Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / February 2010



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Please this service is NOT free.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Hongyi Zhao - 05 Feb 2010 01:32 GMT
Hi all,

I've read the following sentence from somewhere:

Please this service is NOT free.

I want to know  whether this sentence is clear and correct or not?

Best regards.
Signature

.: Hongyi Zhao [ hongyi.zhao AT gmail.com ] Free as in Freedom :.

tony cooper - 05 Feb 2010 02:31 GMT
>Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I want to know  whether this sentence is clear and correct or not?

Why would you question the clarity of it?  It's an unambiguous
statement.  I'd put a comma after "Please", but the sentence is very
clear to me.

It does require some supporting context.  The service is not free, so
there is a charge for it, and what the charge is should be explained
elsewhere.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Jerry Friedman - 05 Feb 2010 03:25 GMT
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Best regards.

I'd interpret the "please" as "Please remember that".  The sentence is
clear, as Tony said, but a careful writer would probably add
"remember" or some other request for the "Please" to attach to.

--
Jerry Friedman
Fred - 05 Feb 2010 03:42 GMT
On Feb 4, 6:32 pm, Hongyi Zhao <hongyi.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Best regards.

I'd interpret the "please" as "Please remember that".  The sentence is
clear, as Tony said, but a careful writer would probably add
"remember" or some other request for the "Please" to attach to.

--
Please note this service is not free, looks better to me. After all it's
hard to remember something that you possibly never knew.
Jerry Friedman - 05 Feb 2010 05:33 GMT
> > > Hi all,
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Please note this service is not free, looks better to me. After all it's
> hard to remember something that you possibly never knew.

Could be that too.  It all depends on what came before the sentence in
question.

--
Jerry Friedman
Stan Brown - 05 Feb 2010 11:43 GMT
Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:32:04 +0800 from Hongyi Zhao
<hongyi.zhao@gmail.com>:

> Hi all,
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> I want to know  whether this sentence is clear and correct or not?

It's definitely not correct: some punctuation is needed after
"please". But it probably needs some additional words to make it
clear.  And, for that matter, "This service is not free" will
probably be redundant when the sentence is clarified.

"This service is not free.  Please leave $1 on the tray when you take
your coffee."

As to how effective such a sign might be, I make no claim.  But I'll
bet it's no more effective than a plain

"Please leave $1 on the tray when you take your coffee."

and the latter is less annoying.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

R H Draney - 05 Feb 2010 19:20 GMT
Stan Brown filted:

>"This service is not free.  Please leave $1 on the tray when you take
>your coffee."
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>and the latter is less annoying.

I usually see something along the lines of "coffee provided by X; suggested
donation $1"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Stan Brown - 06 Feb 2010 02:22 GMT
5 Feb 2010 11:20:37 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:

> Stan Brown filted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I usually see something along the lines of "coffee provided by X; suggested
> donation $1"....r

But in that case it *is* free.  There is no obligation, legal or
moral, to donate.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Evan Kirshenbaum - 06 Feb 2010 03:15 GMT
> 5 Feb 2010 11:20:37 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> But in that case it *is* free.  There is no obligation, legal or
> moral, to donate.

I think that the implication is that it's not free to those providing
it, so help in defraying the costs is appreciated.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |People think it must be fun to be a
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |super genius, but they don't
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |realize how hard it is to put up
                                      |with all the idiots in the world.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |                   Calvin
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

R H Draney - 06 Feb 2010 06:13 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>> 5 Feb 2010 11:20:37 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>I think that the implication is that it's not free to those providing
>it, so help in defraying the costs is appreciated.

I think that the implication is that, while they're not going to hold you down
and take money out of your pockets should you fail to donate, you're a horrible
person if you don't and should be consumed with guilt....

That's when they specify an exact amount for the "suggested donation"...someone
a bit more golden-rule would say something like "pay what you feel is fair"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Stan Brown - 06 Feb 2010 12:06 GMT
5 Feb 2010 22:13:31 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:

> Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> That's when they specify an exact amount for the "suggested donation"...someone
> a bit more golden-rule would say something like "pay what you feel is fair"....r

Perhaps it's the contrarian in me, but naming a *price* and calling
it a suggested donation makes my hackles rise.

I sing with a community chorus, and I like the way they handle it.  
One member buys cookies and tea for our breaks, and has a canister
out for donations to defray the cost. Most people (including me) put
in a few dollars once or twice a semester. But if the canister had a
sign with a price, I would not be so willing.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Peter Moylan - 06 Feb 2010 23:30 GMT
> 5 Feb 2010 22:13:31 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:

>> That's when they specify an exact amount for the "suggested
>> donation"...someone a bit more golden-rule would say something like "pay
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> in a few dollars once or twice a semester. But if the canister had a
> sign with a price, I would not be so willing.

I too sing with a community chorus, but our custom is to put 50c into
the cup as we pour our tea. (For preference, not the same cup that the
tea is going to go into.) Everyone is happy with that system. Those who
think the price is too high don't drink the tea. Nobody checks to see
that all pay their dues; a trust system seems to work.

One's attitude towards this must depend, I think, on the directness of
the link between the money going in and the money spent on tea, coffee,
milk, biscuits, etc. In our choir the supplies are purchased and brought
in by the occupant of a formally established position, known for
historical reasons as the "biscuit Nazi". An unstated but essential part
of his job is balancing the budget. If the kitty is getting low, he has
to switch to buying cheaper biscuits or crap coffee, or even to tighten
the rules on how many biscuits a person my consume. (Hence the job
title.) If income exceeds expenses, we get a better class of chocolate
biscuit. The agreed "fee" of 50c is based on gradually accumulated
knowledge of how much actually has to be spent.

If people stopped putting in their fifty cents, the position of biscuit
Nazi would go unfilled, and then I suppose we would sing in vain for our
supper.

Compare this with a system where the donations go into general revenue,
and the tea break expenses come out of general revenue. With a weakened
link between perceived income and perceived outgo, the desirable amount
to be donated would be a bit hit-and-miss. Perhaps it's different for
others, but our group feels that it's fairer to specify a fixed cost
than to rely on generosity.

But then I come from a country where we don't tip at restaurants. We're
used to the price of food being specified up-front.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Stan Brown - 07 Feb 2010 15:15 GMT
Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:30:57 +1100 from Peter Moylan
<gro.nalyomp@retep>:
> I too sing with a community chorus, but our custom is to put 50c into
> the cup as we pour our tea. (For preference, not the same cup that the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> the link between the money going in and the money spent on tea, coffee,
> milk, biscuits, etc.

Agreed.  I think that is why, at our first rehearsal, they have Ellen
stand and be introduced.  That way we know that a specific person is
providing these things, and we feel moved to make sure she doesn't do
it at a loss.

There's no rule about the number of cookies to be consumed, though
most people take only one.  Somehow "cookie Nazi" wouldn't have the
same ring as "biscuit Nazi".

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Mark Brader - 08 Feb 2010 06:03 GMT
Stan Brown:
> Perhaps it's the contrarian in me, but naming a *price* and calling
> it a suggested donation makes my hackles rise.

My wife and I make donations to various charities from time to time.
In order to get the resulting income tax credit, we are compelled to
give them a name and address, which enables them to shower us with
requests for further donations for years afterwards.

