On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:13:46 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 13:17:42 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>
>>>>>>>>It's the taxpayer who has spent it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's one of your sweeping statements which, as usual, isn't true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why not?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>>>>that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>>
>>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>>
>>I'm asking you.
>>
>Do your own research :-)
>

Much better than relying on yours:-)

>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>However, that doesn't alter the fact that when a charity receives a
>>>>>>>grant. it is legitimately described as income. and that when the charity
>>>>>>>carries out the grant-aided work the money is then legitimately
>>>>>>>described as expenditure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's very debatable because it show a falsely high income and
>>>>>>expenditure when as you have agreed it's not their money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>>>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>>>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>>>a charity's  income.
>>>>
>>>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the
>>>income arises.
>>>
>>
>>But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
>>members, without having to understand accounts.
>>
>I am sure that those members interested in the exact expenditure of 
>every penny of their subscription are capable of finding out for 
>themselves without any help (?) from you.
>

But that isn't the target audience, Malcolm.  

>>
>>
>>>>Supposing I started a small charity with the equivalent of ten bob and
>>>>applied for a grant of a million bobs to do something about something.
>>>>I think it would be entirely wrong of me to show an income of a
>>>>million and ten bobs as a measure of the income of my charity that
>>>>might only have eleven bob the following year.
>>>>
>>>Not if you were any good at it, because you would raise more money in
>>>year two.
>>
>>Not necessarily.  Your answers are becoming more pathetic by the day.
>>
>>
>Your analogies just get crappier and crappier :-))

Like your answers.



>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>If you don't agree, take it up with the
>>>>>>>Charity Commissioners and get them to change their recommendations.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Depends if I can be bothered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>>>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>>>>accurate refection of income is shown.
>>>
>>>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of
>>>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from
>>>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>>>
>> But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
>>"pasturise money".
>>
>Is it really? It seems that this is a phrase that Google has never heard 
>of. I wonder why not.
>

You mean to say I've made a startling discovery>

Something you don't know about.

I'm beginning to think all your so-called knowledge is only Google
clickage.

So when someone asks you a question, the little smart guy from Islay
jumps on to Google and then comes up with the benefit of his
"knowledge" :-))

>>>> Some of the worst cases of
>>>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>>>expenditure.
>>>>
>>>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>>>
>>Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
>>coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.
>>
>Ah, "in your view". That says it all. If the Charity Commissioners are 
>happy for grants to be included in income, then why are you bothered?
>
>

I'm not, but the public might be.


>>>>>>>>Well perhaps the public will see it differently.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>LOL!  "The public" will doubtless yawn and carry on paying their
>>>>>>>subscriptions. Why should any of them be interested in how charities are
>>>>>>>required to produce their accounts?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>They're probably not, that's why it needs to be brought to their
>>>>>>attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>>>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'll post the relevant facts.
>>>>
>>>That's be a first :-))
>>
>>Not at all. I do so all the time.
>>
>LOL!!   Not *all* the *relevant* facts.
>

Not all facts are relevant.

>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's a separate issue and includes what I see as inappropriate - as
>>>>>>>>I have explained above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>But I note you still haven't given me the answer to my question. Why
>>>>>>>not? Could it be that fundraising costs are less than 13% of total
>>>>>>>income? Doesn't sound as good to you, does it, as your comparison with
>>>>>>>membership subscriptions?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Members are interested in what they pay and I'm sure some will find it
>>>>>>unacceptable that fundraising costs are more than 80% of membership
>>>>>>income.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Some" or a very few indeed.
>>>>
>>>>You have no way of knowing.
>>>>
>>>Nor do you. You've claimed "some". I will stick with "very few".
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Could be many, for all you know.
>>
>Could be a "very few" for all you know.
>

Ask Google :-))



>>
>>>>>But the fundraising costs are less than 13%
>>>>>of total income, which is the honest way to present the figures.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.  It is entirely honest to present some figures in respect
>>>>of others.
>>>>
>>>Not the way you do it :-(
>>
>>Of course it is.  It is entirely honest to compare fundraising costs
>>with membership income.  What's dishonest about it?
>>
>Work it out for yourself.
>

I have.


>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  And if like I do, I don't believe that grants should be
>>>>>>included as income to the charity as it is generally ring fenced then
>>>>>>the total income as presented is flawed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>>>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>>>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>>>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>>>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total
>>>income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?
>>>
>>
>>Because it's not really an income.  It's "pasturise money".
>>
>See above. If Google haven't heard of the phrase, it suggests you've 
>just invented it :-))
>

Not me.  It's been a term  for as long as I can remember. 

