets you through.

Quote:

---

BTW, I'll see you in October and I'll have more and better infor next time

---

Oh, so you've taken it upon yourself to "independently" audit our every charity from now on? What expert Google search criteria will you assemble for this next one? Will you actually deign to mention the preponderance of POSITIVE search results next time out or is slander still the name of the game?

Yeah, you keep coming back and providing your uninformed, selectively applied "critique" of our philanthropic efforts. Prove me right over and over again. Unfortunately, you already blew your credibility in the aftermath of donation 1 - so good luck pretending you're a factor from here on out.

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

Let's see, in this very post we have a neutral observer in Fanatic15 and she doesn't quite see things the same way you do. She found your posts "arrogant," "holier than thou," and "embarrassing."

---

Yes, your female equivalent is a very neutral source.

Quote:

---

Ignoring everything positive about UNICEF's track record while treating a 9 year old New Republic article like the indisputable word of god was both objective AND classy.

---

And so was your decision to answer every criticism of UNICEF with a link to its own website or stats from it's own website. That's a model of objectivity, an organization;s own website.

Quote:

---

Your attempted hatchet job on UNICEF showcased ABYSMAL ethics.

---

That's your problem, you see pointing out flaws as a "hatchet job." As someone who knos about failed attempts at hatchet jobs, you have to be able to know the difference criticism and hatchet jobs.

Quote:

---

You could've said, "You know, I researched UNICEF after reading that you donated to them and actually almost everything I've ever read or heard about regarding UNICEF has been incredibly positive. But I also saw this 9 year old article from New Republic and it had me a little concerned. Again, I'm sorry if I gave off the impression that this donation wouldn't be doing what it could or should be doing. Like I said at first, UNICEF IS a very good choice - I just wanted to share something I'd found. It was reckless to withhold my source and I realize that doing so may have been misleading. It was 9 years old and I intentionally held that out because it weakened my case, so I can see why you'd think that I was intentionally trying to prove that this was a wasted donation. I was just trying to be insightful and make a unique point and I guess I got carried away. I really didn't mean to take away from this."

---

You could have said "I disagree with your assertions about UNICEF and here are my statistics. I am mature enough to not see criticism of UNICEF as a personal attack on myself and I also see no value in dicussing how you got your information and why you are posting this article. I made the decision to donate to UNICEF because I saw it as an ideal choice; however, I am mindful that sentinent adults may have concern over what will happen particuarly because this organization is a branch of the United Nations and it has had problems with large administrative costs, graft and a tendency to shift servives. In light of these potential concerns I should provide links that are impartial which support my claim that UNICEF is the idea choice"

Instead, you though "I'm a genius and UNICEF is perfect since, after all I choose it. Mostly likely, everyone will agree with me, since I'm brilliant, and if a few disagree I'll wow them with glossy pics of kids and UNICEF provided facts from the UNICEF website. IF, by some small change they aren't won over, I'll belittle and try to flame away this heretic."


It looks like it hasn't worked, your posting of UNICEF's own website has been under whelming and all you've proven is the depth of your arrogance, dishonestly and incivility.

Quote:

---

it's all about saving face and trying, oh so desperately, to act like you were the bigger man for defaming a children's charity and offering only mild insults afterwards. Whatever gets you through.

---

Okay, Mrs. Lovejoy, we'll all think of the children. UNICEF has children in it's accronym! So criticizing acts that deprive children of actual aid is anti-children in methodman's world. Will my post's date read 2006 or 1984?

Quote:

---

Oh, so you've taken it upon yourself to "independently" audit our every charity from now on?

---

Someone should, lord knows the man who posted UNICEF's own website is not up to the task.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, you already blew your credibility in the aftermath of donation 1

---

More like, I did not dutifully place palms at your feet and and so you now presume to speak for all of NT and say that I have "no credibility." The fact that I'm not a lackey of yours gives me credibility.

Hell, this even be boon for you; if Rexanglorum, the NTer not scared of meth, writes something positive about the next choice of charity, it enhanced your credibility and will leave people saying "this must be a good charity since the oil and water pair of NT is accord on the qualifity of this charity"



Good luck on picking a good charity for October, hopefully even a better one than this month's.


Good luck man and peace( I mean that seriously, not sarcastically)

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[Methodical Management]

Quote:

---

Yes, your female equivalent is a very neutral source.

---

Oh, I forgot - anyone who doesn't take your side is biased. I guess there are no "neutral observers" here, then. Everyone must have an anti-Rex bias...

You can stop embarrassing yourself any time now.

Quote:

---

And so was your decision to answer every criticism of UNICEF with a link to its own website or stats from it's own website. That's a model of objectivity, an organization;s own website.

---

Burden of proof rests with you, tiger. This charity has established quite a reputation over the years and clearly that 9 year old article didn't bring it down. It's time to face facts, that lone scrap of evidence wasn't the silver bullet you thought it was.

Again, if you'd made that same statement - word for word - in print or on television, UNICEF would have sued you and won. You can't go around claiming "unicef's only going to give half that money to kids and they'll waste the rest" without source or qualification.

Quote:

---

That's your problem, you see pointing out flaws as a "hatchet job."

---

Pointing out flaws? You only went LOOKING for flaws - and that's your problem.

Out of thousands of Google search results, you ran with the one negative article you found - and we probably have users on this board younger than it is. How many positive articles did you have to bypass to find it? 50, 200, 1,000?

Quote:

---

As someone who knos about failed attempts at hatchet jobs, you have to be able to know the difference criticism and hatchet jobs.

---

As someone who just registered a lame attempt at both insult and condescension, you can officially consider yourself a hypocrite. So much for the sanctimony bit.

Quote:

---

I am mindful that sentinent adults may have concern over what will happen particuarly because this organization is a branch of the United Nations and it has had problems with large administrative costs, graft and a tendency to shift servives.

---

Is THAT what this is all about? A hawkish neocon has a problem with the United Nations (quelle surprise) and this has to spill over to UNICEF?

Quote:

---

It looks like it hasn't worked, your posting of UNICEF's own website has been under whelming and all you've proven is the depth of your arrogance, dishonestly and incivility.

---

What planet are you on, kid? Suicide bombers have more apologists than you. You're all by your lonesome on this one. Even if you wore a jock strap you couldn't find a supporter.

Quote:

---

Someone should, lord knows the man who posted UNICEF's own website is not up to the task.

---

UNICEF was an appropriate choice. Your late 90's article has done nothing to change that. UNICEF remains one of the most respect children's charities in the world. If you'd like to change my mind, you may want to unearth something from this century.

Again, playing auditor only PROVES my point that this was all done out of petty spite rather than concern. How pathetic would it be to second guess and undermine every charity we choose? I suppose we'll find out.

Quote:

---

Hell, this even be boon for you; if Rexanglorum, the NTer not scared of meth, writes something positive about the next choice of charity, it enhanced your credibility

---

Yes, Rex, that's exactly what will happen. As you know, my reputation doesn't hinge on my words or my actions, like this donation initiative or the 7 years I spent helping to build and manage this site since its inception, but on the testimony of Rexanglorum.

My mistake was caring about what you said to begin with. No one else seems to. The next several charities have already been chosen. You have zero input and zero influence, but feel free to wave your arms, holler at the top of your lungs, and remonstrate as if someone gives a damn all the same.

Maybe you'll get lucky and we'll pick one that you either like or, more accurately, one that you'll be forced to accept merely because Uncle Google won't have any blistering criticism for you to lip sync.

I get the feeling severing your Internet connection would render you speechless faster than severing your vocal cords. I hope you get great Wi-Fi coverage in your area.