Scumbags, Liars, Gun Grabbers, Moore-ons, Libtards, Moonbats, Cowards, Deserters, Anti-American, Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, Islamofacisist, Troop Haters, Terrorist Sympathizers, Surrender Monkeys, Earth Huggers, Morally Bankrupt Elitists… just a sampling of the labels that Jim and the conservative members of this board have liberally applied to Mike and anyone sympathetic with his views.

Yet when Jim Kenefick is in need, Moore gives him money.

This is pure speculation, but I honestly cannot imagine Jim doing the same for Moore, had the tables been turned.

I may be banned from the site for this comment, but can any of you (especially Jim) honestly say you would have helped Michael Moore if he ran into financial trouble? Or would you just have continued to gleefully post while you watched him sink?

Scumbags, Liars, Gun Grabbers, Moore-ons, Libtards, Moonbats, Cowards, Deserters, Anti-American, Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, Islamofacisist, Troop Haters, Terrorist Sympathizers, Surrender Monkeys, Earth Huggers, Morally Bankrupt Elitists… just a sampling of the labels that Jim and the conservative members of this board have liberally applied to Mike and anyone sympathetic with his views.

Yet when Jim Kenefick is in need, Moore gives him money.

This is pure speculation, but I honestly cannot imagine Jim doing the same for Moore, had the tables been turned.

I may be banned from the site for this comment, but can any of you (especially Jim) honestly say you would have helped Michael Moore if he ran into financial trouble? Or would you just have continued to gleefully post while you watched him sink?

Go do something worthwhile with the internet you attention starved troll.

But to answer your question: No. I wouldn’t have helped Moore. That doesn’t make me a bad person either. Would you have helped Jim? Would you help Moore if he were in trouble? See what my questions did? They proved that you never made a good point in the first place when you asked if we would help Moore. It’s completely beside the point if Moore was in a dire financial situation. Moore didn’t donate money to help, he donated money to use Jim in his movie and exploit Jim and manipulate tard zealots like you into thinking that he’s a great guy. So would the people at Moorewatch donate moeny to Moore in order to use him to promote one of their movies or to make the media attack Moore as a bad guy? Nope. They wouldn’t be so underhanded.

Only if Moore had given the money, and then refused to generally talk about it and, you know, hadn’t put it in a movie, would the analogy hold.

Scumbags, Liars, Gun Grabbers, Moore-ons, Libtards, Moonbats, Cowards, Deserters, Anti-American, Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, Islamofacisist, Troop Haters, Terrorist Sympathizers, Surrender Monkeys, Earth Huggers, Morally Bankrupt Elitists…

Those are just terms of endearment, exnavy.

This is pure speculation, but I honestly cannot imagine Jim doing the same for Moore, had the tables been turned.

Yes, it is speculation.

Did you read the part where Moore’s gift wasn’t exactly altruism?  Mike had an ulterior motive in giving Jim the money, you know.

I may be banned from the site for this comment, but can any of you (especially Jim) honestly say you would have helped Michael Moore if he ran into financial trouble? Or would you just have continued to gleefully post while you watched him sink?

I hardly think Jim is going to ban you from the site for asking that question.  That’s not his style.

Let’s see . . . what are you asking?  If Moore needed help and I were rich and could afford sparing 1 dollar out of every 10,000 I was going to gross on my next financial quest, and I could then use his accepting the money as an example to further my agenda, would I stoop that low?  Or are you asking if I would just send Mike the money and never mention it to anyone?

Here’s a hint exnavy:  Moore seldom does anything that doesn’t further his own personal agenda . . . and making money is definitely on his agenda.

. . . Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, Islamofacisist . . .

This part of your rant I don’t get . . . am I not allowed to call Fidel a communist?

exnavy, what does your rant have to do with my post?

Environmentalists, feminists, economists…

What is the fascination people hold about being banned from the site? Are they confusing moorewatch.com with DU?

And I have to admit, “surrender monkeys” is funny as hell.

Posted by bismarck on 05/22 at 05:36 PM

What is the fascination people hold about being banned from the site? Are they confusing moorewatch.com with DU?

I think w0rf would call it a martyr complex.  I and also think he would be right.

Scumbags, Liars, Gun Grabbers, Moore-ons, Libtards, Moonbats, Cowards, Deserters, Anti-American, Communists, Socialists, Stalinists, Islamofacisist, Troop Haters, Terrorist Sympathizers, Surrender Monkeys, Earth Huggers, Morally Bankrupt Elitists…

Just once, I wish once of you idiots would get it right.

