Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 8:50 am

The fact is the Red Cross is a messenger in this case.

It's almost like the Postal Service taking bills that I've paid to electric company, cable company etc and opening them and taking the money I've enclosed to pay for costs that they couldn't otherwise pay.

How would you feel about that?

- Neil Harrison

 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 8:55 am

It's almost like the Postal Service taking bills that I've paid to electric company, cable company etc and opening them and taking the money I've enclosed to pay for costs that they couldn't otherwise pay.

Neil, the cost of delivery of these bills of yours are paid for by the cost of the stamp which you put on the bills. Therefore, the USPS doesn't need to open your mail. However, if you didn't need to pay for a stamp, they would no doubt take a proportion of all mail sent.

Because the Red Cross don't get paid money for delivering the money received, and they aren't a government department, where do you think they should get the money which is required to distribute $500 million. You think it doesn't cost anything to do this?!?!??!
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:05 am

You are missing the point. Me and Neil have conceded the fact that administrative costs need to be addressed. In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:32 am

So if you are now saying admininstrative costs can now come out of the 11/9 fund, then what exactly are you against now?
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:41 am

Am I typing Chinese? I am against the 9-11 funds being used for things like upgrading the telephone systems, and diverting that money to other areas in the RC. People did not donate to upgrade telehpones. They donated to help the 9-11 victoms.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:44 am

In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.

I'm sorry KROC, but until you find me a contract stating that, this entire thread remains a mute point. You can tell them what they *should* do until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have any right to tell them what they *will* do. Just think of all the homosexually-tolerant people who blindly gave to the BSA? Did their contributions change anything? Should private organizations conform to the prerogatives of their patrons? Doesn't seem like Capitalism to me....


Hey Hotty, glad to see you! We don't get to talk much, but I still dream about you!  Big thumbs up
Dear moderators: No.
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:46 am

No KROC......you aren't typing Chinese. I believe the language you are typing is called Utter Bullshit.  Insane

You said it was ok that administrative costs can be covered by some of the $1.1 billion which was donated. The Red Cross said they are not spending $220 million (like O'Reilly said they were). They have so far spend approx $5 million out of a total of $1.1 billion to help the organisation better deal with the increased activity which the organisation is now experiencing. Remember, $1.1 billion is probably more than what the Red Cross receives in a year, and you expect them to manage that money out of their own pocket, when it is well known they are a NON-PROFIT organisation.

Take your money elsewhere Kroc....I don't think you give money and then start bitching about the way it is used, when if you had half a brain, you would realise a small part is used to cover administrative costs.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 10:31 am

How I have longed for a fight WN...

And for the record, I gave my money through Howard Stern, and he gave the loot to Rudy, where ALL the money goes to the 9-11 victoms.
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 10:34 am

I find it curious that no one was complaining about the Red Cross' administrative budget when they were busting their collective tails in the aftermath of September 11.

An organization that has done more to aid victims and rescue workers in this disaster than any other organization, and all you lot can do is whine about the fact they are buying a phone system with some extra cash.

You may call it oversight. I call it pathetic.

Charles, SJ
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 10:56 am

I never took anything away from the Red Cross. I never said they didn't do any good. All I am saying is that it is wrong, IN MY OWN DAMNED OPINION that the RC is using money they raised for the 9-11 tragedy for other aspects now.
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:06 am

KROC

They aren't spending it for other aspects.

They are spending a very small proportion (0.3% of the total) on upgrading their administrative systems that deal with the increased burden on the organisation as a direct result of an extra $1.1billion they are now responsible for.

Wouldn't you rather that they spend this small amount of money on doing this, than them not doing it, and not being able to deal with extra enquiries (via phone and website), and also being able to keep track of where the money is going.

At least the Red Cross is being open about what they are doing.

So they aren't spending on "other aspects". They are spending a small amount (again...0.3% of the total amount) on direct expenses as a result of $1.1 billion.

