-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 16:28:47 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 01:05:39 +0000 (UTC), High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> 4) He is collecting revenue via advertising through the use
>>> of the image.
>>
>> At the top of
>>
>> http://www.schestowitz.com/
>>
>> it states when mouse is hovered over "Non-Profit Site" text at
>> the top, "Non-Profit Site: Revenue donated to charity".
>
> Bull. He can say that all day long. He doesn't mention the charities he
> donates to. Given how he likes to toot his horn in so many other ways,
> that seems a bit odd, doesn't it?
>
- From this logic, we can conclude that you must never give to
charities...
> If he's a non-profit, he's required to file information about his
> non-profit status. Otherwise, he's accepting money. Even if he does
> donate the money to charity, that doesn't make him a non-profit
> organization.
>
really? what law would that be Erik? surely you aren't claiming that Roy
would fall under US laws in this matter?
I don't think you've even searched for such information, I think you are
slinging mud, hoping it will stick.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEiw3Od90bcYOAWPYRAmHAAJwOW8OtcxaMeB+Utzz0kcfhiubOIQCcDX6W
bMaymRW4J1KkJ8veBBqawhg=
=7xbd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
(Whatever is said in Latin sounds profound.)
|
|