....it’s “cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys” for Christ’s sake.

A bit of a long way to go for a joke, but the payoff was worth it, I think. :)

In fairness, I have banned a few this week.  Obviously I know that new folks are drawn in by the mess, but the ones that do *nothing* but attack, attack and start coming after me personally over and over are the ones that have gotten the boot.

Anyone who makes even a half-decent effort to *talk* is more than welcome.

ZK - thanks.  :)

In fairness, I have banned a few this week.  Obviously I know that new folks are drawn in by the mess, but the ones that do *nothing* but attack, attack and start coming after me personally over and over are the ones that have gotten the boot.

Typically its for something orders of magnitude worse than what will get them banned from a liberal site, or its just a constant stream of posts with no real substance.

It should go without saying that JimK made a deal with his devil. It has been argued abundantly over the ethical nature of this deal, and I will limit my comments on this issue as I think it is insignificant in the big picture.

I suppose JimK is ethically challenged at a personal level if he lives by the principles of John Gault and Dagny Taggart in which a person should never accept money that wasn’t earned. Clearly, this was money that JimK did not earn. It was a handout. It was welfare. People that encourage others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps should be alarmed that JimK would accept a handout from anyone, especially his devil.

And Michael Moore used JimK’s bad situation to make a brilliant point.

The point, I believe, was NOT to embarrass JimK in front of the world. There is no doubt that the irony will make the viewers of this film chuckle when they see how one of Moore’s gullible detractors gladly accept money from him. I can only hope that this isn’t the ONLY way Moore presents JimK’s issue in the film. Too many of you are desperatly trying to pin a dirty deed on Moore because it is necessary to maintain the narrative ... to feed the hate. Remember, JimK didn’t have to deposit the check and spend the money. By doing so, he made a deal with his devil.

It was brilliant that Moore found someone who was stuck in an extremely shitty situation where his soul mate was extremely ill and he didn’t have the proper medical coverage to handle his wife’s medical crises. It should scare the crap out of everyone that they should have to watch a loved one suffer, or have their lifestyle seriously restrained by paying high premiums to get medical coverage. Can any of you (less than wealthy types) imagine having to pay $12,000 a year for medical coverage AFTER you have paid taxes? Will JimK be able to save for his retirement with these premiums?

That is the brilliant point I hope Moore pounces on. It is the brilliant point that none of you in this forum want to discuss. Instead of desperately trying to pin a shameful act upon Moore, try to look at the bigger issue he has brought forth.

If we truly are a Christian nation, and if we want America to be seen as a shining city on the hill, shouldn’t we make sure that individuals and families don’t have their lives financially ruined by a medical condition?

At about 30:15, Moore tells the reporters that he does more fact-checking then they do for their publications.  Maybe they were Onion reporters.

I think w0rf would call it a martyr complex.  I and also think he would be right.

And I think Sethery nailed it on the head.  “Oh, I’ll probably be gone by this time tomorrow, because all you skinhead neocon radical religionazoeconojudeofascists just silence any dissenting opinions and get all your ‘facts’ from your echo chamber, courtesy of Karl Rove.  But that’s okay because The Truth (tm) will prevail.”

Except Jim generally leaves accounts intact, inviting discussion and criticism, whereas DU bans any out-of-the-closet conservative they discover, and Moore took down his forums years ago.

Yet when Jim Kenefick is in need, Moore gives him money.

I don’t think Moore was worried one bit about Jim’s
need”, it was Moore’s “need” to create content for his movie. This is his “asking a congressman if they would sign up thier kid for combat” moment.

I’m disappointed, as I actually know there must be enough stuff bad with the state of healthcare for Moore to fill two movies. Unforatunately he manufactured another scene for effect.

Another Moore failure.

It should go without saying that JimK made a deal with his devil.

Jim accepted a donation from an anonymous source.  A source who claimed to want to remain anonymous.

I suppose JimK is ethically challenged at a personal level if he lives by the principles of John Gault and Dagny Taggart in which a person should never accept money that wasn’t earned. Clearly, this was money that JimK did not earn. It was a handout. It was welfare. People that encourage others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps should be alarmed that JimK would accept a handout from anyone, especially his devil.

