Poppycock Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, garfield said: I'm sorry, but this sounds like stuff from a grade school recess. You're making contentions that DCI's proposals (I presume many, if not all) are motivated by career and financial gain of adults in the activity and the burden of proof lies with you, not with me when I call BS. Until you do that, I can call it a BS contention and dismiss it out of hand, which is what I've done. Hitchens (na, na na, na na, nahhhh) Ok fine! Edited January 4, 2020 by Poppycock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 6 minutes ago, garfield said: What in the world would I have to be hiding in any of this? I'm just asking for some rationality in looking at these proposals! All this tin-foil hat stuff... You're right, Poppycock is certainly entitled to state his opinion but I'm also entitled to call out BS when I believe I'm seeing it. I won't disagree that you find some of his posts "insightful" or "reasonable" - that's YOUR opinion - but, on this one, I think he's crafting reasons to foment distrust in what DCI does and assigning meaning to what is really only his negative speculation on ulterior motives. DCI can document committees and meetings and processes and SME's but, still, the opinion is that there's some nefarious alter-reason and any call out of BS is taken as an intent to hide some made up truth. Presume Positive Intent. Start with that. Presume the SME's are there for a reason, given deference and respect, and actions were developed after consideration of their, and other, input. To ask such is not evidence of a cover up. You did not answer my question. "...If you and DCI are NOT trying to hide anything, what good reason would you raise for not granting Poppycock his wish to read through the discussion and minutes of the committee which supposedly generated these proposals? You proport yourself as knowing who signed what and how. Poppycock usually seems to be reasonable, even insightful, often dramatic with his posts. Why not be transparent?..." 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, xandandl said: You did not answer my question. "...If you and DCI are NOT trying to hide anything, what good reason would you raise for not granting Poppycock his wish to read through the discussion and minutes of the committee which supposedly generated these proposals? You proport yourself as knowing who signed what and how. Poppycock usually seems to be reasonable, even insightful, often dramatic with his posts. Why not be transparent?..." I've answered: I have nothing to reveal because I have nothing to hide. I'm Schultz. I only "purport myself" to knowing who signed what and how BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PROPOSAL "LEAKED" ONLINE AT DCI.ORG. You know, the ones that are referenced in the OP of this thread?? Geesh, your imagination is VERY active! Edited January 4, 2020 by garfield eh, what's the use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 39 minutes ago, HockeyDad said: Well...if the per-unit production cost goes down when production volume goes up, the yes, you would make up for it. Now you’ve sucked me into this.. Economics is lost on some people. But the hole you've been sucked into is deep and dark (The "Dismal Science"). The real joke is about a guy who makes change exactly (four quarters for a dollar, five dimes for two quarters, etc) and, when ask, says that he makes it up in volume. It was not a joke of buy-side economics and pricing power. Like I said, the joke, and the economics, are lost on many... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poppycock Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 4 minutes ago, garfield said: 4 minutes ago, garfield said: Geesh, your imagination is VERY active! The consistent ending tag to belittle, berate and bully others on here. Shockingly predictable! Edited January 4, 2020 by Poppycock 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, garfield said: I've answered: I have nothing to reveal because I have nothing to hide. I'm Schultz. I only "purport myself" (sic) to knowing who signed what and how BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PROPOSAL "LEAKED" ONLINE AT DCI.ORG. You know, the ones that are referenced in the OP of this thread?? Geesh, your imagination is VERY active! I go back to the questions again that you fail to answer while reducing things to ad hominem slurs: ...what good reason would you raise for not granting Poppycock his wish to read through the discussion and minutes of the committee which supposedly generated these proposals? ... Why not be transparent?..." Edited January 4, 2020 by xandandl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybersnyder Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-public-disclosure-and-availability-requirements There is no requirement to make meeting notes public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xandandl Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, cybersnyder said: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-public-disclosure-and-availability-requirements There is no requirement to make meeting notes public. I agree with you. What is right, what is proper, and what is legal aren't always the same. Has not Washington shown that all? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, xandandl said: I go back to the questions again that you fail to answer while reducing things to ad hominem slurs: ...what good reason would you raise for not granting Poppycock his wish to read through the discussion and minutes of the committee which supposedly generated these proposals? ... Why not be transparent?..." Because it's not public. That's the only reason. If Poppycock wishes to conflate that fact into some tin-foil hat claim of nefarious conspiracy to enrich adult's careers while ignoring SMEs, or using SME's that he's not been able to deem as qualified, then I have the right to call BS, demand proof, and dismiss his claim out of hand until he provides evidence or corroboration. Life is just so much easier to explain when intent is presumed to be positive until proven otherwise, but I'm sure this, too, will be reinterpreted to be mean and predictably condescending. That's OK. Whenever you two are ready to get back to discussing these actual proposals, I'll be willing to chime in! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garfield Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, cybersnyder said: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organization-public-disclosure-and-availability-requirements There is no requirement to make meeting notes public. Careful, facts also bring out sharp claws by those who don't or can't present them. Edited January 4, 2020 by garfield Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.