The Loose Change Forum values expert opinions so much....

[chippy]

....that they apparently ban anyone who actually claims to be an expert.

Here's the deal. A guy recently came to the Loose Change Forum claiming to be a pilot, and considering that he knew tons about airplanes and posted pictures taken by himself while flying, I found no reason not to believe him. One of the administrators immediately started questioning him and later posted a disclaimer on one of the pilot's main threads that this guy MAY NOT ACTUALLY BE A PILOT, even though he had clearly demonstrated thorough knowledge of airplanes and piloting.

Now, I had earlier brought up the fact that I am a senior at the University of Minnesota majoring in Mechanical Engineering, and I offered my input wherever it was needed. When I brought it up, nobody questioned my credentials. So, seeing this thread where a guy claimed to be a pilot and was immediately questioned about his credentials, I brought up the fact that when I said I knew a lot about mechanical engineering, nobody questioned me about it.

The result? I've been banned from the Loose Change Forum. I have also found that all of the pilot's threads have been deleted, and the pilot may also have been banned.

So what does that leave the Loose Change Forum with? 15 year olds who debunk thorough analyses with a single sentence that sort of calls a small portion of the analysis into question? Yes Pdoherty, I'm talking to you.

[gumboot]

....that they apparently ban anyone who actually claims to be an expert.


Welcome to the forums Chippy. Although you may find the discussion sometimes rather vigorous here, as long as you follow the membership guidelines you will not be banned.

-Gumboot

[Foolmewunz]

Welcome, Chippy.
We get many of our best anti-CT folks through the purges at LC. (We also got John DoeX and his various socks, and PDoherty about nine different times, but ah, well...., they at least inspire more and more people to look harder and dig deeper.)

It seems from the holiday threads that they've decided to take off the neutrality mask and go back to banning anyone who doesn't agree with Dylan.

[W6102LA]

Did they give you a chance to prove who you were ?

ETA: I know the thread you are referring to about the pilot, the last i heard was they referred the matter of identity to Avery and the next day the thread was gone altogether

[uk_dave]

Welcome chippy

I've seen some of your posts over at woowooland and admire your tenacity and perseverence in dealing with the kids.

[maccy]

Welcome Chippy,

From a thread worrying about the low numbers on the LC Forum:

Ahem.

I am concerned, and we're doing our best to get the numbers back.

People with agendas were compromising the old forum, and it needed a serious re-structuring. Forums were all over the place, people were being banned for completely innocent posts, it was out of control. Period.

The mods got pissed at me and that's their right, just like it's their right to leave, or stay. We also decided with the new forum to give "skeptics" a chance, and, well, they're just doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Russell personally went into JREF to reason with them, and even he got frustrated.

We're doing our best here.


http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1136&view=findpost&p=9536592

Interesting...

[Falcon Apoda]

....So, seeing this thread where a guy claimed to be a pilot and was immediately questioned about his credentials, I brought up the fact that when I said I knew a lot about mechanical engineering, nobody questioned me about it.

The result? I've been banned from the Loose Change Forum. I have also found that all of the pilot's threads have been deleted, and the pilot may also have been banned.

I know the thread of which you speak. My input therein led to my banishment as well (under the handle, "gelignite"). On subsequent thread which inquired as to the whereabouts of the deleted pilot's thread, I pointed out to IVXX that he had previously said they would "have to" suspend the guy's account because they were concerned about the spread of "misinformation" (at the time, he was insisting that the pilot's account was not under suspension, which, of course, was in contradiction to his earlier declaration).

Anyway, and with regard to "misinformation", I once again mentioned Korey Rowe's comments to the effect that LC was intentionally laced with factual errors.

Instant banning from the forum. And the entire thread was deleted.


Yup. It's the old LC forum we've come to know and love. I've noticed that a handful of "skeptics" have been given the boot in recent days... for no apparent reason whatsoever. And I'm beginning to think that the purpose for the creation of their "Skeptics" forum was to ferret them out for eventual removal.