Why don’t you go tell Make A Wish, or the Shriners hospitals that what they are doing is wrong.

It was brilliant that Moore found someone who was stuck in an extremely shitty situation where his soul mate was extremely ill and he didn’t have the proper medical coverage to handle his wife’s medical crises. It should scare the crap out of everyone that they should have to watch a loved one suffer, or have their lifestyle seriously restrained by paying high premiums to get medical coverage.

It was low of Moore to do this.  Jimk’s wife was receiving the proper medical coverage and the medical crises were being handled.  You can’t be denied medical coverage, and you have now become a dumbass.

imagine having to pay $12,000 a year for medical coverage AFTER you have paid taxes?

And you want us to pay higher taxes so we don’t have to “pay” that cost of medical coverage.  Of course that means other people are paying for the medical coverage too, involuntarily.  That’s something jimk opposes.  This is not what Moore did to jimk.  He willingly gave his money for paying medical bills, and wasn’t forced into it and wasn’t asked by jim to do it.  You’re still a dumbass.

Posted by NarleeDood on 05/22 at 06:50 PM

It should go without saying that JimK made a deal with his devil. It has been argued abundantly over the ethical nature of this deal, and I will limit my comments on this issue as I think it is insignificant in the big picture.
...
Remember, JimK didn’t have to deposit the check and spend the money. By doing so, he made a deal with his devil.

You keep describing this as a “deal”.  Don’t the terms of a deal need to be laid out in advance of said “deal”?  Or when the bad guy in a cheesey mobster movie says, “I’m changing the deal,” do you think to yourself, “well that’s okay.  I’d do the same”?

If we truly are a Christian nation, and if we want America to be seen as a shining city on the hill, shouldn’t we make sure that individuals and families don’t have their lives financially ruined by a medical condition?

I suspect many of Moore’s fans would refute the idea that this is a Chrisitan nation, so that question is probably moot.  Would you want Chrisitan ideals imposed on others through government taxation?

It was a handout. It was welfare.

Narleedood,

Why the mischaracterization?  It was a gift.

Besides, welfare and handouts aren’t the same thing.

If we truly are a Christian nation, and if we want America to be seen as a shining city on the hill, shouldn’t we make sure that individuals and families don’t have their lives financially ruined by a medical condition?

Tell me, Narleedood, how brilliant was Moore’s point in light of this:

I came from a family whose medical expenses exceeded its income for years.  Both of my parents were in and out of the hospital from the time I was 4 years old until after I graduated from college.  In the end my parents had little.  When my dad died he couldn’t rub one nickel against another.  Most of the money for my education came from me.  However, a portion of it came in the form of a gift.  It wasn’t a handout . . . it wasn’t welfare . . . it was a gift for which I am eternally grateful.  But, just like JimK I could have made it on my own—a point you deliberately ignore.

So explain to me exactly why my family should have made our medical problems YOURS?

And be careful how you answer . . . you’re being bated.

I suppose JimK is ethically challenged at a personal level if he lives by the principles of John Gault and Dagny Taggart in which a person should never accept money that wasn’t earned.

This is a quite a misreading of Atlas Shrugged. One should never demand, expect, or feel entitled to money which isn’t earned, but accepting money is a different thing.  I really doubt Ayn Rand ever returned a birthday present on principle.

This is a quite a misreading of Atlas Shrugged. One should never demand, expect, or feel entitled to money which isn’t earned, but accepting money is a different thing.  I really doubt Ayn Rand ever returned a birthday present on principle.

His entire post is a distortion of known facts.

Narlee, you have a lot of questions to answer…

It should go without saying that JimK made a deal with his devil.

Maybe it should not.  In what way was this a “deal with the devil”?

I suppose JimK is ethically challenged at a personal level if he lives by the principles of John Gault and Dagny Taggart in which a person should never accept money that wasn’t earned.

What indication do you have that those are Jim’s principles?

People that encourage others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps should be alarmed that JimK would accept a handout from anyone, especially his devil.

I’m not alarmed, because what Jim decries is establishing a welfare state WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Personal contributions have NO BEARING on that position.

And Michael Moore used JimK’s bad situation to make a brilliant point.

If Moore made a point at all, I’d be impressed.  It would be a departure from his previous works.

There is no doubt that the irony will make the viewers of this film chuckle when they see how one of Moore’s gullible detractors gladly accept money from him.