These solicitations always include a form we can mail back, which
almost invariably% which has a line like:

    [ ] $25     [ ] $50     [ ] $100     [ ] Other: ____________

We have three math degrees between us and are quite capable of thinking
of a suitable number *all by ourselves*, thank you.  And hence our policy
that any solicitation with that style of insult goes straight into one
of two places: the recycling bin, or the shredder.

Incidentally, it appears that at least some charities construct the
numbers algorithmically based on the amount of our last donation.

% - There have been, I believe, exactly two exceptions.  And one of
those was specially constructed for us by a friend who happened to be
working at the charity and knew our policy.
Signature

Mark Brader              "Fighting off all of the species which you
Toronto                   have insulted would be a full-time mission."
msb@vex.net                              "Deja Q", ST:TNG, Richard Danus

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Robert Lieblich - 08 Feb 2010 17:22 GMT
[ ... ]

> My wife and I make donations to various charities from time to time.
> In order to get the resulting income tax credit, we are compelled to
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> Incidentally, it appears that at least some charities construct the
> numbers algorithmically based on the amount of our last donation.

Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
nearest micron, and what you see is the result.  These are the same
folks who have determined empirically that the offer of a "free gift"
results in more responses than the simple offer of a "gift."  The same
ones who print on the envelope "Mark Brader, you have won ten million
dollars  ..." and on something inside the envlope have printed "... if
the number printed on this piece of paper matches the one drawn at our
headquarters on February 28, 2010."

Those who see through them are obviously too few to upset the
statistics on which they rely.

Signature

Bob Lieblich
Who may have won 11 million dollars ...

Mark Brader - 08 Feb 2010 20:45 GMT
Bob Lieblich:
> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
> nearest micron, and what you see is the result.  These are the same
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> the number printed on this piece of paper matches the one drawn at our
> headquarters on February 28, 2010."

And the same ones who tell us "it is time to renew your subscription
to the magazine" when it still has 6-8 months remaining, and every
3 weeks thereafter.  (Or so it seems like.)
Signature

Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
msb@vex.net          |                                      -- Bill Clinton

Peter Moylan - 08 Feb 2010 22:13 GMT
> Bob Lieblich:
>> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
>> nearest micron, and what you see is the result.

A further result of /that/ is that I am now much less willing to give to
charity than I used to be. I am willing to donate to worthy causes, but
too many charities have placed themselves, by their own actions, in the
"non-worthy" category. My indignation outweighs my sympathy.

>> These are the same
>> folks who have determined empirically that the offer of a "free gift"
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> the number printed on this piece of paper matches the one drawn at our
>> headquarters on February 28, 2010."

Let us hope that the Nigerians never take lessons from the Reader's Digest.

> And the same ones who tell us "it is time to renew your subscription
> to the magazine" when it still has 6-8 months remaining, and every
> 3 weeks thereafter.  (Or so it seems like.)

Anyone who owns an internet domain name will have had experience of that
scam.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Evan Kirshenbaum - 09 Feb 2010 01:57 GMT
>> Bob Lieblich:
>>> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> actions, in the "non-worthy" category. My indignation outweighs my
> sympathy.

That's why I make a habit of throwing out charity request mail
unopened.  We still give a lot, but we don't need them to send us
anything, and I find that actually reading their requests makes me
less inclined.  I can make the decision more rationally without them.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It does me no injury for my neighbor
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |to say there are twenty gods, or no
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |God.
                                      |                  Thomas Jefferson
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

tony cooper - 09 Feb 2010 03:59 GMT
>>> Bob Lieblich:
>>>> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>anything, and I find that actually reading their requests makes me
>less inclined.  I can make the decision more rationally without them.

I am a registered Republican and my wife is a registered Democrat.  We
are both regularly selected by our respective parties to fill out
questionnaires on the subject of what should be done by our nation's
leaders, how effectively the country is being run, and what our
positions are on various very important topics.  We are also
encouraged to financially support the efforts of our parties in
designated increments conveniently listed on the form.


Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Stan Brown - 09 Feb 2010 06:05 GMT
Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:57:51 -0800 from Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>:
> That's why I make a habit of throwing out charity request mail
> unopened.  We still give a lot, but we don't need them to send us
> anything, and I find that actually reading their requests makes me
> less inclined.  I can make the decision more rationally without them.

I once donated to a worthy charity for the first time -- not a
national charity but a local one, a free clinic or something of the
sort.  I sent my check with a letter, in which I said something like
"I'll send you occasional donations, but I don't want you to waste
money soliciting me. Do that and I'll never donate another dime."
They did, and I didn't.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

R H Draney - 09 Feb 2010 08:39 GMT
Stan Brown filted:

>I once donated to a worthy charity for the first time -- not a
>national charity but a local one, a free clinic or something of the
>sort.  I sent my check with a letter, in which I said something like
>"I'll send you occasional donations, but I don't want you to waste
>money soliciting me. Do that and I'll never donate another dime."
>They did, and I didn't.

Did you at least send them a letter saying "you blew it"?...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Stan Brown - 10 Feb 2010 12:52 GMT
9 Feb 2010 00:39:18 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:

> Stan Brown filted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Did you at least send them a letter saying "you blew it"?...r

Yes.  The reply, if I recall correctly, was nonresponsive blather
about how regularly sending to their "donor list" produced money.  I
didn't bother surreplying to remind them that I had specifically
asked not to be put on that list.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Cheryl - 10 Feb 2010 12:56 GMT
> 9 Feb 2010 00:39:18 -0800 from R H Draney <dadoctah@spamcop.net>:
>> Stan Brown filted:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> didn't bother surreplying to remind them that I had specifically
> asked not to be put on that list.

That reminds me of the time I complained to the post office how
inconvenient their new system of selecting which outlet to leave my
parcels was, since there were other, closer outlets than the one they
selected. They explained how carefully they chose the locations of the
postal outlets to ensure that all residents in my neighbourhood had one
in the most convenient location possible - thereby ignoring my main point.

Signature

Cheryl

John Varela - 10 Feb 2010 18:41 GMT
> That reminds me of the time I complained to the post office how
> inconvenient their new system of selecting which outlet to leave my
> parcels was, since there were other, closer outlets than the one they
> selected. They explained how carefully they chose the locations of the
> postal outlets to ensure that all residents in my neighbourhood had one
> in the most convenient location possible - thereby ignoring my main point.
Suntrust Bank used to have a tiny branch office in the center of
McLean, Va. It was far handier to me than the one up the street at
Dolley Madison Blvd. Then Suntrust sent a mailing that they were
closing the little branch office "in order to serve you better."

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Mark Brader - 11 Feb 2010 02:14 GMT
John Varela:
> Suntrust Bank used to have a tiny branch office in the center of
> McLean, Va. It was far handier to me than the one up the street at
> Dolley Madison Blvd. Then Suntrust sent a mailing that they were
> closing the little branch office "in order to serve you better."

The Royal Bank (of Canada) branch where I had my main bank accounts
at the time once announced its new hours of opening "in order to
serve you better" (or some closely similar wording).  You guessed it:
they were shorter than the old hours.

ObAUE: I don't mean that each hour had only 55 minutes, but it sounds
like it.
Signature

Mark Brader | "In a case like this, where the idiom is old and its wiring
Toronto     |  probably a mess, we tamper with nothing.  There is always
msb@vex.net |  the danger it will blow up in your face."  -- Matthew Hart

My text in this article is in the public domain.

the Omrud - 11 Feb 2010 08:36 GMT
> John Varela:
>> Suntrust Bank used to have a tiny branch office in the center of
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> serve you better" (or some closely similar wording).  You guessed it:
> they were shorter than the old hours.

