[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Robert

The dispersement of funds is the issue, correct?

That's what I thought. I figured that $6 million is supposed to be distributed to vegetarian organizations. Organizations that will help our cause grow and increase awareness. The money is set to be earmarked for non-vegetarian groups, vivisectors, and anti-vegetarian groups and so I posted here to rally support.

The response I get from the site administrator is some rambling about some "other" vegetarian site and not trusting anyone associated with this "other" vegetarian site such as John Robbins, the patron saint of vegetarianism, and many others. Michael and others, fitting the mold of the "go-along-mentality", appear to rather watch the money go to non-vegetarian groups, vivisectors, and anti-vegetarian groups because some "other" vegetarian site has something to do with the dissenters.

It seems very pathological.

P

 

[Michael]

Pichula -

Do me a favor please. Start a thread like this over at VegSource, post the url back here, and we'll all come over and discuss it.

 

[Robert]

I don't think it's a very fair assessment to state that Michael and Tame or other admins/mods are part of some go-along mentality. On the contrary, they've been around long enough to question motives.

I agree that before supporting anything, full disclosure and understanding is vital. I would not sign anything unless I knew 100% what exactly it was that I was signing for or supporting. The fact that the "other site" is involved in some way shape or form while not being qualified for monetary award is to me, questionable at best.

 

[GhostUser]

Michael- I am sorry that your feelings are hurt because VS won't link to your site. Really. I feel awful for you. But what does this have to do with the McDonalds suit and the money being given to vivisectors, anti-vegetarian groups, and non-vegetarian groups?

Are your hurt feelings more important than seeing to it that money that is supposed to go to vegetarians actually goes to vegetarians?

P

 

[Robert]

Pichula, wow, you really are off the mark. Hurt feelings cause VS won't link this site? Hardly. He is merely skeptical, I would suspect, of the motives behind the participation of so many VS persons in the funds dispersement. I am too.

You can bet that the only people VS will recommend for getting monetary awards are ones that benefit them financially and/or politically (not to mention specifiying sites that have direct links to or ties to, such as Earthsave). I would hardly consider them an unbiased participant. Do you?

 

[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Robert

The fact that the "other site" is involved in some way shape or form while not being qualified for monetary award is to me, questionable at best.

Huh? The fact that the "Other" site, run by vegetarians that want to see that McDonalds settlement money goes to actual vegetarian organizations rather than to vivisectors and organizations that FIGHT vegetariansim, is involved even though they do not qualify for monetary award is questionable to you?

Please explain. I am all ears.

P

 

[Robert]

Pichula, I am really really not interested in getting into some debate over VS. It's just not worth it to me. All I am saying is they are a very biased bunch and seem to only do things that benefit them, no one else. I question anything they are involved with by default.

 

[Michael]

As I have stated, I will not support this without knowing what they have planned for the money. If the original settlement had the money going to the Cattleman's Beef Board that wouldn't change the fact that I would still want to know exactly what it is I would be supporting.

As I said, I will not go along with this simply because VegSource says it's a good thing. If that makes me a bad person, fine. If it makes me pro-vivisection, fine. Happy?

 

[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Robert

You can bet that the only people VS will recommend for getting monetary awards are ones that benefit them financially and/or politically (not to mention specifiying sites that have direct links to or ties to, such as Earthsave). I would hardly consider them an unbiased participant. Do you?

1.) No, you can't bet on that. VS hosts hundreds of sites and orgs for free. They donate web space, e-mail server resources, and bandwidth to a large number of organizations for no charge at all. It is expensive for some of these orgs to pay for hosting and e-mail service. Ask Michael, he was asking for donations some time ago to help pay for his expenses. If VS were only out for what benefits them, they wouldn't host these orgs for no charge.

2) Even if it were true that VS is only out for their own interests, the disbursement is being ruled on by the court and input is coming in from FAR more than just VS. It is being ruled on by the input of the class. The vegetarian class of which I belong, you belong, and most of us belong. If you don't trust VS and want to make sure the money goes to the proper orgs SPEAK UP! Is this starting to sink in?

3) My name is Pichula.

P

 

[Michael]

None of this explains how they want the money split up. I think that's the heart of the issue and what most of us would want to know before supporting this. As I've said time and time again, I don't think that's too much to ask. For some reason the information apparently hasn't been made public (at least no one has presented it here) which makes me even more skeptical.

Why not let us see where they want the money to go? That's all I'm asking!

 

[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Michael

As I have stated, I will not support this without knowing what they have planned for the money. If the original settlement had the money going to the Cattleman's Beef Board that wouldn't change the fact that I would still want to know exactly what it is I would be supporting.

You are very entertaining. You can't be this DENSE?!!!!

You are supporting whatever *YOU* send in as your own personal recommendation as a vegetarian! *YOU* are sending in your own protest to the court about the money going to vivisectors, non-vegetarian groups and anti-vegetarian groups and *YOU* are making your own statement of who the money should go to. What the #$#&^# does VS have to do with that?!