How is it accepting money “from him” if Moore chose to remain anonymous at that time?  And how is Jim “gullible” if he already suspected this was the case?

he didn’t have the proper medical coverage to handle his wife’s medical crises.

Yes he did.  Either pay attention or if you have been, then stop lying.

have their lifestyle seriously restrained by paying high premiums to get medical coverage

Not so seriously restrained that he was unable to maintain a litany of websites and feed the incompetent hosting company.  And the new insurance had LOWER PREMIUMS than his previous coverage.  He SAVED MONEY by making the switch.  And he selected the HIGHEST LEVEL of insurance available; he COULD HAVE GONE CHEAPER.

Can any of you (less than wealthy types) imagine having to pay $12,000 a year for medical coverage AFTER you have paid taxes?

I can imagine my taxes increasing by $12,000 a year if I have to pay for every scraped knee you take to the doctor, if that’s what you mean.

Different career paths have different ways by which you need to get your insurance.  This is not the abnormality you make it out to be.

If we truly are a Christian nation, and if we want America to be seen as a shining city on the hill, shouldn’t we make sure that individuals and families don’t have their lives financially ruined by a medical condition?

***ABSOLUTELY!!!***

And THAT is why this point is SO BRILLIANT!

And THAT is why Moore would be wise to NOT SAY A WORD!

Because Jim was assisted by a PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION!  NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT! Which DISproves Moore’s crusade for state-sponsored health care and PROVES Jim’s case for individual liberties and charitable giving.

Buzz,
You make a good point and I want to see if Moore makes a similar point in the film.  That while some Americans CAN pay their medical bills on their own, choosing to do so invites stress and financial hardship.  I think the healthcare system does need fixing, but it can be fixed in different ways, rather than simply trying to copy another country’s system.  A value added tax is a fine idea in order to generate extra tax revenue, but the income tax is so entrenched in this country’s consciousness I don’t know if it will ever change.
Being a Democrat, albeit a moderate one, I am ashamed at many Liberals who have recently posted on this board.  Even if Jim knew from the onset that the money was from Moore, he still should have spent the check, and should not be faulted for doing so.  It would be extremely petty and wrong for him to refuse the money on ideological grounds.  This is someone’s life we are talking about here.  If President Bush paid a year’s tuition for a poorer student in need, and that student, hypothetically, protested against Bush beforehand, he still is well within his right to accept the money and continue to protest.  I am almost positive that if you asked Michael Moore, a large beneficiary of free speech in America, if he thinks Jim should stop expressing his dislike towards him because he accepted his money he would state an emphatic “No.” He would know his genorosity, regardless of the supposed reasons for doing so, do not perclude one from speaking their mind.

Buzzion,

“Why don’t you go tell Make A Wish, or the Shriners hospitals that what they are doing is wrong.”

JimK is not a charitable organization. Make A Wish and Shriners are non-profit entities. There is a big difference.

“It was low of Moore to do this.”

Michael Moore did not force Jim to deposit the check and spend it.

“Jimk’s wife was receiving the proper medical coverage and the medical crises were being handled.”

I don’t doubt that she was receiving medical care. But I suspect that the care was minimal and that the expense was putting them severely in debt.

“And you want us to pay higher taxes so we don’t have to “pay” that cost of medical coverage.”

You are putting words into my mouth and are making an assumption. I strongly encourage you to argue against the things I actually say instead of arguing against things you wish I had said.

I feel unclean having heard MM at his PC.

Anyone have some ear wash I can have?

Really all this is nuts having read all these posts over the last few days.

Jim I hope you and yours are doing better. You and a better person than I putting up with all this.

And the gang has been serving it up well to the many new trolls.

Sethery,

You keep describing this as a “deal”.  Don’t the terms of a deal need to be laid out in advance of said “deal”?  Or when the bad guy in a cheesey mobster movie says, “I’m changing the deal,” do you think to yourself, “well that’s okay.  I’d do the same”?

I am using a metaphor and am assuming my audience understands them.

I suspect many of Moore’s fans would refute the idea that this is a Chrisitan nation, so that question is probably moot.

I’m not addressing Moore’s fans.

Would you want Chrisitan ideals imposed on others through government taxation?

No. I suggest we borrow it from the Chinese and let future generations attempt to pay it off. Or, we can easily pay for it with the money being used on Bush’s Glorious Adventure in Iraq. Either way, we will still be borrowing money from the Chinese.