Sure - many UK supermarkets now proclaim that they no longer accept
cheques "in order to improve the customer experience".  Or something.

Signature

David

Mark Brader - 11 Feb 2010 09:23 GMT
Mark Brader:
>> The Royal Bank (of Canada) branch where I had my main bank accounts
>> at the time once announced its new hours of opening "in order to
>> serve you better" (or some closely similar wording).  You guessed it:
>> they were shorter than the old hours.

"David":
> Sure - many UK supermarkets now proclaim that they no longer accept
> cheques "in order to improve the customer experience".  Or something.

Well, that one makes sense, if you're the customer *behind* the one who's
paying by check.
Signature

Mark Brader           "I cannot reply in French, but I will
Toronto                type English very slowly and loudly."
msb@vex.net                                            --Lars Eighner

Robin Bignall - 11 Feb 2010 21:22 GMT
>Mark Brader:
>>> The Royal Bank (of Canada) branch where I had my main bank accounts
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Well, that one makes sense, if you're the customer *behind* the one who's
>paying by check.

The last time I used a cheque in a supermarket was years ago before we
had PINs and had to sign CC slips.  They had a cheque printer at the
checkout and it took no longer to process than printing out a CC slip
would have.  
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

the Omrud - 13 Feb 2010 18:37 GMT
> Mark Brader:
>>> The Royal Bank (of Canada) branch where I had my main bank accounts
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Well, that one makes sense, if you're the customer *behind* the one who's
> paying by check.

That would be "to improve another customer's experience".

Signature

David

John Varela - 10 Feb 2010 03:35 GMT
> Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:57:51 -0800 from Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> money soliciting me. Do that and I'll never donate another dime."
> They did, and I didn't.

That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
charity instead of flowers. So you dutifully send an "in memory of"
donation, after which you are on their list and are bombarded with
mailings and phone calls from the charity, which you would never
have given to even once if it weren't for the family's request. I'm
the treasurer of a club and several times a year I send donations in
the name of our group. Anyone with half a brain should recognize
that an in-memory-of donation from the "Retired Men's Golf Group" is
a one-time thing, but no, they put me on their damned mailing list.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Mike Barnes - 10 Feb 2010 08:16 GMT
John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>:
>That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
>charity instead of flowers. So you dutifully send an "in memory of"
>donation, after which you are on their list and are bombarded with
>mailings and phone calls from the charity, which you would never
>have given to even once if it weren't for the family's request.

In my experience such donations are routed to the charity concerned via
the family (or the funeral director) and are therefore effectively
anonymous.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Cheryl - 10 Feb 2010 12:42 GMT
> John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>:
>> That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the family (or the funeral director) and are therefore effectively
> anonymous.

It must be one of those things that varies regionally. I think a lot of
funeral customs do. I would never expect to give such a donation
directly to the family and certainly not to the funeral director,
although there's usually some envelopes for the selected charity at the
funeral home if the family has a wake or reception there (whatever
they're calling those these days; my instinct is to use 'wake', but I
think that usage is becoming old-fashioned).

The family gets a list of donors, I think without the amounts in at
least some cases, and you often get a thank-you note from them as well
as the charity.

What really requires utmost tact and care locally is when money is given
for funeral expenses or for the aid of the survivors. They can't make an
appeal (they're usually stunned with shock and grief, and might have
objections to accepting charity in any case), nor can anyone tactlessly
intrude on them right at the moment of loss. Ideally, a friend or
relative will let the need be known and set up collection and
distribution arrangements in a manner that both gets the money to the
desired target in a timely manner and ensures that none of it gets lost
or mis-spent en route. There have been quite unseemly disputes about the
amount spent on various items and the length of time it takes for the
survivors of a fatal fire to actually get any money in such cases.

Signature

Cheryl

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 10 Feb 2010 13:21 GMT
>John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>:
>>That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>the family (or the funeral director) and are therefore effectively
>anonymous.

Ditto. This is typical wording locally:

   Family flowers only please. Donations in lieu, if desired, to
   Alzheimer's Society, c/o John Gray & Co. Funeral Directors, ...
http://www.belfasttelegraphclassified.co.uk/advert/FD2-100688622/MEHARG-MARY-JAN
E-MAUREEN


If responding to such a request I would write a cheque payable to the
Alzheimer's Society and send it to the Funeral Director with a note
indicating in whose memory it is being given. The Funeral Director would
then after a few weeks bundle all the cheques together with a covering
letter and send then to the charity.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Mark Brader - 11 Feb 2010 04:57 GMT
John Varela:
>>> That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
>>> charity instead of flowers. So you dutifully send an "in memory of"
>>> donation, after which you are on their list and are bombarded with
>>> mailings and phone calls ...

Mike Barnes:
>> In my experience such donations are routed to the charity concerned via
>> the family (or the funeral director) and are therefore effectively
>> anonymous.

Peter Duncanson:
> Ditto. This is typical wording locally:
>     Family flowers only please. Donations in lieu, if desired, to
>     Alzheimer's Society, c/o John Gray & Co. Funeral Directors, ...

Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity doesn't
have your name and address, they can't send you the receipt you need
to claim the income tax credit.  Do you not get such a benefit or
does it work differently where you are?

Incidentally, I made a donation on January 18 for the Haitians, and
some mail arrived from the charity today (two letters were missing
from my name, as well, but the address was right).  I opened it,
expecting a thank-you letter and a receipt -- and instead it was
a thank-you letter and a demand (excuse me, an urgent request) for'
another donation.  Good grief.
Signature

Mark Brader, Toronto | English is just getting used to the telephone.
msb@vex.net          |                                 -- John Lawler

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mike Barnes - 11 Feb 2010 07:56 GMT
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net>:
>John Varela:
>>>> That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>to claim the income tax credit.  Do you not get such a benefit or
>does it work differently where you are?

Normally you give the charity your address so that *they* can claim the
tax credit. It might be possible to do things your way instead, I don't
know.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

the Omrud - 11 Feb 2010 08:39 GMT
> Mark Brader<msb@vex.net>:
>> John Varela:
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> tax credit. It might be possible to do things your way instead, I don't
> know.

It's not.  The form of tax relief available to individuals for
charitable giving is Gift Aid, which is operated by the charity and
which requires you to give your name and address.  This is so that the
charity can prove to the Revenue, if audited, that you are a UK tax
payer.  They can't claim the relief if you are not a UK tax payer.

Signature

David

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 Feb 2010 10:57 GMT
>> Mark Brader<msb@vex.net>:
>>> John Varela:
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>charity can prove to the Revenue, if audited, that you are a UK tax
>payer.  They can't claim the relief if you are not a UK tax payer.

Here is an example. The BBC (the broadcaster) runs a charity named BBC
Children in Need[1]. This raises money via annual fundraising TV and
radio shows nationally and locally. One way to contribute is to send a
text message to a particular phone number. (A fixed amount, GBP5, is
taken from your mobile phone account.) The acknowledgement message
directs you to a webpage where you can indicate your wish to have the
charity claim Gift Aid on top of your donation:
http://www.bbcchildreninneed.mobi/ChildrenInNeed.aspx

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/

The Children in Need charity is AFAIK purely a fundraising and granting
organisation, It does not perform direct charitable activities itself.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Cheryl - 11 Feb 2010 11:50 GMT
> Here is an example. The BBC (the broadcaster) runs a charity named BBC
> Children in Need[1]. This raises money via annual fundraising TV and
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> The Children in Need charity is AFAIK purely a fundraising and granting
> organisation, It does not perform direct charitable activities itself.

