Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 25 Dec 2004 16:26:24 -0800
From:      "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>
To:        <jaymo@cromagnon.cullmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   RE: The FreeBSD Foundation
Message-ID:  <LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNKENBEPAA.tedm@toybox.placo.com>
In-Reply-To: <200412240202.35504.jaymo@cromagnon.cullmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jay Moore [mailto:jaymo@cromagnon.cullmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 24, 2004 12:03 AM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: The FreeBSD Foundation
>
>
> On Friday 24 December 2004 01:07 am, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> > > >   Now, as for the Foundation's status as a charity:
> > > >
> > > > I'll start with asking you a simple question:  Setting aside the
> > > > legal definitions, what in your mind IS a charity, exactly?
> > >
> > > Hey look - I don't need a lecture about charity, and I'm not
> > > disputing that
> > > the foundation is "legally" classified as a charity.
> >
> > I never said that you were disputing the legal definition.  But
> > clearly you are disputing the idea that it is a charity.
>
> Yes, I am disputing that. It is not a charity except in the tax avoidance
> sense of the word.

Hmm  'tax avoidance' another loaded phrase.  Most conservatives would say
that the government doesen't have the moral right to tax contributions
to non-profits, so it's impossible to 'avoid' a tax that shouldn't
exist in the first place.  "tax avoidance" carries obvious criminal
implications.

 You are attempting to twist the words and
> their meaning to
> support your agenda.

Don't accuse me of what you are doing.  I said that you could make
a case against The FreeBSD Foundation if you wished to do so on a
logical basis and I would respect that.  You have chosen not to do
that.  Instead you are attempting to make an emotional case against
The FreeBSD Foundation based on the alleged misuse of the word
'charity', a misuse that doesen't exist as I showed you.

Go ahead and make a reasoned argument against The FreeBSD Foundation,
the audience here is waiting for it.  By playing the semantics game you
aren't making any kind of case against anything.

> Under your selective interpretation of the
> definition,
> one could claim virtually anything as "a gift for public benevolent
> purposes". It's bullshit, Ted, and you may deny it here in this
> forum, but
> you know it is.
>

Naturally someone could misuse my selective interpretation of
the word charity to claim anything.  That isn't relevant to
whether or not The FreeBSD Foundation is a charity.  You seem to
think it isn't and the only argument you have put forth is that
a charity is only supposed to help the needy - but the term needy
applies to what the Foundation happens to be doing with FreeBSD.

> >
> > Well, that is why I made the Robin Hood remark.  I will point out
> > that the FreeBSD Foundation in fact uses the actual term
> "public charity"
> > on their website.  And certainly the
> > Foundation doesen't attempt to pass itself off as using the money
> > to help the poor.  I am aware that many people don't view a
> > charity as anything more than a needy-person-helping apparatus.
> > However I urge you to examine your view of the idea of 'need'  There
> > are many people out there also who feel that much of the 'need'
> > served by charities isn't really need it is choice.  Many people
> > are incensed that some charities feed alcoholic bums that spend
> > their nights sleeping in the streets.  Many would weigh the 'need'
> > of FreeBSD to have a good Java implementation against the 'need'
> > of an alcoholic to continue to be fed day after day without quitting
> > drinking, and feel that the FreeBSD need was greater.
>
> alcoholic bums?!  Is this another example of your interpretation
> of charity?
> Are you really asking anyone to accept you as an authority on
> what charity
> means when you refer to alcoholics as bums?

There are alcoholics and there are alcoholic bums, they
are different types of alcoholics.  That is why I used the term
'alcoholic bums' instead of just using the term 'alcoholics'

Many charities help alcoholics who want to stop being alcoholics
and only a Scrooge would take issue with this, IMHO.  But some
help alcoholics who don't want to get better.  These alcoholics are
bums.  Sorry you don't like the term - do you have a better one for
alcoholics that refuse treatment?  I don't.

And in any case why are you focusing on this in the first place and
ignoring the definition of needy, which clearly is what that
paragraph is about.

>
> In case you forgot to read the _entire_ definition of charity,
> Ted, try # 4:
> "4 : lenient judgment of others". Frankly, I find your arrogance annoying.
>

Sorry to hear that.  I have compassion for street people who want
to stop being street people.  I have none for any person who
feels the world owes them a living and take handout after handout
without ever even trying to better themselves.  I submit that
people who think this is arrogant are merely enabling those
second type of street people, and actually, are doing more
to harm those people in the long run.

> I'll say it again: I support FreeBSD through CD purchases, and
> would consider
> an outright cash donation. I think the project is a "good thing",
> and I also
> think it serves the public good. But it's not a charity,

No argument there the Project never has said it is a charity nor
have I.

> and
> neither is the
> Foundation that supports the project.

Then if you believe this make a cogent argument that it is NOT a
charity because everything we have said so far does not do this.

I showed you the dictionary definition of the word charity and
you refuse to believe it.  As I said, then argue with the people
who write dictionaries.

> I don't think you're a good
> spokesman
> for the project or the Foundation, and I wish you'd drop this thread now.
>

Apparently a bad spokesman for the Foundation is someone who disagrees
with you and a good spokesman is someone who agrees with you.  At least,
that so far seems to be your main objection to me speaking on the
Foundation's behalf.

I am saddened that you seem to have so little tolerance for viewpoints based
on logic and reason.  Unfortunately, intolerance of logic seems to be
fashionable in the US political scene today.  It is a shame that the
citizens of a country that over 200 years ago produced the Bill of Rights to
the US Constitution seem to be so uneducated as to seek out illogic
and unreason today.

And no, I will never drop a fight against bigotry.  Espically now, reread
The Christmas Carol, and listen for once to what the Ghost of Christmas
Present had to say about ignorance.

Ted



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?LOBBIFDAGNMAMLGJJCKNKENBEPAA.tedm>