I really can't understand how any can think this is wrong.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:11 am

The article I read stated this. The Red Cross had received more money that they expected for the 9-11 fund. Because of this, they were going to be using the a portion of the donated money in other areas of the Red Cross, including upgrading there telecommunications system. How is this wrong you ask? Because the Red Cross states that they tink the people will understand about using the 9-11 money elsewhere. I think it is wrong, because people that donated money to the 9-11 fund wanted there money to go to the victoms and such from that horrible event. They didn't donate the money (which totalled 557 million by the way, not the 1.1 billion you are tossing around) for whatever the RC might do with this money.
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:17 am

The article you read was wrong! Did you not read the Red Cross website release? www.redcross.org

And it is 1.1 billion $. I always talk in terms of AU$...not US$. (AU$1 = US$0.50)

And if the article you read was right (which is in't), and the Red Cross states something otherwise, don't you think they will be held accountable for providing false information? I don't think they are that stupid.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:22 am

How do you know the article I read was wrong?!?!?! It was on the news and in the paper. I think you and your information are wrong. Now where are we? Still nowhere.
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 11:29 am

Ahhh....ok....I will have to concede defeat to you KROC. Seeing as you saw it on the news and in the papers. I mean they are NEVER wrong are they?  Yeah sure

KROC, I could get an article printed in the paper on how I think they you are a satan-worshipping, pygmy transvestite. If it get's printed in a paper (and judging by the quality of most of America's press....I have no doubts it would), it must be true right?

The press is not accountable for anything they say or do. The Red Cross on the other hand is accountable to the people they help, the people who help them, to the government, and to society as a whole.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 12:06 pm

I still anxiously await your response to my rock-hard argument.
Dear moderators: No.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 12:16 pm

WN, its past my bed time, so I will continue this at work tomorrow. It will be the most productive part of my day. Quickly though, I guess it just goes to show you that you should know whats going on before you donate your hard earned money.

As for my articles and on the news about the red cross, I am not one to believe the Mass Media, because it is controled by a few special intrest groups, that only put out what they want us to see, but the Red Cross statement was ISSUED by the red Cross themselves. So let me guess, you are saying the Red Cross lied just for the hell of it?  Insane
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 12:17 pm

We're Nuts

Is your argument rockhard.....or are you?  Wink/being sarcastic
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 12:24 pm

Wouldn't you like to know.  Big grin
Dear moderators: No.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 1:12 pm

>>Neil, the cost of delivery of these bills of yours are
>>paid for by the cost of the stamp which you put on
>>the bills.

The USPS is in the hole a couple billion. They were even thinking about cutting Saturday delivery and closing some post offices.

>>Therefore, the USPS doesn't need to open your mail.
>>However, if you didn't need to pay for a stamp, they
>>would no doubt take a proportion of all mail sent.

So... you're saying it would be okay for the post office to help themselves to the checks and monies I've sent to various agencies, none of which include the post office?! I can't believe I'm hearing this.

We've established the fact they need the money, so according to you it's okay that they should help themselves to my money to pay for their deficits!

Woah do you have your head up your arse.

>>They have so far spend approx $5 million out of a
>>total of $1.1 billion to help the organisation better
>>deal with the increased activity which the
>>organisation is now experiencing.

Let me highlight something you said: "...They have so far spend approx $5 million..." You're implying that this figure could go up.

I don't understand how this could spiral to the current cost and possibly higher in an agency where the manpower is virtually free and could get the resources donated (if they should so choose).

- Neil Harrison
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 1:34 pm

Well if no one answers my argument, I'll declare it a victory!
Dear moderators: No.
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 1:35 pm

Pilot1113

You have a knack for creating stupid stories out of nothing!!! And you think I have my head up my arse???? GTFOH!!

Let's think of it this way shall we?

I don't know if it is the same in America as it is in Australia, but we can pay bills at Australia Post, for example, telephone, gas, electricity, etc, etc.. When we pay those bills, Australia Post will pocket a small part of that money to pay for the service which they provide to the public and the utilities. It is no different to what the Red Cross is doing and has always done. In fact, I believe that the Red Cross would probably need to spend a lot more to bring their financial systems, etc up to standard to deal with the volume of money which they have received thus far.

The reasons the USPS is in the red, is that they have not been able to compete with email and other services (such as FedEx, UPS). In the case of email, it is practically free to send, and is instanteous communication. FedEx and UPS and other package carriers have been able to offer better pricing to suit their customers. If USPS needs to cut back on services then so be it.

And yes, their figure could very well go up. If they receive another US$500 billion, it is only natural that their costs will go up again.

At least it seems that Red Cross is being quite conservative with their costs. Organisations such as World Vision use up to 40c in the $ to cover their administrative costs.

Again....what is your problem?

And We're Nuts....of course I wanna know  Big grin
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:09 pm

>>When we pay those bills, Australia Post will pocket a
>>small part of that money to pay for the service
>>which they provide to the public and the utilities

Your post office will open up letters and pocket a certain amount of money that you never intended go to them in the first place? That's my arguement and which is basically what I'm saying; the Red Cross is acting as a messenger and 'stealing' at the same time.