That last part wasn’t a metaphor. It was sarcasm.

Buzz,

Why the mischaracterization?  It was a gift. Besides, welfare and handouts aren’t the same thing.

An unearned gift. Otherwise, you are just splitting hairs.

But, just like JimK I could have made it on my own—a point you deliberately ignore.

Buzz, I apologize for not immediatly addressing every point that might be important to you. I am not very clairvoyant. You should be proud for pulling yourself out of a rut. Accepting an unearned gift is not a bad thing, and I wasn’t suggesting that I find it a ethical delimma. But some do. And I imagine that there are quite a few regulars around here who expect people to get themselves out of a rut through hardwork instead of taking a handout.

Owski,

This is a quite a misreading of Atlas Shrugged. One should never demand, expect, or feel entitled to money which isn’t earned, but accepting money is a different thing.  I really doubt Ayn Rand ever returned a birthday present on principle.

I really don’t doubt that Ayn Rand had a problem with birthday gifts either. But she made it perfectly clear in Gault’s Gulch that she disapproves of people in trouble accepting unearned money.

Who gives a shit about Ayn Rand anyway? What the hell are we talking about anymore? Gaaah!

And I imagine that there are quite a few regulars around here who expect people to get themselves out of a rut through hardwork instead of taking a handout.

This from the guy who got all hurt and offended when someone else put words in his mouth.  Pot, meet kettle.

I really don’t doubt that Ayn Rand had a problem with birthday gifts either. But she made it perfectly clear in Gault’s Gulch that she disapproves of people in trouble accepting unearned money.

Yes, that’s exactly what Rand stands for. (rolls eyes)

I think you “misunderestimate” the amount of grief Jim and hsi wife have gone through, all the while NEVER asking for money. When I was writing regularly for this site, Jim and I would talk by phone and believe me, Jim has been incredibly quiet about how harrowing a health issue like this can be for a family. From what I know, Jim has been virtualy silent about this issue, sans the request for information about helath insurance companies, ( which he got, and was paying for before Moore pulled this stunt) If I was going through was he and Mrs k have been going through, I’d have gladly taken help from an anonymous person. After all, I’ve been that anonymous person myself and that’s how kharma works. 

This site has a lot of fans. It’s not unusual for someone to send money to this site to keep it going because they feel it is important.

It’s realy not a stretch of reality for Jim to have considered the gift from a fan, or even a friend like me. I myself have depositied money into Jim’s paypal account more than once, and believe me, the percentage I gave was much much more a chunk of my entire wealth than Moore’s 12k gift. I did it becsue I believe this site simply adds to the debate, and keeps someone like Moore from going completely unchecked in his campaign to misinform a nation.

Buzz,
Why the mischaracterization?  It was a gift. Besides, welfare and handouts aren’t the same thing.
An unearned gift. Otherwise, you are just splitting hairs.

What gift is ever earned?  If it is earned, we do not call it a gift, we call it compensation.  A gift, by definition, is unearned.

An unearned gift. Otherwise, you are just splitting hairs.

I’m not splitting hairs here . . . a gift is a gift . . .  a present.  Welfare is taxpayer funded government assistance which is hardly considered a gift.

And you are first person I ever heard come up with the term “unearned gift.”

w0rf,

Narlee, you have a lot of questions to answer…

I don’t have to answer any questions.

Maybe it should not.  In what way was this a “deal with the devil”?

Anyone who is in a bad spot and deposits a check for $12K from an anonymous source is making a deal with the devil.

What indication do you have that those are Jim’s principles?

I never suggested that they were Jim’s principles. I used the word “if.”

I’m not alarmed, because what Jim decries is establishing a welfare state WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  Personal contributions have NO BEARING on that position.

Makes not a bit of difference to me. He accepted unearned money.

How is it accepting money “from him” if Moore chose to remain anonymous at that time?

It doesn’t make a bit of difference if it was anonymous or where it came from. Jim accepted unearned money.

And how is Jim “gullible” if he already suspected this was the case?

I shouldn’t have used that word. But I do think he was naive.

Yes he did.  Either pay attention or if you have been, then stop lying.

I have good reason to believe that he didn’t have proper medical coverage. Perhaps you can set me straight on that.

Not so seriously restrained that he was unable to maintain a litany of websites and feed the incompetent hosting company.

Now we are getting into an area where we have to question his judgement on maintaining this luxury expense. Do you want to go down that road with me?

And the new insurance had LOWER PREMIUMS than his previous coverage.  He SAVED MONEY by making the switch.  And he selected the HIGHEST LEVEL of insurance available; he COULD HAVE GONE CHEAPER.

And got himself into some serious debt, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT! Why should Americans have to go into debt to get decent health care??????

I can imagine my taxes increasing by $12,000 a year if I have to pay for every scraped knee you take to the doctor, if that’s what you mean.

You don’t know that. It’s nothing but doom and gloom to prevent serious discussion about the topic. The next thing you will be telling me is that this will lead to Stalinism.

Different career paths have different ways by which you need to get your insurance.  This is not the abnormality you make it out to be.

Health care shouldn’t be based on career paths or economic status.

Because Jim was assisted by a PRIVATE CONTRIBUTION!  NOT BY THE GOVERNMENT! Which DISproves Moore’s crusade for state-sponsored health care and PROVES Jim’s case for individual liberties and charitable giving.

w0rf, there are a lot of people who don’t have adequate health coverage. There are a lot of people in serious debt because of medical care. I don’t see a lot of people making contributions to those people. Jim got lucky.

What gift is ever earned?  If it is earned, we do not call it a gift, we call it compensation.  A gift, by definition, is unearned.

Zinger, this guy is mischaractizing these terms for a reason.  We know what that reason is.

w0rf,

This from the guy who got all hurt and offended when someone else put words in his mouth.  Pot, meet kettle.

I was speculating. I wasn’t inventing someone’s argument.

Anyone who is in a bad spot and deposits a check for $12K from an anonymous source is making a deal with the devil.

Man, don’t you just love the reasoning here . . . in any and every case all anonymous checks should not be accepted by anyone, anytime.

Sorta eliminates funding for charities and other insitutions of higher learner, too.

Paratrooper,

I think you “misunderestimate” the amount of grief Jim and hsi wife have gone through, all the while NEVER asking for money. When I was writing regularly for this site, Jim and I would talk by phone and believe me, Jim has been incredibly quiet about how harrowing a health issue like this can be for a family.

I love my wife dearly. Thinking about any horrible thing that might happen to her can bring me to tears. The empathy I feel towards men who have to deal with a suffering wife is beyond bearable. But you are correct, I do underestimate how horrible it must be.

I do not have a problem with Jim accepting unearned money. I threw that idea out there since that point hadn’t been discussed, and I strongly suspect that many of the regulars on this site have embraced much of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Man, don’t you just love the reasoning here . . . in any and every case all anonymous checks should not be accepted by anyone, anytime.

Sorta eliminates funding for charities and other insitutions of higher learner, too.

Once again, Buzz, Jim is not a charity. Nor did I say that one should not deposit a check from an anonymous donor. But by doing so, you are making a deal with the devil that could have side-effects.

Why should Americans have to go into debt to get decent health care??????

Why should I pay for self-inflicted medical conditions?

Better yet, we already have a socialized medicine in this country that we will soon not be able to afford.  The problems associated with Medicare makes the Social Security problem trival by comparison.  Why take on more problems when we can’t fix the ones we have now?

And note, the same people who support universal healthcare are the same people who created, but cannot fix Medicare.  Moreover, they are the same people who ignore the fact that Medicare has precisely the same problems our present system does . . . that being the rising cost of medicine due to new technologies, procedures and such.

You still have explained why my family should have our medical problems YOURS.

Jim is not a charity, but he offers a public service for no profit . . . the one you’re using now.

Buzz,

And you are first person I ever heard come up with the term “unearned gift.”

I saw that too and it didn’t make sense to me either. Blame it on my editor for not catching that one.

But by doing so, you are making a deal with the devil that could have side-effects.

No, you MIGHT be making a deal with the devil.  Unless the recipient is clairvoyant how do they know?

Jim is not a charity, but he offers a public service for no profit . . . the one you’re using now.

Oh please. This is his hobby.

No, you MIGHT be making a deal with the devil.  Unless the recipient is clairvoyant how do they know?

The devil works in mysterious ways, Buzz.  :)

Oh please. This is his hobby.

Yes, just like some people make the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and so on their hobby. What’s your point?

Also? QUOTE BUTTON. RIGHT FUCKING THERE.

(No, I’m not that mad, but c’moooon.)