I partly wanted to start this thread for anyone who might have unfinished business from the last one....rather than have people just posting the crap wherever they damn well feel like it.

But I also wanted to give this link:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/10/24/173807.shtml

If this is true, it really sucks. A lot of people have donated because they know the people affected by this are hurting, and they just want to do SOMETHING. And the money goes nowhere. Now if the government was handling it, I could understand. I wouldn't like it any better, but at least I would understand - the government hardly ever does anything quickly. But really, what's the excuse here?

I also wanted to quote a post from the previous thread and a post that was just shoved somewhere else after the old thread had been closed. Just in case anyone has anything to say about them....

I'll give them each their own space.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Larry:

A few "can you believe this shit?" thoughts for the day.

If one truely enjoys an open forum and interacting with people, why take offense when people are themselves?

If a person articulates a position, idea or concept with the understanding or even the hope for other folks to respond, why be surprised or even offended when they do?

If blunderites cannot continue to have "diplomatic relations" with each other, what chance does the rest of the world have?

I think some of you wonderful folks should try to practice selective obliviousness. I think I have made that my new religion!


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bumper:

I tried posting this on ' "can you believe this shit" thread, it seems to be closed... so I'll do so, here
Sherry, I haven't backed myself into any corner, I'm right here, see? turning 360 degrees, no corner....
ok, here goes,
you asked me the following questions...
*Is my main problem that zowie went nuts & star went with him?
...mmm no, not really. my main problem was with Dave's post and the reaction Zowie got, to his response to it...

* Did zowie react "rationally?"
rationally for him...i would've responded differently, so would you if situations were reversed, but "rationally?" depends on who's defining it, i suppose...

* did I actually read the posts?.....yes.....

do I understand that there was no "group" response?...sure... Zowie had his individual responses, a several people disagreed, but not, in an organized way...more as a consensus of opinions

did my "cryptic, or non-answers" obscure people "getting to the bottom" of "this"??

.. well, what bottom you get to, depends on what hole you look down, i suppose, & what you expect to find, when you do...

Did I answer the question, I asked of Dave, re;his post, for him, incorrectly.....yes....

Sherry, do I know that you are the head bitch?
umm, sure , if you say so...as the Army says ..."be all that you can be!"
may you achieve all that to which you aspire..

and Kim... did I both delete posts, i double posted, and edit posts, after I had posted them...yes! did I do so, to "make someone look like a fool"?.... no, people can choose to do, or not do that, all on their own


Feel free to respond, sherry, kim, or anyone else, I feel I've been heard, on these issues.
and, with a combination of"agreeing to disagree" and "Letting it be", I'm ready to move on to a wider range of topics, now..


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

kim..i agree! if this is true, it's really wrong. people gave so generously and i'm quite sure they didn't expect it to get held up so long. i can understand that decisions have to be made, forumlas worked out or whatever, but something ought to be going out to these folks by now. as you said, with govt, you'd kind of expect it, but some of these organizations have been in place for years and should already have a handle on how to distribute, at least, some of the money.

I think there was something similar on the news..or a news show the other night. Dan Frisa said in that article, "As every one of these charitable organizations is subject to strict rules under the Internal Revenue Code, there is ample justification for the federal government to consider the appointment of a single overseer of these funds, whose sole charge should be to ensure their prompt distribution."

Make sense to me. I can see where it could be a mess, because organization might not be set up to handle an influx like that, but then some kind of emergency oversight should be attempted, at least.

that would be good to prevent duplications, too, pat. as in, some people receiving help from a couple different sources, and some falling through the cracks.

Kim I don't find it unbelieveable. I posted earlier last month, that I was concerned (and it should be prioritized) that 'the' people who need these funds get them. I think in the long haul, they will. However it is VERY madning to think for a minute those funds could be handled inappropiately!

* I have a new saying, that comes from an old one. "Charity begins at home". When we as a people consider planet earth home, I think we'll all get more of a bang, out of our bucks".

*I know I am a dreamer, but not the only one.

J.Lennon.

I think he also said never fuck with the head bitch, but can't say I can quote him on that.....ROTFLMAO.....