You pay the post office up front for their services, am I correct?

If they needed money for infastructure, they should have been up front about it and told people. It's not that hard to go on some of these news shows and say, "we're having a little problem with infastructure, we need some money for that."



- Neil Harrison
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

We're Nuts

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:10 pm

What was your argument? I may have missed it as this thread is going on 72 replies.

Thanks!

- Neil Harrison
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:27 pm

Again...use an argument which has basis in reality!!!!

If I go in to an Australia Post office and pay my bills over the counter, Australia Post will use some of that money to pay their costs.

I am not getting into stupid analogies!!

The Red Cross is up front as are all NPOs. It is something they are required to do by law. Just because they are non-profit, doesn't mean they are not accountable to the relevant authorities.

There is nothing more to add in this discussion, unless you want to use more silly analogies
 
HSV
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 5:07 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:40 pm

The amount of money that Australia post charges to pay for their costs is determined BEFORE the bill is paid. Australia Post can't receive the money then tell, for example, Telstra, that they got too much money so Australia Post will keep some of the money for their own use.

So when people donated to the Red Cross they believed that they were donating to the victims of September 11 - i.e. an agreement was reached between the Red Cross and donors that the money be given to the 9/11 victims. Also included in the agreement was the fact that the Red Cross could use part of it to cover minor administrative costs that were incurred in the process of distributing the money. However, they did not agree to help upgrade the Red Cross' telephone system.

Using your analogy, its like you going to Australia Post to pay your Telstra phone bill but instead of passing the money onto Telstra, Australia Post uses it to open a new postal outlet.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:44 pm

>>If I go in to an Australia Post office and pay my bills
>>over the counter, Australia Post will use some of
>>that money to pay their costs.

You pay an additional fee for their services. They don't take from the money you've paid to the utilities.

The Red Cross is acting as a messenger, much as the post office does on a daily basis. They were supposed to collect the money and give it to the families period. They weren't supposed to dip into this fund to defray the costs of other programs. If they needed more money, they should have asked for it.

>>Just because they are non-profit, doesn't mean they
>>are not accountable to the relevant authorities.

Sure seems that way. Very little of the money that was donated is going to the families. Instead, the families are going through hell just get lipservice from the Red Cross.

Eliot Spitzer, NYC Attorney General, is now getting involved. He's doing something that should have been all along.. he's setting up a database that tracks where the money is going and which familes need it.

Here's a transcript of tonight's NBC Nightly News w/ Tom Brokaw. You say you don't like Bill O'Reilly, so here's another news agency that's picked up on the story.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/651276.asp?0dm=C21IV

Have a good night!

- Neil Harrison
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:45 pm

>>Using your analogy, its like you going to Australia
>>Post to pay your Telstra phone bill but instead of
>>passing the money onto Telstra, Australia Post uses
>>it to open a new postal outlet.

Thanks HSV... that's exactly what I was trying to say!  Big thumbs up  Big thumbs up

- Neil Harrison
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:48 pm

Neil: https://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/125799/.

Scotty, why don't you just come up here and find out!
Dear moderators: No.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

We're Nuts

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:52 pm

We're Nuts...

That's a link to the same thread we're on! I wanted you to restate your argument because I can't find it... ARRG!

Oh well... I guess I'll slog through the 70 some-odd replies and look for it!

Basically, I'm lazy!  Smile

- Neil Harrison
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: We're Nuts

Fri Nov 02, 2001 2:55 pm

Grrrrrr.

"In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.

I'm sorry KROC, but until you find me a contract stating that, this entire thread remains a mute point. You can tell them what they *should* do until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have any right to tell them what they *will* do. Just think of all the homosexually-tolerant people who blindly gave to the BSA? Did their contributions change anything? Should private organizations conform to the prerogatives of their patrons? Doesn't seem like Capitalism to me.... "

"In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.

I'm sorry KROC, but until you find me a contract stating that, this entire thread remains a mute point. You can tell them what they *should* do until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have any right to tell them what they *will* do. Just think of all the homosexually-tolerant people who blindly gave to the BSA? Did their contributions change anything? Should private organizations conform to the prerogatives of their patrons? Doesn't seem like Capitalism to me.... "

"In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.