[Oliver]

The result? I've been banned from the Loose Change Forum. I have also found that all of the pilot's threads have been deleted, and the pilot may also have been banned.

So what does that leave the Loose Change Forum with? 15 year olds who debunk thorough analyses with a single sentence that sort of calls a small portion of the analysis into question? Yes Pdoherty, I'm talking to you.

Welcome on board, Chippy. :) Who were you over there if i
may ask? Dylan is a loser - this is what i think about all the
bannings of people who have other opinions.

They are doing the same things that they hate so much -
cutting freedoms. These guys should work for the Patriot Act 3,
killing everybody who disagrees... :rolleyes:

Maybe the pilot will show up in here after his banning. I keep
my eyes open for him...

[Obviousman]

The pilot wasn't Bill, was it?

[W6102LA]

The pilot wasn't Bill, was it?

It was something like AMGPilot IIRC, someone else might remember the exact username, it appears to be completly removed from LC forum

[LordoftheLeftHand]

I got banned for just posting some data about the melting point of metals. As real experts you didn't have a chance over there.

LLH

[jon]

From the same thread:

At another forum a "sceptic" is slurring you [Dylan] with the lie that you made Loose Change for the money and quotes the price of the dvd as proof that you are making personal profits. I know that you do not gain personally but would appreciate confirmation that you turned down large sums of money for LC and if you are able to reply I would like to post your reply to this person to see his response. Thanks

Blackcat

This might be interesting to push :D Presumably by not formally making Louder Than Words a not-for-profit organisation (I can't remember the 'proper' name for the things in the US) they avoid a lot of regulation of how they use their funds...I've still got memories of working for a UK non-profit and keeping the receipts when buying the office milk, to be sure that the books balanced...

If Dylan really isn't making money from LC, then surely he should sell his stuff through a non-for-profit entity, just to avoid any suspicion. After all, there's been a lot of crap sold, and I'd wonder where all that money's gone. I'm just asking questions...

[Foolmewunz]

From the same thread:



This might be interesting to push :D Presumably by not formally making Louder Than Words a not-for-profit organisation (I can't remember the 'proper' name for the things in the US) they avoid a lot of regulation of how they use their funds...I've still got memories of working for a UK non-profit and keeping the receipts when buying the office milk, to be sure that the books balanced...

If Dylan really isn't making money from LC, then surely he should sell his stuff through a non-for-profit entity, just to avoid any suspicion. After all, there's been a lot of crap sold, and I'd wonder where all that money's gone. I'm just asking questions...

You'll be pre-banned from LC for even raising that question here at JREF. If, as is suspected they spend as much time lurking here as we* do there, they've probably already taken down your name, rank, and serial number, Private!

*"We".... I no longer lurk, since they required joinng. I am usually on a company owned laptop, and I would never let that crowd of miscreants have any real info on me. In one of their next purges, one of the little monsters could decide to "go viral" (a new variation on "go postal").

:spjimlad: :spjimlad:

[defaultdotxbe]

From the same thread:



This might be interesting to push :D Presumably by not formally making Louder Than Words a not-for-profit organisation (I can't remember the 'proper' name for the things in the US) they avoid a lot of regulation of how they use their funds...I've still got memories of working for a UK non-profit and keeping the receipts when buying the office milk, to be sure that the books balanced...

If Dylan really isn't making money from LC, then surely he should sell his stuff through a non-for-profit entity, just to avoid any suspicion. After all, there's been a lot of crap sold, and I'd wonder where all that money's gone. I'm just asking questions...
im sure him and the gang paid for that 90 inch TV out of their own pockets, lol

[tsig]

Welcome on board, Chippy. :) Who were you over there if i
may ask? Dylan is a loser - this is what i think about all the
bannings of people who have other opinions.

They are doing the same things that they hate so much -
cutting freedoms. These guys should work for the Patriot Act 3,
killing everybody who disagrees... :rolleyes:

Maybe the pilot will show up in here after his banning. I keep
my eyes open for him...