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Perhaps, perhaps not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>We'll see.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Indeed. You do love wasting your time, don't you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not as much as you do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between
>>>>>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your
>>>>>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.
>>>>
>>>>So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.
>>>>
>>>A typical Angus "jumping to a conclusion without any evidence".
>>
>>Sounds like what a certain sloppy scientist does all the time.
>>
>Well, only if you are calling yourself a "sloppy scientist" :-)

I'm not a scientist, sloppy or otherwise.

Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:32:26 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:13:46 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>>>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>>>>
>>>>I'm asking you.
>>>>
>>>Do your own research :-)
>>>
>>
>>Much better than relying on yours:-)
>>
>Do make up your mind. Your previous responses were:
>
>"Why not?", "Where do they come from, Malcolm?", and "I'm asking you".
>
>All three of which suggest that you were perfectly happy to rely on 
>mine.

More sloppy conclusions from the sloppy scientist.  I asked you to
justify your statement.

>
>I take it from your change of subject that you now accept that all 
>grants don't come from the taxpayer. Good. 

More sloppy conclusions from the sloppy scientist. 

>You're now better informed 
>and have no excuse for making further false sweeping statements on the 
>subject.
>

See above.

>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>>>>>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>>>>>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>>>>>a charity's  income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the
>>>>>income arises.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
>>>>members, without having to understand accounts.
>>>>
>>>I am sure that those members interested in the exact expenditure of
>>>every penny of their subscription are capable of finding out for
>>>themselves without any help (?) from you.
>>>
>>
>>But that isn't the target audience, Malcolm.
>>
>
>LOL!!  What a perfect Angus statement :-))
>

Glad you agree.



>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>>>>>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>>>>>>accurate refection of income is shown.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of
>>>>>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from
>>>>>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>>>>>
>>>> But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
>>>>"pasturise money".
>>>>
>>>Is it really? It seems that this is a phrase that Google has never heard
>>>of. I wonder why not.
>>>
>>
>>You mean to say I've made a startling discovery>
>>
>>Something you don't know about.
>>
>>I'm beginning to think all your so-called knowledge is only Google
>>clickage.
>>
>>So when someone asks you a question, the little smart guy from Islay
>>jumps on to Google and then comes up with the benefit of his
>>"knowledge" :-))
>>
>When I have never heard of a phrase before, such as "pasturise money", I 
>look it up to see what it means. What's more, when I tried Google, I 
>even spelt it correctly :-)

How did you spell it?

>
>>>>>> Some of the worst cases of
>>>>>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>>>>>expenditure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>>>>>
>>>>Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
>>>>coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.
>>>>
>>>Ah, "in your view". That says it all. If the Charity Commissioners are
>>>happy for grants to be included in income, then why are you bothered?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I'm not, but the public might be.
>>
>"The public" clearly aren't. Tens of millions of us belong to and/or 
>donate to charities. If there was concern about those charities 
>recording grants as income then one would have expected something to 
>have been said about it by now. You're the first person I've come across 
>who seems to think, unlike the Charity Commissioners, that grants are 
>not part of income.

I am also the first person to ask why those living in National Parks
are not entitled to the same level of local democracy as elsewhere in
the country.

I can't help my originality:-))

>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>>>>>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'll post the relevant facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>That's be a first :-))
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. I do so all the time.
>>>>
>>>LOL!!   Not *all* the *relevant* facts.
>>>
>>
>>Not all facts are relevant.
>>
>But it is important, as I've just said above and you haven't read 
>properly, that *all* the *relevant* facts are given.

The relevant facts are the comparison between fundraising costs and
membership income. 

>
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>>>>>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>>>>>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>>>>>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>>>>>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total
>>>>>income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because it's not really an income.  It's "pasturise money".
>>>>
>>>See above. If Google haven't heard of the phrase, it suggests you've
>>>just invented it :-))
>>>
>>
>>Not me.  It's been a term  for as long as I can remember.
>>
>Well, you've beaten Google. 

That doesn't sound difficult.  There are many things that are not on
Google.

>You should write to them and claim a prize! 
>Mind you, now that it has been mentioned by you in this newsgroup, it 
>should appear quite soon :-)
>

You do it.  Then I can say you screwed Google as well.

>>>>>>>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between
>>>>>>>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your
>>>>>>>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>A typical Angus "jumping to a conclusion without any evidence".
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like what a certain sloppy scientist does all the time.
>>>>
>>>Well, only if you are calling yourself a "sloppy scientist" :-)
>>
>>I'm not a scientist, sloppy or otherwise.
>>
>Well, you're certainly not a scientist........

I wouldn't want to be.

But if I was, I wouldn't be a sloppy one.






Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:18:44 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:32:26 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:13:46 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>>>>>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would have known
>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm asking you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do your own research :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Much better than relying on yours:-)
>>>>
>>>Do make up your mind. Your previous responses were:
>>>
>>>"Why not?", "Where do they come from, Malcolm?", and "I'm asking you".
>>>
>>>All three of which suggest that you were perfectly happy to rely on
>>>mine.
>>
>>More sloppy conclusions from the sloppy scientist.  I asked you to
>>justify your statement.
>>
>I don't need to. What I know is that you would find it impossible to 
>justify your own apparent belief that all grants come from taxpayers.

Do you mean from trusts , companies etc?

>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, it doesn't. Grants *are* income. What else could they possibly be?
>>>>>>>>>And, please note, that the WT are following the laid down
>>>>>>>>>recommendations for the presentation of charity accounts.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Did I say they weren't?  But it does show a false and inflated view of
>>>>>>>>a charity's  income.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, it doesn't. Those who understand accounts can readily see where the
>>>>>>>income arises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But the public should be aware of what goes on, if invited to become
>>>>>>members, without having to understand accounts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>I am sure that those members interested in the exact expenditure of
>>>>>every penny of their subscription are capable of finding out for
>>>>>themselves without any help (?) from you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>But that isn't the target audience, Malcolm.
>>>>
>>>
>>>LOL!!  What a perfect Angus statement :-))
>>>
>>
>>Glad you agree.
>>
>Yes, it was a hilarious one, and so typically you :-))

No, typical of you.

>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>>>>>>>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>>>>>>>>accurate refection of income is shown.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of
>>>>>>>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from
>>>>>>>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
>>>>>>"pasturise money".
>>>>>>
>>>>>Is it really? It seems that this is a phrase that Google has never heard
>>>>>of. I wonder why not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You mean to say I've made a startling discovery>
>>>>
>>>>Something you don't know about.
>>>>
>>>>I'm beginning to think all your so-called knowledge is only Google
>>>>clickage.
>>>>
>>>>So when someone asks you a question, the little smart guy from Islay
>>>>jumps on to Google and then comes up with the benefit of his
>>>>"knowledge" :-))
>>>>
>>>When I have never heard of a phrase before, such as "pasturise money", I
>>>look it up to see what it means. What's more, when I tried Google, I
>>>even spelt it correctly :-)
>>
>>How did you spell it?
>>
>I'll give you a clue. The correct spelling is not "pasturise".
>

Gosh, I missed an "e" :-))

But it seems you're non the wiser.

Have another go.

I'll give you a hint, you pillock.

It's got nothing to do with Louis Pasteur.

That's  the verb "pasteurise"

>>>
>>>>>>>> Some of the worst cases of
>>>>>>>>business fraud have taken place by showing an unrealistic income and
>>>>>>>>expenditure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you accusing the WT of business fraud?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not at all. But the inclusion of grants as income to the charity
>>>>>>coffers does not reflect the true income in my view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, "in your view". That says it all. If the Charity Commissioners are
>>>>>happy for grants to be included in income, then why are you bothered?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'm not, but the public might be.
>>>>
>>>"The public" clearly aren't. Tens of millions of us belong to and/or
>>>donate to charities. If there was concern about those charities
>>>recording grants as income then one would have expected something to
>>>have been said about it by now. You're the first person I've come across
>>>who seems to think, unlike the Charity Commissioners, that grants are
>>>not part of income.
>>
>>I am also the first person to ask why those living in National Parks
>>are not entitled to the same level of local democracy as elsewhere in
>>the country.
>>
>>I can't help my originality:-))
>>
>So are you claiming that the question has never been asked by someone 
>living in an English National Park?

I've no idea about England or the rest of the world for that matter.
My interest is in Scotland. So if you know of anyone who has brought
up the matter with the Scottish Government earlier than I have,  then
please let me know.

>
>BTW, what was the answer?
>

There isn't one yet because no MSP seems willing to answer the
question.  I have prepared an ongoing  .pdf file of all correspondence
in this matter, which I shall release at the appropriate time.

>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And how do you propose to do that? Write yet more letters to newspapers?
>>>>>>>>>Make sure you post *all* the facts not just selective ones.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'll post the relevant facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's be a first :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not at all. I do so all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>LOL!!   Not *all* the *relevant* facts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not all facts are relevant.
>>>>
>>>But it is important, as I've just said above and you haven't read
>>>properly, that *all* the *relevant* facts are given.
>>
>>The relevant facts are the comparison between fundraising costs and
>>membership income.
>>
>An incomplete comparison lacking relevant facts.

What other facts can I compare between "fundraising costs and
membership income"?

