In message , 
amacmil304@aol.com writes
>On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 20:13:46 +0000, Malcolm
> wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>>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:-)

Note to Angus ( and casual readers) please remember this every time you 
try to avoid answering a question by using this ploy.

>
>>>>
>>>
>>>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.

No obviously the target audience in this case is any casual reader who 
might be thinking of joining the WT.  Angus hopes to sway there actions 
without disclosing he has a long running vendetta against the WT or 
giving the full facts.

>
>>>>>
>>>>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.

For a man who isn't bothered you are harping on about it an awful lot.

Don't patronise the "public" they are capable of understanding how 
charities work what is required by the CC and accounts in general.

>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.

Obviously but Malcolm points out you **don't** post **all** the 
******relevant****** facts.

>
>>>>>
>>>>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.
>

Note to casual readers you may want to remember this admission by Angus 
when he next makes a broad sweeping statement and then can't back it up 
by any  references.
-- 
Malcolm Kane