Billzilla! he posted here for a while, but like most pilots I have known he had better things to do than post on a board, like FLY!

[StoneWT]

You'll be pre-banned from LC for even raising that question here at JREF. If, as is suspected they spend as much time lurking here as we* do there, they've probably already taken down your name, rank, and serial number, Private!


Yep, those kids are paranoid. They do spend a large amount of time in here. They realize they know very little beyond memorizing and quoting conspiracy videos. As it is largely an ego-building exercise for them, anyone with actual knowledge or research skills could destroy their fantasy "Hey, I'm a crusading expert" world.

Hell, I am effectively 'banned' from some conspiracy gatherings due to not towing the line on Loose Change and criticizing pseudo researchers. As the kids have endorsed LC and pseudo researchers like Jim "We never went to the moon" Fetzer, any valid attack on the video/researcher(s) is translated into an attack on the movement in general or them in particular. They've so wedded themselves to particular conspiracies and 'researchers' that any criticism, even a valid one, is perceived as a personal attack against them.

As for Dylan making money, compare their jobs before LC with their expenses after the video. Unless they lived like hermits saving every penny from their barely above minimum wage jobs, they are now living off of money from the video and donations related to the video. Figure in rent/mortgage, electricity, water, sewage, Internet, food, insurance, gas, various conspiracy-related trips, and the other costs of modern life. How much would all of that cost?

The goal has always been self-promotion. Instead of paying for the medical costs of survivors or college costs of surviving children, they give DVDs of LC to survivors. Huh?

[Anti-sophist]

By my count, then, over the last 2 days, they've banned 9 people who were critical of their movement.

The fascists are clearly back in charge at the Loose Change forum.

What is especially dishonest is that they have a "skeptic's forum" and are systematically banning all the skeptics. This way it looks like.. well.. they have no skeptics.

[jon]

Hell, I get lots of viruses e-mailed to me anyway - I think someone too a dislike to an organisation I worked for... I think my protection's up to scratch - though I'm not sure if it could handle truthers' viruses falling on it faster than the speed of gravity :D

Anyway, maccy, thanks for the link to that thread - it's great, a thread about falling numbers of forums users succeeds in driving away 1 more user (when he's threatened with a ban for asking why user numbers are falling).

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forums Chippy. Although you may find the discussion sometimes rather vigorous here, as long as you follow the membership guidelines you will not be banned.

Hey, isnt that my line...lol

Yes Chippy, welcome to the forum. The banning issue at LC Forum is an old problem that we had hoped had gone away when they added Russ Pickering to their Admin/Mod Fold. WE have deduced that Russ is either (a) away, or (b) has turned a new, nasty leaf, and has endorsed this new round of Fascist Censorship.

Not bad coming from a group of "truthers" who are supposedly fighting to stop america from becoming a police state...lol

TAM

[Horatius]

This might be interesting to push :D Presumably by not formally making Louder Than Words a not-for-profit organisation (I can't remember the 'proper' name for the things in the US) they avoid a lot of regulation of how they use their funds...I've still got memories of working for a UK non-profit and keeping the receipts when buying the office milk, to be sure that the books balanced...


But even then, he'd still be able to pay himself a salary, and thus still be making a living at it. Not-for-profit is for the whole organization, not the individuals in it. I know here in Canada, there's the occasional scandal about how much the heads of various charities get paid. In some cases, it compares favourably to the pay of a CEO at a reasonable sized-firm.

The difference would be, his records would have to be a matter of public record, if I'm not mistaken. Then everybody would see where it all goes.

[Horatius]

Anyway, maccy, thanks for the link to that thread - it's great, a thread about falling numbers of forums users succeeds in driving away 1 more user (when he's threatened with a ban for asking why user numbers are falling).

Just one more data point in our ongoing investigation into exactly how bad these guys ar at figuring things out. It's like they have no skill at self-reflection at all.

[uk_dave]

But but LC does value expert opinion.

