Amnesty International

[Rod Paradise]

I'm not sure I like the tone of that

I'm not sure I like the tone of that

??

The phrase "I'm not sure I like the tone of that" is aggressive, argumentative, authoritarian and just a nasty thing to say IMHO to what was a perfectly reasonable post by Tote

Explained in the post above. I explained why & it seems I read it in a tone that wasn't meant. These things happen when everything is typed out & you can't hear the actual tone it is said in. At least I had an explanation of why after saying it.

As for nasty? come on.

[Wardonkey]

Giving to charity is a personal decision. People give money or time for a variety of reasons. No-one should feel pressured into giving anything or judged by how much they give or who they give it to.

I think it is right that poker pros should give more than the average taxpayer. This is because we don't pay income tax or perform a useful role in society. Giving money makes us feel as if we contributing something. We get to choose where are money goes and how much to pay, it is a privilege that the ordinary taxpayer does not have and should be enjoyed.

[totalise]

You came across as 'if you care - you'll give' - if that's not what you meant fair enough - it was the impression I got.

If I did come across like that, I dont see what is wrong with it as a fundamental ideal anyways, because I think you have to (or should) care about a charity, or what it represents, to give to it. It doesn't mean that if you don't give, you don't care. Venn diagrams should clear it up pretty quickly..

The main point with regards to how much they donate though is in reaction to your initial post, where you said "i think you will find" (which is a pretty demeaning comment), you made it seem like it mattered to me and you found it somewhat offensive. I dont care who gives what. It is irrelevant to me.

Anyways I have limited to zero interest in side-tracking this thread any further so we can take it to PM or just leave it as it is.

regards

[bolt pp]

The situation i was faced with yesterday was one whereby i could find no reason NOT to donate, though not enthusiastically compelled to do so.

With no literal bearing on the situation i was however reminded of the Sherlock Holmes quote: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

It got me thinking; shouldn't we start off by saying yes and look for a reason to say no when charitys concerned?

[Rod Paradise]

You came across as 'if you care - you'll give' - if that's not what you meant fair enough - it was the impression I got.

If I did come across like that, I dont see what is wrong with it as a fundamental ideal anyways, because I think you have to (or should) care about a charity, or what it represents, to give to it. It doesn't mean that if you don't give, you don't care. Venn diagrams should clear it up pretty quickly..

The main point with regards to how much they donate though is in reaction to your initial post, where you said "i think you will find" (which is a pretty demeaning comment), you made it seem like it mattered to me and you found it somewhat offensive. I dont care who gives what. It is irrelevant to me.

Anyways I have limited to zero interest in side-tracking this thread any further so we can take it to PM or just leave it as it is.

regards

Agreed - think we both read eachother wrong. My appologies.

Can I also appologise for forgetting I had Moderator below my name, I replied as a blondeite, not a mod, forgetting I might come across as some kind of lairy cop being bolshie.

I think I'll need to precede my more argumentative posts as "Rod, the usual mouthy scrote" or something .

[portfolio]

poker4charity.org

thats my personal choice to donate 1% of my poker winnings too.