This is a completely different system than ours - here, individuals get
to claim a deduction on their tax forms for any donation to a registered
charity. Years and years ago, you could claim the full amount; now,
there's a formula you used to figure out how much of your total
donations you can claim. And you can't claim anything not given to a
registered charity. That sounds odd - but people sometimes give to
beggars in the street, or a collection done one time only for a specific
person, or send money overseas to a person or group that isn't
affiliated with a Canadian registered charity, and those amounts can't
be claimed on the tax form. Neither can anything like buying a ticket on
a raffle, even if the raffle is run by a registered charity, because in
that case, you might win, and then it wouldn't be a charitable donation.

"Gift aid" sounds like our "matching funds". That's not routine at all,
but after a major disaster, the government will sometimes offer matching
funds for donations - they're doing it for Haiti. But that's done on a
limited-time basis in response to an unusual need, it isn't routine.

http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/ANN-114115719-MVV

Signature

Cheryl

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 11 Feb 2010 12:15 GMT
>> Here is an example. The BBC (the broadcaster) runs a charity named BBC
>> Children in Need[1]. This raises money via annual fundraising TV and
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>
>http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/acdi-cida/ACDI-CIDA.nsf/eng/ANN-114115719-MVV

With Gift Aid the donor has to state on the annual tax return form how
much has been donated under the Gift Aid rules. While the money a
charity can claim appears to be "matching funds" it is taken from the
tax paid by the donor. It is not an occasional, special, arrangement. It
is routine for charitable giving by individuals who pay enough tax.

Sometimes the UK government will grant an exemption from VAT (a sales
tax) for individual charitable products. The latest is for the Haiti
benefit single organised by Simon Cowell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Hurts#Haiti_benefit_single

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

the Omrud - 13 Feb 2010 22:36 GMT
>> "Gift aid" sounds like our "matching funds". That's not routine at all,
>> but after a major disaster, the government will sometimes offer matching
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> With Gift Aid the donor has to state on the annual tax return form how
> much has been donated under the Gift Aid rules.

That's not a requirement, but an extra relief for higher rate tax
payers.  If the donor is a standard rate tax payer, the Gift Aid is
complete in itself and no declaration is required.  If the donor is a
higher rate tax payer (about £40,000 income and above) then he can
declare the amount given in Gift Aid and reclaim the rest of the tax
paid on the donation.  But you don't have to declare it if you can't be
bothered.  I never do - it would require the keeping of records.

Signature

David

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 13 Feb 2010 23:04 GMT
>>> "Gift aid" sounds like our "matching funds". That's not routine at all,
>>> but after a major disaster, the government will sometimes offer matching
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>payers.  If the donor is a standard rate tax payer, the Gift Aid is
>complete in itself and no declaration is required.

You may be right, but the instructions for filling in the tax return
form do not mention that. In fact, if you have not paid as much income
tax as the charities claim based on your gifts you will be "asked to pay
the difference (usually by including it in your tax calculation)".

>  If the donor is a
>higher rate tax payer (about £40,000 income and above) then he can
>declare the amount given in Gift Aid and reclaim the rest of the tax
>paid on the donation.  But you don't have to declare it if you can't be
>bothered.  I never do - it would require the keeping of records.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 12 Feb 2010 15:57 GMT
>> Here is an example. The BBC (the broadcaster) runs a charity named BBC
>> Children in Need[1]. This raises money via annual fundraising TV and
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>donations you can claim. And you can't claim anything not given to a
>registered charity.

In the UK only *some* tax payers are required to file annual tax
returns. I went through most of my working life without filling in a tax
return. My financial affairs were simple. My salary had tax deducted
automatically by my employer(s) based on instructions from the Revenue.
Interest on savings had tax deducted at a standard rate. The Gift Aid
system works well for a person who pays tax but does not file a tax
return. They make a written declaration to the charity that they pay
enough tax to cover the percentage that the charity will claim from the
Revenue and the charity then claims it.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Cheryl - 12 Feb 2010 16:16 GMT
> In the UK only *some* tax payers are required to file annual tax
> returns. I went through most of my working life without filling in a tax
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> enough tax to cover the percentage that the charity will claim from the
> Revenue and the charity then claims it.

Pretty well everyone here files a tax return. They have special sessions
for the poor or the poor elderly put on voluntarily by accountants, and
the maximum income to have your tax return done that way is very low, so
 know even the very poor have to file a return.

Of course, for many people the return is very simple. Your income tax,
Canada Pension & Employment insurance premiums are all deducted at
source, and your employer sends you a form with all the right numbers on
it, which you then enter on the tax return. And then you work out all
the stuff about charitable donations, health expenses, education
expenses, whatever they're calling the remote locations deduction now (I
haven't been eligible for years), child care credits and so on and so
forth, work out how much you should have paid the feds and your province
and compare that to how much your employer has already sent them on your
behalf. Then you either pay in more or get some back.

It gets complicated if you have multiple sources of income, particularly
if any of them are from foreign countries, complicated investments,
self-employment etc etc etc.

I think the whole process is intended to make the taxpayer feel like he
or she has some control over or at least knowledge about the taxation
system. If they just went ahead and took the money, and you didn't check
their calculations, how would you know they were right, or that they
took all your personal circumstances into consideration?

Of course, they always are right, or have been, in my case. One of my
relatives got into some kind of argument with them involving whether or
not the right amounts had been put into a registered retirement savings
plan (I think their claim was that too much had been, and the excess
should have been taxed) but I think my relative's accountant sorted
things out.

Signature

Cheryl

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 12 Feb 2010 17:14 GMT
>> In the UK only *some* tax payers are required to file annual tax
>> returns. I went through most of my working life without filling in a tax
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>their calculations, how would you know they were right, or that they
>took all your personal circumstances into consideration?

The way it works in the UK is that each taxpayer is sent an annual (at
least) Coding Notice by the Revenue. This contains a magic number called
the "tax code". This number is also sent to your employer who then uses
it to calculate how much tax to deduct. The notice sent to you, the
taxpayer, shows how the code has been calculated based on your personal
circumstances. The code is basically a tax free allowance. Your employer
deducts it from your annual pay before applying standard tax
calculations to what is left.

This UK Gov. webpage starts:
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/SelfAssessmentYourTaxRetur
n/DG_4017116


   Do you need to complete a tax return?

   If you have relatively straightforward tax affairs and already pay
   tax through PAYE (Pay As You Earn) you probably won't need to
   complete a tax return. But if you have more complicated tax affairs
   - or income from several sources - you may need to complete one.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/Taxes/BeginnersGuideToTax/Income
Tax/Taxcodes/DG_078568


   Tax codes - the basics

   A tax code is used by your employer or pension provider to calculate
   the amount of tax to deduct from your pay or pension. If you have
   the wrong tax code you could end up paying too much or too little
   tax.

   What is a tax code?
   
   A tax code is usually made up of several numbers and a letter, for
   example: 117L or K497.
   
   If your tax code is a number followed by a letter
   
   * if you multiply the number in your tax code by ten, you'll get the
     total amount of income you can earn in a year before paying tax
   * the letter shows how the number should be adjusted following any
     changes to allowances announced by the Chancellor [of the
     Exchequer (the UK finance minister)]...
   ....