I'm sorry KROC, but until you find me a contract stating that, this entire thread remains a mute point. You can tell them what they *should* do until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have any right to tell them what they *will* do. Just think of all the homosexually-tolerant people who blindly gave to the BSA? Did their contributions change anything? Should private organizations conform to the prerogatives of their patrons? Doesn't seem like Capitalism to me.... "

"In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.

I'm sorry KROC, but until you find me a contract stating that, this entire thread remains a mute point. You can tell them what they *should* do until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have any right to tell them what they *will* do. Just think of all the homosexually-tolerant people who blindly gave to the BSA? Did their contributions change anything? Should private organizations conform to the prerogatives of their patrons? Doesn't seem like Capitalism to me.... "

"In this case, a separate fund was created for the 9/11 fund. Administrative costs can come out of that, but nothing else.

I'm sorry KROC, but until you find me a contract stating that, this entire thread remains a mute point. You can tell them what they *should* do until you're blue in the face, but you still won't have any right to tell them what they *will* do. Just think of all the homosexually-tolerant people who blindly gave to the BSA? Did their contributions change anything? Should private organizations conform to the prerogatives of their patrons? Doesn't seem like Capitalism to me.... "
Dear moderators: No.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:03 pm

Okay... thanks!

I believe the contract was implied or was verbal. When the Red Cross advertised for their 9/11 fund, it was implied that the money would be collected and then duly doled out to the needy families.

Both parties believed there would have to be a minute expense incurred to gather the information and then dish out the money. I don't think anyone would believe that the costs would spiral past $5 million in a charity whose workers aren't paid and where resources are donated for the most part.

Also, when the money was diverted to other programs that was a violation of the implied contract. None of the parties knew, or even consented to, the monies raised going to purposes other than the 9/11 fund to help the families. This is called fraud. They're advertising one thing, but not doing what they're adversting for... I think.

I hope I've made my point.

- Neil Harrison
 
Guest

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:05 pm

HSV

True, but as Australia Post's costs increase to such an extent where it is necessary for them to increase their "cut", they will do this. Fact of economics.

Pilot1113

Have you even looked at the Red Cross website. They have it there is black and white where the money is going.

Any moves by any politican is merely a political move.

BTW...if my bill is for $150.00 I give Australia Post $150.00, and they take their cut out of that $150.00.

Also, I looked at that link, until a pop-up window appeared, and as such closed the site down and have added msnbc.com to the list of sites which I don't visit
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:07 pm

Miss Cleo implies that she can tell me my future, but thank God for that "Entertainment use only" message!

Implication means nothing. I'm looking for something that will stand up in court.
Dear moderators: No.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:15 pm

>>Implication means nothing. I'm looking for something
>>that will stand up in court.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I plan on becoming one (I hate them  Smile). I have only a basic and rudimentary knowledge of law. From what I do know, I think the RC is running amok of some law.

What they're doing can't be right because no one donated the money to them. They donated the money to the families. Some agency was nice enough to act a central collection place and give the money to who it belongs to.

The reason I can't find it on their website is because the RC stopped collecting donations for that fund. I believe if they were still collecting the money there would be some kind of "I Agree" concent form before submitting payment. From there we could ascertain exactly what they RC planned to do with the money.

- Neil Harrison
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:22 pm

Here's a link to a PDF file from the United Way (as they're still collecting):

http://national.unitedway.org/files/pdf/news/30_day_report.pdf

On page 2, in the paragraph just under the 3rd bullet there's a single sentence that says, "One hundred percent of the funds raised will go to aid the victims, the families, and the needs of the community." If you read the paragraph it's all about their "September 11th Fund."

I expect the Red Cross had the same type of thing.

- Neil Harrison
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:28 pm

I doubt it. Not if that isn't what they are doing! The Red Cross would not willingly break the law.
Dear moderators: No.
 
Pilot1113
Posts: 2276
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 1999 1:42 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:29 pm

>>The Red Cross would not willingly break the law.

No one seems willing to look into it.

- Neil Harrison
 
HSV
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 5:07 pm

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 3:41 pm

"True, but as Australia Post's costs increase to such an extent where it is necessary for them to increase their "cut", they will do this. Fact of economics. "

They may increase their cut but that has to be negotiated. They can't just suddenly decide to charge more AFTER they have received the money!