Here's avery with a request for help:

I discovered this a while ago and never really followed up on it. Perhaps someone can make sense of it for me.

ftp://www.ntsb.gov/avdata/

From the Readme:
This FTP directory contains aviation data and documentation
from the new NTSB accident database system (ADMS2000), which
was implemented January 1, 2001.

Enter the database:
ftp://www.ntsb.gov/avdata/Access95

Download:
av1987.exe, av1994.exe, av2001.exe

Extract the Excel spreadsheet files within.

I've converted them into HTML and uploaded them for quick reference. They're located here:
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/1987_NTSB_EVENTS.htm
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/1994_NTSB_EVENTS.htm
http://www.loosechange911.com/download/2001_NTSB_EVENTS.htm

The things that jump out to me:
1) 3 out of the 4 9/11 planes have no time. The one that does is listed as Mountain Standard Time. It appears that the only time a plane has no accident time is when it happens in international borders. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2) Almost all the pertinent information is missing. Altitude, Longitude, Latitude, Origin...they have the passenger numbers, to their credit.
3) This information was added on March 7th, 2006.

This could be explained by the fact that the four planes were hijackings, therefore were handled completely by the FBI. In fact, the NTSB specifically clarifies:

"The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and this material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI. The Safety Board does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The Safety Board did not determine the probable cause and does not plan to issue a report or open a public docket. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Safety Board provided requested technical assistance to the FBI, and any material generated by the NTSB is under the control of the FBI."
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=9&year=2001

The last hijacking in the United States was on December 7th, 1987.
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accide...01213X32679.asp
Docket: DCA88MA008
ID: 20001213X32679
This accident was investigated by the FBI to the best of my knowledge. In the NTSB database, it has a full report.

An attempted hijacking on April 7th, 1994.
http://www.aircraftone.com/aircraft/accide...01206X01026.asp
Docket: ATL94LA077
ID: 20001206X01026
"THIS OCCURRENCE WAS THE RESULT OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. CONSULT FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION."

Ok, so we can rule out "Because it's a hijacking" and "Because the FBI was under control"

What's the next reason? "Because...9/11 was a terrible tragedy, and no one cared about entering the data"

I'm not denying that 9/11 was a terrible tragedy, FYI. Just thought I'd clear that up before Mark Roberts goes and makes a video about it.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=1131

Mark who?

[jon]

But even then, he'd still be able to pay himself a salary, and thus still be making a living at it. Not-for-profit is for the whole organization, not the individuals in it. I know here in Canada, there's the occasional scandal about how much the heads of various charities get paid. In some cases, it compares favourably to the pay of a CEO at a reasonable sized-firm.

The difference would be, his records would have to be a matter of public record, if I'm not mistaken. Then everybody would see where it all goes.

Yeah, I don't think I was quite clear - I know people working for not-for-profits can get paid. but I think this has to be a matter of public record in their accounts. Of course, as Avery doesn't make - or want to make - any money from 9/11, all he needs to do is set up a not-for profit, with published accounts, and allocate himself no salary and only minimal expenses. That could stop all us nasty sceptics from claiming he's making money from all this.

[Calcas]

Yeah, I don't think I was quite clear - I know people working for not-for-profits can get paid. but I think this has to be a matter of public record in their accounts. Of course, as Avery doesn't make - or want to make - any money from 9/11, all he needs to do is set up a not-for profit, with published accounts, and allocate himself no salary and only minimal expenses. That could stop all us nasty sceptics from claiming he's making money from all this.

Non-profit or, not-for-profit organizations in the US do in fact pay salaries, many of which are outrageous.

For example, for fy ending 6/30/03, the "Red Cross" top person, Marsha Evans, received a salary of $651,957.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/14/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=14&passYear=2004&passListType=Misc&datatype=Misc&uniqueId=CH0013

[jon]

Non-profit or, not-for-profit organizations in the US do in fact pay salaries, many of which are outrageous.