>Of course, they always are right, or have been, in my case. One of my
>relatives got into some kind of argument with them involving whether or
>not the right amounts had been put into a registered retirement savings
>plan (I think their claim was that too much had been, and the excess
>should have been taxed) but I think my relative's accountant sorted
>things out.

In the UK a taxpayer is responsible for giving the taxman the correct
information from which the tax code is calculated. If the code appears
to be wrong the tax payer can question it. That is all separate from
filing or not filing a tax return.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Nick - 20 Feb 2010 10:32 GMT
>>> Here is an example. The BBC (the broadcaster) runs a charity named BBC
>>> Children in Need[1]. This raises money via annual fundraising TV and
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> enough tax to cover the percentage that the charity will claim from the
> Revenue and the charity then claims it.

And it works for all sorts of donations.  You can now put a cash sum in
an envelope with spaces for your details in most churches.  And I've
recently seen signs in charity shops that say that they can claim tax
back in some way on the value of donations you give to them (presumably
the argument being that you could sell the things for the same
second-hand value yourself, so you've given away that cash).
Signature

Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

Mike Barnes - 20 Feb 2010 11:35 GMT
Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk>:
>I've recently seen signs in charity shops that say that they can claim
>tax back in some way on the value of donations you give to them
>(presumably the argument being that you could sell the things for the
>same second-hand value yourself, so you've given away that cash).

The way that works is that you don't donate the goods. You agree that
the shop can sell them on your behalf, and that you will donate the
proceeds to them.

   http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/rules/retail.htm

Note that if a customer complains about the goods they bought, you are
liable as seller (refunds, etc) but you cannot claim your donation back.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Feb 2010 12:15 GMT
>>>> Here is an example. The BBC (the broadcaster) runs a charity named BBC
>>>> Children in Need[1]. This raises money via annual fundraising TV and
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>the argument being that you could sell the things for the same
>second-hand value yourself, so you've given away that cash).

The charitable organisation claims the tax back by supplying the Revenue
with a list of the names of donors and the amount each has donated.
Small value donations can be aggregated and reported without the donors'
names being stated.

However,
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities/gift_aid/record-keeping.htm

   Your charity or Community Amateur Sports Club (CASC) must keep
   records of donations received, the Gift Aid declarations relating to
   those donations - including any that are cancelled - and records of
   any benefits you have given in return for donations.

   You must be able to show that your Gift Aid repayment claims are
   accurate and that all the conditions of Gift Aid are met - for
   example, that donations are for gifts of money and that the value of
   any benefits given in return are within certain limits. The records
   must also provide an audit trail linking each donation to an
   identifiable donor who has given a valid Gift Aid declaration.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Mark Brader - 13 Feb 2010 04:22 GMT
Cheryl Perkins:
> This is a completely different system than ours - here, individuals
> get to claim a deduction on their tax forms for any donation to
> a registered  charity. Years and years ago, you could claim the
> full amount; now, there's a formula you used to figure out how
> much of your total donations you can claim. ...

That's not quite right.  It makes it sound as if you always did better
under the old method; actually that depends on your tax bracket and on
how much money you donated.

The old method, last used in tax year 1987, was that charitable
donations -- and several other things -- were simply deducted from
your taxable income.  The result was that people in a high tax bracket
got a larger benefit for the same deduction.

Starting with tax year 1988, the system was reformed by replacing
many of these deductions with tax credits.  This means you compute
a percentage of what would previously have been a deduction and your
income tax payable is reduced by that amount.  So the amount of the
tax credit is independent of your tax bracket.

For most of the credits that used to be deductions, the credit rate
is set equal to the marginal rate of the lowest tax bracket.  Thus
taxpayers in the lowest bracket get the same benefit they did under
the old system, while those in higher brackets no longer get more.
But charitable donations are an exception.  For those, the first $200
that you donated and claimed in a particular tax year% produces a
credit at that rate, but the rest gives you a credit based on the
*highest* tax bracket's marginal rate.  Therefore, if you are in a
middle bracket and you donate enough, you can get a bigger tax credit
than the benefit you would have had under the old system of deduction.

% - You can delay the claim if you want, and pool with your spouse.
Cathy and I usually make one claim every two years, to increase the
portion credited at the higher rate.

Disclaimer: at a certain point the tax return splits into separate
federal and provincial tax calculations (except in Quebec, where they
file two separate returns).  Under the old deduction system, this
split was after the deductions were calculated; but under the new
system, federal and provincial credits are calculated separately.
In the case of Ontario, everything I said above about how the credits
are calculated applies to both federal and provincial taxes, but
I don't know about other provinces and for all I know they may have
gone separate ways on this.

ObAUE: the credits I'm talking about are called "non-refundable tax
credits".  What that means is not that you can't get a refund based
on them, but only that they can't be used to reduce your total federal
or provincial tax below zero.
Signature

Mark Brader                   "'Taxpayer' includes any person
Toronto                        whether or not liable to pay tax."
msb@vex.net                      -- Income Tax Act of Canada, s.248(1)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Cheryl - 13 Feb 2010 13:17 GMT
> That's not quite right.  It makes it sound as if you always did better
> under the old method; actually that depends on your tax bracket and on
> how much money you donated.
<snip details>
> ObAUE: the credits I'm talking about are called "non-refundable tax
> credits".  What that means is not that you can't get a refund based
> on them, but only that they can't be used to reduce your total federal
> or provincial tax below zero.

I didn't understand that - I had always thought that I was losing by not
being able to claim all my charitable deductions, and didn't understand
the subtleties in the bit I snipped so as not to make those less
interested in Canadian taxes read it twice.

My mind boggles, sometimes - and my return is practically as simple as
it gets.

I still end up having to work it out several times and still sometimes
get it wrong. I have tried tax software, but I swear one version didn't
pick up on a missing deduction - I think the remote communities thing -
that I remembered and checked for.

Signature

Cheryl

John Varela - 11 Feb 2010 20:13 GMT
> Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity doesn't
> have your name and address, they can't send you the receipt you need
> to claim the income tax credit.  Do you not get such a benefit or
> does it work differently where you are?

In the US you need some sort of proof of the donation. If the
donation is over $200 then you need a piece of paper from the
charity stating the net value of the donation after deducting for
any tote bag, coffee mug, or other premium that you may have
received.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Skitt - 11 Feb 2010 21:57 GMT

>> Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity doesn't
>> have your name and address, they can't send you the receipt you need
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> In the US you need some sort of proof of the donation. If the
> donation is over $200 then you need a piece of paper from the

over $250 (I just did my taxes).

> charity stating the net value of the donation after deducting for
> any tote bag, coffee mug, or other premium that you may have
> received.

Signature

Skitt (AmE)

John Varela - 12 Feb 2010 22:16 GMT
>  
> >> Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity doesn't
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> over $250 (I just did my taxes).

They changed it?

I just did my taxes, too. It's getting outrageously complex. The
instruction book that comes with the tax forms is 102 pages long,
followed by 26 pages of appendixes and an index. And that's the
Reader's Digest versin. Just look at the list of forms and
instructions at

http://www.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/formsinstructions.html

There are about a thousand of them. I wonder how much money the tax
preparation lobby spends.

> > charity stating the net value of the donation after deducting for
> > any tote bag, coffee mug, or other premium that you may have
> > received.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Skitt - 12 Feb 2010 23:01 GMT
>>>> Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity
>>>> doesn't have your name and address, they can't send you the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> They changed it?

No, it's been $250 for as long as I can remember, but I could check back
only as far as 2005.  By the way, that's $250 in cash plus another $250 in
goods.

<snip>
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

John Varela - 13 Feb 2010 21:07 GMT
> >>>> Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity
> >>>> doesn't have your name and address, they can't send you the
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> only as far as 2005.  By the way, that's $250 in cash plus another $250 in
> goods.

Page A-9, bottom center: "If the amount of your deduction ['Other
than by cash or check'] is more than $500, you must complete and
attach Form 8273...If your total deduction is over $5,000 you may
also have to get appraisals..."

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Skitt - 13 Feb 2010 21:41 GMT
>>>>>> Well, as I said, the way it works here is that if the charity
>>>>>> doesn't have your name and address, they can't send you the
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> attach Form 8273...If your total deduction is over $5,000 you may
> also have to get appraisals..."

Oh, yeah.  I was thinking of the text for "Gifts of $250 or more", starting
at the very end of page A-8.  I now see that the $250 refers to a "single
gift" amount.  I never gave a single gift worth that to any charity.  In
fact, I have not contributed more than that amount piecemeal over a year's
time either.  Our usual claims are in the $200 to $250 range for both the
cash and goods parts.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Stan Brown - 13 Feb 2010 11:33 GMT
12 Feb 2010 22:16:31 GMT from John Varela <OLDlamps@verizon.net>:
> I just did my taxes, too. It's getting outrageously complex. The
> instruction book that comes with the tax forms is 102 pages long,
> followed by 26 pages of appendixes and an index. And that's the
> Reader's Digest versin.

Tax season doesn't provide many laughs, but one sure source is the
"Paperwork Reduction Act" notice associated with each form. It gives
the number of hours for record keeping, for learning about the form
and the law, and for filling in the form.  The numbers are,of course,
ridiculously far below the real time required.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Cheryl - 10 Feb 2010 10:32 GMT
>  
> That's another thing. A friend dies and the family suggests a
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> that an in-memory-of donation from the "Retired Men's Golf Group" is
> a one-time thing, but no, they put me on their damned mailing list.

When that happened to me, I contacted the charity and they took me off
their list.

Signature

Cheryl

Cheryl - 09 Feb 2010 11:25 GMT
>>> Bob Lieblich:
>>>> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> anything, and I find that actually reading their requests makes me
> less inclined.  I can make the decision more rationally without them.

I have an informal set of rules I use in selecting charities. There are
always so many charities supporting causes I also support that I don't
run short of possible places to give my small donations, even if I am
very particular.

I don't give to charities that have massive publicity campaigns, and
especially not to ones that send you bits of junk in order to guilt you
into giving. I don't mind the 'suggested donation' thing, but I ignore
it. I do make the occasional exception - I rather like the War Amps'
statement of policy that begins '1. The War Amps does not use
professional fundraisers' even though they send out address labels. And
they help disabled children. The full text is on the bottom left-hand
corner:

http://www.waramps.ca/home.html?&LangType=1033

I do sometimes give to charities I probably wouldn't bother with
otherwise when they are listed as places to make a memorial donation
when someone dies. A couple years ago, one of them promptly started
sending me frequent appeals for more money and little gifts of address
labels and stamps. I got in touch with them and said I didn't want any
solicitations, and they stopped.

I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who makes
an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the annoyance
of the phone call, some of these groups are dodgy, if not actual scams.

Signature

Cheryl

Pat Durkin - 09 Feb 2010 12:48 GMT
>>>> Bob Lieblich:
>>>>> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> annoyance of the phone call, some of these groups are dodgy, if not
> actual scams.

I agree with most of what you say, except:  If I give to one charity,
and they give some of their donations to yet another cause, I don't
give to the first, either (with the internal exception of an
"umbrella" group such as United Way).  I think that "chain" kind of
donation could well be a lobby group, or some other organization
involving religious or political actions.
Default User - 09 Feb 2010 20:40 GMT
> I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who
> makes an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the
> annoyance of the phone call, some of these groups are dodgy, if not
> actual scams.

I don't mind calls from organizations that pick up donated used
clothing or goods. The calls are short and informative.

Brian

Signature

Day 372 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Robin Bignall - 09 Feb 2010 21:24 GMT
>> I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who
>> makes an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>I don't mind calls from organizations that pick up donated used
>clothing or goods. The calls are short and informative.

Around here, the ones wanting clothes and shoes simply push plastic
bags through the door with a note on when they'll collect.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Default User - 09 Feb 2010 22:32 GMT
> >> I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who
> >> makes an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Around here, the ones wanting clothes and shoes simply push plastic
> bags through the door with a note on when they'll collect.

I think the only ones who do anything like that around here are the
scouts. The boys collect canned food and the girls personal care items.

Brian

Signature

Day 372 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

R H Draney - 10 Feb 2010 02:53 GMT
Default User filted:

>> Around here, the ones wanting clothes and shoes simply push plastic
>> bags through the door with a note on when they'll collect.
>
>I think the only ones who do anything like that around here are the
>scouts. The boys collect canned food and the girls personal care items.

Around here, the homeowners' association considers that "littering" and assesses
fines against residents who don't remove the bags promptly....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

the Omrud - 10 Feb 2010 08:33 GMT
>>> I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who
>>> makes an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Around here, the ones wanting clothes and shoes simply push plastic
> bags through the door with a note on when they'll collect.

Same here - it's worth knowing that many of them are not charities.  If
you scrutinise the note carefully, it's possible to check whether they
quote a charity number or make any reference to the Charity Commission.

We take our unwanted clothes, books, etc, to a local cancer charity's
shop, so we have no wish for these plastic bags.  But since we are
rarely at home when they return, they don't get the bags back.

Signature

David

Robin Bignall - 10 Feb 2010 21:28 GMT
>>>> I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who
>>>> makes an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>you scrutinise the note carefully, it's possible to check whether they
>quote a charity number or make any reference to the Charity Commission.

We've spotted that, but we have so little to throw away by way of
clothes and shoes, and never throw books away, so the scammers won't
get rich by us.

We have a friend who owns a second-hand shop, and anything
substantial, such as a working TV that's being replaced, gets given to
him.

>We take our unwanted clothes, books, etc, to a local cancer charity's
>shop, so we have no wish for these plastic bags.  But since we are
>rarely at home when they return, they don't get the bags back.

I think that if they don't see their bag outside your house as they
pass by they don't even bother to knock.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Cheryl - 09 Feb 2010 23:08 GMT
>> I also make it an absolute rule that I do not donate to anyone who
>> makes an unsolicited phone call asking me to donate. Aside from the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Brian

I don't get them; well, I don't tend to let unsolicited callers get more
than a few words out, but I haven't heard of people phoning offering to
pick up donated goods. The usual process here is to call them if you
have large quantities of stuff, but to drop things off otherwise. What
old clothes I have to give away go to one particular charity simply
because they have a bin in an area slightly more convenient for me than
going to the Salvation Army, and much more convenient than going to,
say, the Epilepsy Association's shop. Things that aren't clothing have
to wait until I'm willing to make the trip to the Thrift Store, or be
given to one of the Fairs. Fairs don't seem to be as common as they used
to be, although all the centrally-located older churches seem to have
them. Schools used to. A 'fair', in this context, means a sale of
everything from old ornaments to handmade baby sweaters, toys and
plants. Clothing (aside from that for children) usually isn't sold, but
some groups have a particularly good reputation for homemade baked goods
or candy. You might also get tea or a dinner served, and maybe card
games, if they aren't opposed to card playing. Both the people who run
these events and the people who attend tend to be older, so I wonder how
long they'll continue, but you can find - and dispose of - nice stuff
there sometimes.