Its like if you went to buy a car and you pay for all the options but when the car gets delivered, they say that their costs increased so your car no longer has air-conditioning. You would be pretty pissed off because you had agreed to buy the car on the condition that it would come with all the options that you had requested.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Fri Nov 02, 2001 9:00 pm

We're Nuts. You keep demanding proof from me or whatever. I am sorry I did not tape the newscast, or save the newspaper article. On the other hand, I don't see you flashing your proof either. You are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Speaking of arguing just for the sake of arguing. Aviatsiya, you fit this to a tee. I don't understand your position in this arguement. I have a problem with the American Red Cross, and what they are doing with US Dollar donations. You keep countering me with figures in Australian dollars, and stuff that invilves Australia. I have no grievence with Australia. You keep asking where my point is. Hellen Keller would have understood my point by now, and that is this. I will say it one more time for those of you in the cheap seats. I have a problem with the Red Cross using funds donated to the 9-11 fund, for other Red Cross efforts. Included in this, is upgrading there telecommunications system. I UNDERSTAND, and CONCEDE that a portion of the 557 million that was donated, will go to administrative costs in handling and dealing with all this money. The people that donated money to the 9-11 fund donated because that was where they wanted there donated money to go. The Red Cross, and many say this was a mistake, but the red Cross created a seperate fund, seperate from its normal donation lines, to deal with the 9-11 tragedy. It is understandable that administrative costs will have to be deducted from the 9-11 fund. BUT, when the Red Cross decided that they have received too much money for the 9-11 fund, and they decide to use the money elsewhere, for things other than administrative costs to keep the fund working, that is wrong. In a press release, which you are telling me is a lie, the Red Cross themselves said they were doing this, AND said they know the American people will understand. The Red Cross is assuming. Lastly, I am obviously not the only one who is upset by this. I have seen a few links posted about this verfy topic, so obviously it is a matter that is garnering attention. Now if you want to dispute this, thats your perogitive. Simply this is a matter of opinion, and neither one of us is right or wrong, yet you seem to think you and your opinions are the be all end all. Come with something relevant to this, not something about Australia, and Australian dollars.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 12:39 am

I just want something solid, KROC. So far you have only given me emotion.
Dear moderators: No.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 1:01 am

The only thing solid you have shown me We're Nuts, is that you are enticing Avia with your hard...well, you know. Again, I am sorry that I did not tape the news, ot clip the newspaper article, and if I did, how am I gonna show you? Click on some of the links to the story that have been posted by Neil, and there is my "hard" proof.
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 4:24 am

KROC, I don't disbelieve your sources. I just don't think you have an argument. Unless the Red Cross SAID that all of the money was going to the victims, then they can do whatever the hell they want with it! And the best part is that you can't do a damn thing about it!

And if you want, I can try to entice you, too. I don't want anyone to be left out. Big grin
Dear moderators: No.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 4:33 am

WN, sad thing is, thats the best offer I have had in months! Anyway, as for why I feel all he money should go to the 9-11 victoms is this. The 9-11 fund was sep up as a seperate fund from the rest of the red cross. It was titled the Sept. 11th relief fund, because that was what it was for. The 9-11 dissaster. Many people were opposed to the Red Cross creating a seperate fund, only because they forsaw these problems occuring. The fund was seperate, the money was raised in the name of the 9-11 victoms, thats why I believe all the money should go to them, or in there names.......You can't tell me my point is not without some validation.....
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 8:04 am

KROC, if you are asking my opinion, then yes, I believe the money should had been handed out in total. But you have to read the FINE PRINT! Unless the Red Cross SAID that it would be given out in total, they have the right to do with it as they please!
Dear moderators: No.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 8:06 am

If this is the case. They misled every person who donated there money. In my opinion, I feel this is not the case, because the fund was set up in a seperate entity from the Red Cross, with a name that that would lead everyone to believe it was for the 9-11 victoms, and only that cause.....
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 8:10 am

I get pop-up ads every day telling me I have just won a million dollars. So where is it already!?
Dear moderators: No.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 8:11 am

What the hell does that have to do with anything?
 
We're Nuts
Posts: 4723
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2000 6:12 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 8:14 am

Read the fine print.
Dear moderators: No.
 
KROC
Topic Author
Posts: 18919
Joined: Mon May 08, 2000 11:19 am

RE: Red Cross Rant

Sat Nov 03, 2001 8:15 am

There is no million dollars. Its just so they can flood your inbox with bullshit spam mail. Again, what does this have to do with Red Cross DONATIONS to a SPECIFIC fund set up for a SPECIFIC purpose?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 910A, Baidu [Spider], L410Turbolet and 89 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos