Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler OT: Katrina and World Support?

Riffman - you are saying that you are trying not to be morally judgemental then you say it's a no-brainer that people with big houses should open their homes to complete strangers. I can see why people would not want to have 100 complete strangers staying inside their homes.

The importance of the "they chose to stay arguement" is that these people are now consuming resources that could have been used to save the less fortunate or even those that are taking care of young children.

I can see why Bush is not asking for foreign help yet - we still do not know what kind of help we need. It is better to have a plan than to send resources ad hoc.

One way to help.
http://www.hurricanehousing.org/

In reply to:

---

Craig, I've been watching this debate with interest from the sidelines, and you both have valid points. However, that's the second time you've thrown that number out. While I doubt it was your intention, one might be led to think you believe a $5 or $20 contribution that might be the limit of someone else's budget is somehow unworthy or invalid. As I said, I'm sure you didn't mean to do this, but that's precisely how it reads on screen.

---

dmn, One part is correct, I did not mean to lead anyone to believe that a $5 or a $20 contribution was unworthy or invalid.

I am dismayed you elected to read it that way, but those things happen.

Here is a link to a thread from the Tsunami relief :

http://forum.av123.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6410&highlight=because+tears+and+prayer+is+not+enough

Do me a small favor. Read it, then tell me how I think a $5 contribution is not worthy. Fair enough ?

Easy...this wasn't meant as an attack, and you don't have to prove anything to me. I applaud your generosity and I wish I could do as well. But I've received comments that I wasn't the only one to perceive your remarks that way. In the midst of what was (and might still be) a heated debate, I merely meant to caution you that your remarks could very easily run contrary to the spirit in which they were intended. I also apologize for pointing this out publicly -- my aim wasn't to embarrass you. That was something that should have been sent in a PM.

dmn ... I never said it was an attack. You made a statement, and I posted something for you to read. You did not say whether you did read it or not. I am not seeking an apology, either.

As for others pointing out my shortcomings for having mentioned what we had done here, I am used to that on the forums.

Some people would prefer to assume the worst in others.

That happens.

I will stay on the sidelines for the primary debate. BUT, to all those whose perceived Craig's comments as Mike did, I can only tell you that I've known Craig for several years now, and he has proved to me, with no fanfare whatsoever, over and over, that he is a generous, kind, caring man.

Most miscommunication problems occur not because one fails say what they mean, but rather because it is said in a manner that can be interpreted more than one way. Perhaps that is what happened with Craig's statement. However, It does seem to me a hefty stretch to interpret "I gave over XXX dollars," as meaning "a $5 or $20 contribution....is somehow unworthy or invalid."

Regardless, though I don't pretend to be a "bosom buddy of Craig's, I know enough about him to be comfortable assuring you all that THAT was certainly NOT in his mind when he made his statement.

Jack - Yes, we have some history between us. And I appreciate your chiming in.

I was actually responding to this little challenge when I posted what we had done to help in this tragedy. It is not exactly a shock that I am a conservative, and that this was aimed at me :

In reply to:

---

I'm just curious why all the conservatives continue to mention that people chose to stay in a time where people have DIED. Ok then. They chose to stay. What do you want to do about it? Shoot them? Leave them there?

---

So I responded with exactly what our actions were.

I don't take Craig's statement of the size of his contribution as a smack at those who can't afford that much, but I can't help seeing it as mild ego-stroking.

I do commend him for his generosity, however, and wish I were so fortunate as to be able to afford the same.

Conservative gets lambasted for not caring. Conservative gives a specific proving he does care. Conservative then gets:

In reply to:

---

but I can't help seeing it as mild ego-stroking.

---

Wonderful.

Anyone calling attention to their generosity causes me to raise an eyebrow. I didn't see anyone ask how much you had given.

I already know that you're a generous person from your past actions (you know, those things that speak louder than words). Stating numbers without being directly asked just tarnishes your image.

That's just how my brain figures it.