Signature

Cheryl

Mike Barnes - 10 Feb 2010 08:18 GMT
Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com>:
>I don't mind calls from organizations that pick up donated used
>clothing or goods. The calls are short and informative.

I'd mind a call like that (or any call asking for anything).

We save stuff up, and when there's enough, we deliver it ourselves. The
charitable cause selection criteria amount to convenience of location
and availability of nearby parking.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Maria Conlon - 10 Feb 2010 17:35 GMT
>> I don't mind calls from organizations that pick up donated used
>> clothing or goods. The calls are short and informative.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> charitable cause selection criteria amount to convenience of location
> and availability of nearby parking.

I'm with you, Mike -- sort of. For me, a phone call from a charity that
offers to pick up merchandise one wishes to give away is often welcome,
especially when the items require a truck (due to size/weight). Sure,
people could call the charity themselves rather than wait for a call,
but that doesn't always happen. Intentions are forgotten, at least for
the nonce.

However, we usually take our donations directly to the charity -- in our
case, that's the Salvation Army ("SA").

Sidebar: Dare I say it? We also shop there sometimes. Someone said to me
once that we were depriving poor people of the items, but I explained
that the help given by SA to the needy is generally not simply used
merchandise (though it could be, at times); it's often money for food or
other expenses. That money is derived, at least in part, from the sales
of donated items. And in any case, poor people can still shop in any SA
store.

But getting back to organized charities and other groups calling
possible donors at home: I'd prefer they send me something in the mail
(and often say so to callers) -- and my guess is that that would not
cost them any more than paying their phone bills and paying the people
who make the calls. (My guess is that they're not all volunteers.)

Plus: The whole calling-for-dollars industry has become way too
intrusive. We get phone calls all day and up 'til nine or ten PM. (And
they're not all for charities; many are for political donations or
attempts to sell us something.)

The phone thing has gone too far. It's our phone: we bought it; we pay
the phone bill. Said phone is for our convenience, not for the
convenience of all who have (or can get) the number.

I've been planning to write to my Congressional representative and
Senator and see if the prevailing laws covering this matter can be
changed. If not, maybe the home phone will have to go. Then, if we start
getting "please donate" or "please buy" calls on our cell phones, we may
well instigate an uprising of people who are Mad As Hell And Aren't
Going To Take It Anymore.

Maria Conlon, in a MAHAAGTTIA mood

ObAUE:
Regarding the above usage of "anymore":
From Merrian-Webster Online (an American Dictionary)
Main Entry: anymore
Function: adverb
Date: 14th century
1 : any longer  <I was not moving anymore with my feet -- Anaïs Nin>
2 : at the present time : now  <hardly a day passes without rain
anymore>
usage:
Although both "anymore" and "any more" are found in written use, in the
20th century "anymore" is the more common styling.
tony cooper - 10 Feb 2010 20:27 GMT
>I'm with you, Mike -- sort of. For me, a phone call from a charity that
>offers to pick up merchandise one wishes to give away is often welcome,
>especially when the items require a truck (due to size/weight). Sure,
>people could call the charity themselves rather than wait for a call,
>but that doesn't always happen. Intentions are forgotten, at least for
>the nonce.

Several years ago we called a local charity and said we had some stuff
to be picked up.  Ever since then they have called us about every
other week to say a truck will be in the area on a certain future day.

We find it helpful.  It prompts us to go through the closets and set
aside things to be given away.  

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Default User - 10 Feb 2010 21:59 GMT
> > I'm with you, Mike -- sort of. For me, a phone call from a charity
> > that offers to pick up merchandise one wishes to give away is often
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> We find it helpful.  It prompts us to go through the closets and set
> aside things to be given away.  

That's the kind of calls I mean. "This XYZ charity. We will have a
truck in your area on February 23. Do you have anything you'd like to
contribute?" If you say no, then that's it.

Brian

Signature

Day 373 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Skitt - 10 Feb 2010 21:45 GMT
Maria Conlon wrote, in part:

> Plus: The whole calling-for-dollars industry has become way too
> intrusive. We get phone calls all day and up 'til nine or ten PM. (And
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> Maria Conlon, in a MAHAAGTTIA mood

Are you not in the National Do Not Call Registry?  Granted, "Charities are
not covered by the requirements of the national registry. However, if a
third-party telemarketer is calling on behalf of a charity, a consumer may
ask not to receive any more calls from, or on behalf of, that specific
charity. If a third-party telemarketer calls again on behalf of that
charity, the telemarketer may be subject to a fine of up to $16,000."

Quoted text is from
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm

The only money soliciting calls we get are from some sort of police charity,
usually from a neighboring city (our phone is on that city's exchange).
That happens once a year, or so, and I just tell them that I don't live in
their city.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Maria Conlon - 11 Feb 2010 23:09 GMT
> Maria Conlon wrote, in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Are you not in the National Do Not Call Registry?

Yes, we are on that registry (for home phones). We are not on the one
for cellular phone numbers, as it's not really necessary. BTW, I've
never received a cell phone call from anyone I didn't know (except for
one or two wrong numbers).

Note: If someone wonders about the do-not-call list for cellular phones,
see what Snopes says about them:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp  (Snopes may be for
the US only, but I'm not sure.)

Note:
www.snopes.com is a site where you can find out about various scams or
simply untrue stories circulating via email.         (Sample: Bill Gates
will send a dollar to some deserving charitable cause each time a
certain email is forwarded.         Impossible? Listen, it's Bill Gates.
Of course, he could do that -- he's got the technology and the money.
Right?)

Back to request-for-donation calls: If I make a commitment to send x
dollars to any group, for instance, I will soon be receiving request
calls from other similar groups (in different cities/states). The same
goes for many kinds of charities. That is, donate to one, get your phone
number circulated to others. (And the same thing goes for written
requests and addresses.) The causes are probably legitimate in most
cases, but there's only so much a person can give. Being inundated with
requests gets old really fast.

Frankly, I rather resent this trading and passing along of my name (and
address or phone number). Charities that do this may be doing something
in a smart and business-like manner, but it leaves me in a
less-than-generous mood, especially when the phone rings several times
during dinner and no one bothers to leave a message. I supposed we
should just turn of the  ringer for a while, but what if the call is
from a family member or friend?

>..........Granted, "Charities are not covered by the requirements of
>the national registry. However, if a third-party telemarketer is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Quoted text is from
> http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt107.shtm

Thanks for that. I'll check it out.

> The only money soliciting calls we get are from some sort of police
> charity, usually from a neighboring city (our phone is on that city's
> exchange). That happens once a year, or so, and I just tell them that
> I don't live in their city.

"Once a year" is about right for many local charities. But when we
consider all the calls from all the charities, the whole year seems to
be used up.

Maria Conlon
Quote from Ogden Nash: Progress might have been alright once, but it has
gone on too long.
Mike Barnes - 12 Feb 2010 08:28 GMT
Maria Conlon <conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>:
>Frankly, I rather resent this trading and passing along of my name (and
>address or phone number). Charities that do this may be doing something
>in a smart and business-like manner, but it leaves me in a less-than-
>generous mood,

Are they permitted to do that without your permission?