For example, for fy ending 6/30/03, the "Red Cross" top person, Marsha Evans, received a salary of $651,957.

http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/14/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=14&passYear=2004&passListType=Misc&datatype=Misc&uniqueId=CH0013

Wow, I knew the top staff could get paid fairly high salaries, but $600k :jaw-dropp

[StoneWT]

Well, how much would the person lose by working full-time for a charity? She might be making 600K, but could she make over one million in another job?

[chippy]

Welcome on board, Chippy. :) Who were you over there if i
may ask? Dylan is a loser - this is what i think about all the
bannings of people who have other opinions.

I was both Chippy and MinnesotaLover at the old forum. I was banned as MinnesotaLover, and I think it's because I pointed out how ridiculously stupid it is to use acronyms like MIHOP and LIHOP since nobody seems to know what they mean. Plus I hate acronyms like the plague.

[Oliver]

I was both Chippy and MinnesotaLover at the old forum. I was banned as MinnesotaLover, and I think it's because I pointed out how ridiculously stupid it is to use acronyms like MIHOP and LIHOP since nobody seems to know what they mean. Plus I hate acronyms like the plague.

So you prefer to say "let it happen on purpose" and
"make it happen on purpose" hundred times within a
thread if you just could say LIHOP and MIHOP?

But never mind - i already lost about 10 "patsies" at the
new forum. Evertime without reason but a opposite
opinion. :rolleyes:

I guess these guys would have been perfect nazi-keepers
at the Konzentrationslager. :rolleyes:

[chippy]

So you prefer to say "let it happen on purpose" and
"make it happen on purpose" hundred times within a
thread if you just could say LIHOP and MIHOP?

No, I prefer to say "the official story is true" or "9/11 was a conspiracy". Knowing that people who know nothing about 9/11 and want to learn more might be reading what I have to say, I don't want to lose them by saying "all of the MIHOPers are fruitcakes" instead of saying "All of the people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy are fruitcakes". Don't you think it's important that everyone understands what you have to say? What is the point of inventing terminology for a mere discussion, especially when people who enter the discussion at a later point won't know what you are saying?

Yes, I spend an extra two seconds typing stuff on my keyboard. That's a small price to pay to make sure everyone understands what I'm saying.

Also, I'm just curious: why don't your comments extend to the end of the page?

[Oliver]

No, I prefer to say "the official story is true" or "9/11 was a conspiracy". Knowing that people who know nothing about 9/11 and want to learn more might be reading what I have to say, I don't want to lose them by saying "all of the MIHOPers are fruitcakes" instead of saying "All of the people who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy are fruitcakes". Don't you think it's important that everyone understands what you have to say? What is the point of inventing terminology for a mere discussion, especially when people who enter the discussion at a later point won't know what you are saying?

Yes, I spend an extra two seconds typing stuff on my keyboard. That's a small price to pay to make sure everyone understands what I'm saying.

Also, I'm just curious: why don't your comments extend to the end of the page?

I try to weaken the base instead educating the new
ones. This way it´s easier to find the truth because
i don´t want to spend the rest of my life talking to
newbies.

My believe right now is that it could have been LIHOP,
sorry. They banned me because my believe and showed
me that i´m a "lesser Truther" than the "MIHOP´ers".
That´s why i fight their ignorance because it has nothing
to do with truth at all.

[Larry Lovage]

[/topic]Can I just speak out against disparaging opinions people may have about the high salaries to executives working for charity organisations? The JREF is a voluntary organisation, that just exists in order to lobby in a minor sort of way for the advancement of skeptical thought. It wouldn't be particularly moral for Randi to get a salary from the not-for-profit organisation that is in his name.

But many charities are doing genuine charitable work and need to raise tens of millions of dollars every year for their causes. That kind of money involves top-rank executive talent, and that talent has a going rate. I know I sound like an unreconstructured old rightist, but the fact is that the amount of money people in that position get paid has absolutely nothing to do with personal greed. (Bonus payments, that's another matter!) The Red Cross is one of the biggest charitable organisations in the world, but in order to be perceived as a big hitter as any kind of organisation, it has to show that it has the capability to pay at least middle-to-top rate for its management. People don't seem to understand generally that a large salary for a top executive is a knife that cuts two ways. The organisation is demonstrating committment to the executive, and it behooves the executive to demonstrate committment in return for that large amount of money.

Put it this way: if the Red Cross CEO was a job that paid $30,000, clearly anybody could do the job. And any old anybody would probably get it. When a salary like $600k is offered, it demonstrates that the charity isn't just going to pay for anything less than a serious person who can get the job done (and incidentally, who ought to be value for money - in other words, her work is going to contribute to getting $10m in contributions that the $30k person wouldn't have the nous or the contacts to begin to dream of.)

As someone pointed out, someone getting $600k for a charity executive position could undoubtedly easily clear $1m+ in the private sector, if only she wasn't a woman. :P

[jhunter1163]

The trouble is, charities have to pay those kinds of salaries to compete for talent. Marsha Evans, woman or not, could likely make her million a year somewhere else but chose to work for the Red Cross.

I doubt that Randi makes anything off the JREF as there are no revenue sources I can see (no ads, no membership fees). He set it up because he thought it was worthwhile. I agree completely and thank him for it.

[maccy]

I doubt that Randi makes anything off the JREF as there are no revenue sources I can see (no ads, no membership fees). He set it up because he thought it was worthwhile. I agree completely and thank him for it.

Randi makes a quite reasonable salary from the JREF ($130,000 if I remember correctly) - its publicly available and there's a thread about it somewhere on the board (I can't remember where).

My understanding is, however, that any money Randi makes from speaking engagements or media appearance goes towards funding the JREF.

Edited to Add:

Here's the thread about the JREF finances:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=68966

probably best to discuss what you think about it on that thread, rather than derail this one further.

[Alt+F4]

Randi makes a quite reasonable salary from the JREF ($130,000 if I remember correctly)

I wonder if he gets any residuals from when he appeared on "Happy Days". :)

I can't stand the fact that Dylan & Co. lie and make money off 9/11. However, I'm also bothered by movies like "United 93" and "World Trade Center" where a lot of people made ALOT of money off 9/11. Yeah, filmmakers make movies about real-life tragedy all the time, take "Titanic" for example. I think it's different, though because it's too soon, after all their really isn't anyone left to mourn those who died on the Titanic.

As for contributing some profits to the victims and their families, well all the money in the world isn't going to give them either justice or answers.

[Oliver]

Also, I'm just curious: why don't your comments extend to the end of the page?

This has a psychological reason. I´m a media-designer
and it´s what we learned about comfortable reading
of "screen-text". Persoanally i skip many texts that are
too long because my large screen-resolution plus all
the translations i have to solve.

But what is your impression? Is it easier to read my
sentences compared to the other comments?

[Peephole]

It's much harder.

[chipmunk stew]

This has a psychological reason. I´m a media-designer
and it´s what we learned about comfortable reading
of "screen-text". Persoanally i skip many texts that are
too long because my large screen-resolution plus all
the translations i have to solve.

But what is your impression? Is it easier to read my
sentences compared to the other comments?
It's harder.

If people find it easier, they can always reduce the width of their window to get the same effect.

[Oliver]

It's much harder.

No kidding? This sample is easier to read...

But many charities are doing genuine charitable work and need to raise tens of millions of dollars every year for their causes. That kind of money involves top-rank executive talent, and that talent has a going rate. I know I sound like an unreconstructured old rightist, but the fact is that the amount of money people in that position get paid has absolutely nothing to do with personal greed. (Bonus payments, that's another matter!) The Red Cross is one of the biggest charitable organisations in the world, but in order to be perceived as a big hitter as any kind of organisation, it has to show that it has the capability to pay at least middle-to-top rate for its management. People don't seem to understand generally that a large salary for a top executive is a knife that cuts two ways. The organisation is demonstrating committment to the executive, and it behooves the executive to demonstrate committment in return for that large amount of money. Put it this way: if the Red Cross CEO was a job that paid $30,000, clearly anybody could do the job. And any old anybody would probably get it. When a salary like $600k is offered, it demonstrates that the charity isn't just going to pay for anything less than a serious person who can get the job done (and incidentally, who ought to be value for money - in other words, her work is going to contribute to getting $10m in contributions that the $30k person wouldn't have the nous or the contacts to begin to dream of.) As someone pointed out, someone getting $600k for a charity executive position could undoubtedly easily clear $1m+ in the private sector, if only she wasn't a woman. :P

...than this one?