>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That might be your opinion, but it does not appear to be the opinion of
>>>>>>>>>the Charity Commissioners. And so what if it is ring fenced (and not all
>>>>>>>>>grants are, of course). The money is given for a purpose and
>>>>>>>>>legitimately (i.e. approved by the organisation that oversees charities)
>>>>>>>>>appears on both sides of the balance sheet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But it does give a false impression of the charity's actual income.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No it doesn't. They've published the total of grants within the total
>>>>>>>income. How can that possibly give a "false impression"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Because it's not really an income.  It's "pasturise money".
>>>>>>
>>>>>See above. If Google haven't heard of the phrase, it suggests you've
>>>>>just invented it :-))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not me.  It's been a term  for as long as I can remember.
>>>>
>>>Well, you've beaten Google.
>>
>>That doesn't sound difficult.  There are many things that are not on
>>Google.
>>
>Name one :-)
>

My big toe.


>>>You should write to them and claim a prize!
>>>Mind you, now that it has been mentioned by you in this newsgroup, it
>>>should appear quite soon :-)
>>>
>>
>>You do it.  Then I can say you screwed Google as well.
>>
>LOL!!
>
>
>>>>>>>>>I'm not wasting time. I'm indulging in a little light relief between
>>>>>>>>>periods of work at my computer. I break off from time to time, read your
>>>>>>>>>latest post, have a laugh, compose a reply, and go back to working.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So you waste your time all the time.  Thought so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A typical Angus "jumping to a conclusion without any evidence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Sounds like what a certain sloppy scientist does all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Well, only if you are calling yourself a "sloppy scientist" :-)
>>>>
>>>>I'm not a scientist, sloppy or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>Well, you're certainly not a scientist........
>>
>>I wouldn't want to be.
>>
>>But if I was, I wouldn't be a sloppy one.
>>
>Are you claiming you're not a messy feeder?

I probably was when I was a toddler.

Weren't you?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 07:58:25 +0000, Malcolm
 wrote:

>
>In article , 
>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 20:18:44 +0000, Malcolm
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article ,
>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 07:32:26 +0000, Malcolm
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:13:46 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:51 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>In article ,
>>>>>>>>>amacmil304@aol.com writes
>>>>>>>>>>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:51:24 +0000, Malcolm
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Because not all grants come from the taxpayer. I would have thought
>>>>>>>>>>>that, with your detailed knowledge of the subject, you would 
>>>>>>>>>>>have known
>>>>>>>>>>>that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Where do they come from, Malcolm?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Do you mean to say you don't know?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm asking you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Do your own research :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Much better than relying on yours:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>Do make up your mind. Your previous responses were:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Why not?", "Where do they come from, Malcolm?", and "I'm asking you".
>>>>>
>>>>>All three of which suggest that you were perfectly happy to rely on
>>>>>mine.
>>>>
>>>>More sloppy conclusions from the sloppy scientist.  I asked you to
>>>>justify your statement.
>>>>
>>>I don't need to. What I know is that you would find it impossible to
>>>justify your own apparent belief that all grants come from taxpayers.
>>
>>Do you mean from trusts , companies etc?
>>
>No, those are listed in the WT accounts as donations.
>

So no grants come from any of these organisations.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Or rather if you thought they would take the slightest notice of you.
>>>>>>>>>>>What experience do you have in the preparation of charity accounts?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>None whatsoever.   But I'm sure that it is very important that an
>>>>>>>>>>accurate refection of income is shown.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Which in the case of the WT it is. They have published a breakdown of
>>>>>>>>>the total income, so you can see exactly how much income derives from
>>>>>>>>>grants. Nothing is concealed.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But it's not really an "income".  It's what is known in business as
>>>>>>>>"pasturise money".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Is it really? It seems that this is a phrase that Google has never heard
>>>>>>>of. I wonder why not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You mean to say I've made a startling discovery>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Something you don't know about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm beginning to think all your so-called knowledge is only Google
>>>>>>clickage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So when someone asks you a question, the little smart guy from Islay
>>>>>>jumps on to Google and then comes up with the benefit of his
>>>>>>"knowledge" :-))
>>>>>>
>>>>>When I have never heard of a phrase before, such as "pasturise money", I
>>>>>look it up to see what it means. What's more, when I tried Google, I
>>>>>even spelt it correctly :-)
>>>>
>>>>How did you spell it?
>>>>
>>>I'll give you a clue. The correct spelling is not "pasturise".
>>>
>>
>>Gosh, I missed an "e" :-))
>>
>>But it seems you're non the wiser.
>>
>You've just missed another "e" :-)))
>
>

Did I?

>>Have another go.
>>
>>I'll give you a hint, you pillock.
>>
>Ah, Angus has surrendered. I thought he would.
>
>Surrender accepted.

Not at all. 

And you're too dim to work it out.

Come on, Malcolm, put your thinking cap on and work out what
"pasturise money" is.

I first heard reference to it in the early sixties.  It is an excelent
descriptive term very applicable to good business sense.

That's another hint.

Are you still a pillock?


Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident. 
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)