If this still hasn't sunk in and your hurt feelings still need some massaging: The MORE people send in their recommendations, the LESS the VS recommendations stand out. The LESS people send in their recommendations, the MORE the VS recommendations

stand out.

P

 

[Robert]

Pichula:

1. Edited to clarify: BS. They do nothing for free. They slam their own pages with numerous ads that makes them money. Hosting sites for no "hosting cost" does come with a cost. The hosted sites are required to add a link to VS. This makes them money via increased page ranking with Google and other spiders by generating traffic back to their site as the main gateway.

Michael, I did know they used a link/or gaphical button opn bottom of each page. This gets them a higher result in search listings, thereby capitalizing on the content of others to attract new traffic streams.

2. I understand that people need to speak up. I merely stated that VS will only recommend sites that will benefit them. And I believe that statement wholeheartedly. Having said that, I do agree people need to speak up.

3. My apologies. The misspelling was not intentional and has been corrected in my earlier response.

Having said all of that, I am getting out of this conversation before it turns into another VB/VS thread all over again. I have much better things to do than discuss the merits, or lack of merits, associated with VS.

 

[Michael]

Robert, I know you're not too familiar with this but VS does not show ads on sites that they host. They only have a link/button back to VS.

Pichula - I apparently am not entitled to my own opinion. And I've admitted that the fact that I do not agree with you makes me a bad person. Apparently a stubborn and/or ignorant person as well. So we're done, right? You win.

 

[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Michael

None of this explains how they want the money split up. I think that's the heart of the issue and what most of us would want to know before supporting this. As I've said time and time again, I don't think that's too much to ask. For some reason the information apparently hasn't been made public (at least no one has presented it here) which makes me even more skeptical. Why not let us see where they want the money to go? That's all I'm asking!

Whatever VS is presenting is being filed with the court as ANYONE else can do. Anyone can send in their recommendation to the court. It's public record if you wish to see what they filed.

Honestly, with all due respect, I think it is your inability to grasp the process that keeps you skeptical. You just don't get it and it scares you.

P

 

[Michael]

Quote:

You are supporting whatever *YOU* send in as your own personal recommendation as a vegetarian! *YOU* are sending in your own protest to the court about the money going to vivisectors, non-vegetarian groups and anti-vegetarian groups and *YOU* are making your own statement of who the money should go to. What the #$#&^# does VS have to do with that?!

Quote:

Whatever VS is presenting is being filed with the court as ANYONE else can do. Anyone can send in their recommendation to the court.

I kept talking about how I wouldn't support a plan offered by VS without knowing what it was they had planned and you just now present this information? If you would have said this in the beginning there wouldn't have been any problem. I admitted I was not familiar with how this worked.

 

[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Michael

apparently am not entitled to my own opinion. And I've admitted that the fact that I do not agree with you makes me a bad person. Apparently a stubborn and/or ignorant person as well. So we're done, right? You win.

Opinion on what? VS? Have your opinion. I don't care. It's your complete inability to understand that vegetarians need to write to the court and make recommendations for disbursement that has you not looking like a bad person but more like someone a bit slow on the uptake.

P

 

[GhostUser]

Originally posted by Robert

Edited to clarify: BS. They do nothing for free. They slam their own pages with numerous ads that makes them money. Hosting sites for no "hosting cost" does come with a cost. The hosted sites are required to add a link to VS. This makes them money via increased page ranking with Google and other spiders by generating traffic back to their site as the main gateway.

You mean "edited to hide your inacurate assumption"?

Your assertion is that, because sites have to have a link back to VS, their hosting does come at a cost to them? Give it up, Robert. That is a very weak argument. To coin a term, I would say that it is "Hyper-Weak."

Now that you agree....speak up!

P

 

[GhostUser]

I saw that you agreed. That was very good of you. Really. Not many people would do that in the heat of "being right".

However, you may not have noticed, Robert edited his post based on your feedback to him and then added some weak argument about a link is a "cost" to the people VS hosts.

That was weak.

P

 

[Robert]

No, I edited to clarify my post because even Michael misunderstood its intention. And yes, that IS my assumption. If you understood the search engine spiders and their algorthms, you'd also understand.

I hide nothing. If I realized that my initial post would cause confusion, I would have written it this way in the first place. I assumed, incorrectly, that anyone with half a knowledge of the web would have been able to interpret it. I guess you're not one of those people and I thank Michael for pointing out the confusion.

Pitchula, my entire point is that requiring that link allows VS to indirectly profit off the content produced by those they host. Learn the web pal before you make accusations.

 

[Tame]

<<Tame takes off the moderator hat>>

Okay Pissant, Pascagula, Peckerweed or whatever your name is - drop it right now. I don't know what made you think we needed a VS infomercial, but trust me, it's about as welcome as a turd in the punch bowl.

You want to discuss the settlement? Fine. Do so. Just accept that others have different opinions on it. Continually reflecting this back upon Michael (calling him "slow" etc.) is not getting your point, whatever the hell it is, across to anyone.

Keep it up, and I'll have my virtual boot so far up your ass you'll be tastin' shoe leather and develop a nasty case of athlete's tongue.