But many charities are doing genuine charitable work and need
to raise tens of millions of dollars every year for their causes.
That kind of money involves top-rank executive talent, and that
talent has a going rate. I know I sound like an unreconstructured
old rightist, but the fact is that the amount of money people in that
position get paid has absolutely nothing to do with personal greed.

The Red Cross is one of the biggest charitable organisations in the
world, but in order to be perceived as a big hitter as any kind of
organisation, it has to show that it has the capability to pay at least
middle-to-top rate for its management.

People don't seem to understand generally that a large salary for a
top executive is a knife that cuts two ways. The organisation is
demonstrating committment to the executive, and it behooves the
executive to demonstrate committment in return for that large
amount of money.

As someone pointed out, someone getting $600k for a charity
executive position could undoubtedly easily clear $1m+ in the
private sector, if only she wasn't a woman. :P

[uk_dave]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2125250#post2125250

Well, it seems avery didn't want our help with this one after all..... it seems to have been moved to their ultra secret handshakes & password area.

Devious.....

[beachnut]

This has a psychological reason. I´m a media-designer
and it´s what we learned about comfortable reading
of "screen-text". Persoanally i skip many texts that are
too long because my large screen-resolution plus all
the translations i have to solve.

But what is your impression? Is it easier to read my
sentences compared to the other comments?

it is, you can read them in your head at paragraph clips

[Oliver]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2125250#post2125250

Well, it seems avery didn't want our help with this one after all..... it seems to have been moved to their ultra secret handshakes & password area.

Devious.....

Check your PM. ;)

[Bell]

It's much harder.

:eek:



(quoted out of context)

[Larry Lovage]

Oliver, are you having a go at my writing style? You made it looked like I'd written in one monolithic block, when I just had the paragraphs differently to you. Plus you cut 100 words from my original post!

If you're going to illustrate readability, kindly use your own work.

[Oliver]

Oliver, are you having a go at my writing style? You made it looked like I'd written in one monolithic block, when I just had the paragraphs differently to you. Plus you cut 100 words from my original post!

If you're going to illustrate readability, kindly use your own work.

Huh? :confused: I made an exsample. Sue me.

[Kaarjuus]

No kidding? This sample is easier to read...

...than this one?

Bad samples. The second one is not made more readable by having the lines cut off in the center, it's made more readable by having paragraphs. Like this:


But many charities are doing genuine charitable work and need to raise tens of millions of dollars every year for their causes. That kind of money involves top-rank executive talent, and that talent has a going rate. I know I sound like an unreconstructured old rightist, but the fact is that the amount of money people in that position get paid has absolutely nothing to do with personal greed.

The Red Cross is one of the biggest charitable organisations in the world, but in order to be perceived as a big hitter as any kind of organisation, it has to show that it has the capability to pay at least middle-to-top rate for its management.

People don't seem to understand generally that a large salary for a top executive is a knife that cuts two ways. The organisation is demonstrating committment to the executive, and it behooves the executive to demonstrate committment in return for that large amount of money.

As someone pointed out, someone getting $600k for a charity executive position could undoubtedly easily clear $1m+ in the private sector, if only she wasn't a woman. :P

[Oliver]

Bad samples. The second one is not made more readable by having the lines cut off in the center, it's made more readable by having paragraphs. Like this:

It´s a matter of taste but easier for the eyes if the sentences are not too long. Especially when reading lots of text... :)