>especially when the phone rings several times during dinner and no one
>bothers to leave a message.
>I supposed we should just turn of the  ringer for a while, but what if
>the call is from a family member or friend?

Why would that be a problem? Not that we'd ever turn the ringers off: we
don't get enough calls for it to be a problem.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Stan Brown - 12 Feb 2010 10:10 GMT
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 08:28:51 +0000 from Mike Barnes
<mikebarnes@bluebottle.com>:
> Maria Conlon <conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>:
> >Frankly, I rather resent this trading and passing along of my name (and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Are they permitted to do that without your permission?

Alas, yes.  In this country your address and phone number are not
your own property. You have no legal right to compel anyone to delete
them from their own records or even not to sell them.  You do have a
legal right to compel them to stop phoning you, but enforcement is
quite difficult.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Maria Conlon - 12 Feb 2010 10:13 GMT
>> Frankly, I rather resent this trading and passing along of my name
>> (and
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Are they permitted to do that without your permission?

As far as I know, yes (ICBW). The reason, I would think, is that
outlawing the sharing of phone lists/addesses (or requiring written
permission for same) would lessen the amount of donations to the needy.
This would hurt the people who are helped by the charities -- and would
also hurt the economy. As for sales calls, the reason would be that
telephone sales jobs would be lost, and that would hurt the employees
and the economy, too. (That may not be the real reason. It's just what I
think.)

Further thought: Almost everyone's phone number used to be in the phone
book (along with an address). When too many calls started coming, many
people got unlisted numbers. That's probably when the sharing of phone
numbers/addresses of "likely responder/donator" lists began.

It is my impression that the U.S. Congress made the laws about all this.
What they may not have known is how numerous and intrusive the calls
would become.

>> especially when the phone rings several times during dinner and no
>> one
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> we
> don't get enough calls for it to be a problem.

We get loads of phone calls, especially in the late afternoon and
evening. Each time the phone rings, we check the Caller ID; if we don't
recognize the number (as being from someone we know), we let the call go
to Voice Mail. We'd rather not change our phone number as we've had it
for many years. BTW, people we know _do_ leave a message; people wanting
to sell us something or ask us for donations do not, in most cases. (I
don't blame them.)

At the appropriate times of the year, an addition to all this comes
along: requests for votes and for campaign donations.

One of these days, we'll give up the "land line" and use cell/mobile
phones only. (How long will those numbers remain private, though? And
will door-to-door salespeople become common again?)

Signature

Maria

Stan Brown - 13 Feb 2010 11:31 GMT
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:13:01 -0500 from Maria Conlon
<conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>:
> As far as I know, yes (ICBW). The reason, I would think, is that
> outlawing the sharing of phone lists/addesses (or requiring written
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> and the economy, too. (That may not be the real reason. It's just what I
> think.)

I believe the real reason is quite simple: selling what we lightly
call our personal information is extremely profitable, and the
companies that make those profits use them to purchase legislators
and thus prevent any curbing of the practice.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Maria Conlon - 13 Feb 2010 19:08 GMT
>> As far as I know, yes (ICBW). The reason, I would think, is that
>> outlawing the sharing of phone lists/addesses (or requiring written
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> companies that make those profits use them to purchase legislators
> and thus prevent any curbing of the practice.

For some reason, I think that at least some lists are not sold, but
traded. (You show me your list, I'll show you mine.)

> Shikata ga nai...

In the case of trading (or selling) lists, you're probably right. It's
"in cement."

Signature

Maria Conlon
Yes, I Googled the phrase.

the Omrud - 13 Feb 2010 22:40 GMT
> Fri, 12 Feb 2010 05:13:01 -0500 from Maria Conlon
> <conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> companies that make those profits use them to purchase legislators
> and thus prevent any curbing of the practice.

This is why we (IT profesionals) have significant difficulties when
transferring data from the EU to the USA.  This is seriously frowned
upon by the Data Protection Act (and equivalent in other countries).  We
have to ensure that the data is kept in a "safe haven" within the USA,
where it is not able to leak out.

Signature

David

Stan Brown - 12 Feb 2010 10:08 GMT
Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:09:02 -0500 from Maria Conlon
<conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>:
> Yes, we are on that registry (for home phones). We are not on the one
> for cellular phone numbers, as it's not really necessary.

Are you sure there are two registries?  I thought there was just one.

> BTW, I've
> never received a cell phone call from anyone I didn't know (except for
> one or two wrong numbers).

<rant>
You're very fortunate.  I receive more calls from RESTRICTED,
UNAVAILABLE, and fake numbers like 000-000-0000 than I do real calls.
A great number are for Helen Howland, who had my phone number, at the
latest, four years ago. I don't know whether she skipped on her debts
or was extremely generous to charities, or both, but on the rare
occasions when I answer one of those calls it's usually for her.  
Politely explaining that I've had my number for over three years and
I have no idea of hers (she had the foresight to make her new number
unlisted) has the predictable effect.

Verizon tells me that anonymous call rejection isn't available for
cell phones. That alone will probably be enough to make me switch
carriers in May when my contract expires.

And no, I haven't considered getting my number changed, because it
wold just be another number that had belonged to someone else till a
few weeks ago, so I'd have to start this all over.
</rant>

Thank you.  I've been needing to get that off my chest.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Maria Conlon - 13 Feb 2010 20:37 GMT
>> Yes, we are on that registry (for home phones). We are not on the one
>> for cellular phone numbers, as it's not really necessary.
>
> Are you sure there are two registries?  I thought there was just one.

I don't know. I just assumed there's one list for land lines (home
phones) and one for cellular (BrE "mobile").

>> BTW, I've
>> never received a cell phone call from anyone I didn't know (except
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Verizon tells me that anonymous call rejection isn't available for
> cell phones.

Hmph. I didn't know that. and I have Verizon cellular service. (As yet,
though, I haven't had a need for rejecting a call  on my cell phone.)
Incidentally, I'm not sure I understand your situation. Do you have a
land line now, and are thinking of going "cell"? And does Verizon
provide land lines as well as cell? Or do you have a cell phone at
present?

> That alone will probably be enough to make me switch
> carriers in May when my contract expires.

Can any provider, um, provide you with a new, previously unused number?
Just wondering. (My guess: No.)

Btw, if I see an unfamilar number on the cell screen, I usually answer,
and it's usually someone I know and have given my cell number to. (Well,
that or it's a wrong number.) My husband /never/ answers /any/ phone
when the Caller ID shows an unfamiliar-to-him number. Is that typical of
men?

Many of the calls we get on our land line are from "Unavailable Call,"
"Local Area," "Toll Free Call", "Cellular Call," "State Call" (Which
state one can only presume), [Named] State Call, "P30plrsch," which is I
figure is some reasearch group requesting a donation while "doing a
poll" (sure they are), "Wash DC Call" (frequent and probably a request
for some political donation; or could it be a chance to "wash" the
District? Wash it right out of our hair? But is that even/ever
possible?). I think we've also had other mystery numbers. No "900"
(Pay-per-call) calls yet, though.

> And no, I haven't considered getting my number changed, because it
> wold just be another number that had belonged to someone else till a
> few weeks ago, so I'd have to start this all over.
> </rant>
>
> Thank you.  I've been needing to get that off my chest.

Glad you did. It helped, didn't it?

Signature

Maria Conlon
"Well, if I called the wrong number, why did you answer the phone?"
--  James Thurber quotes (American Writer, 1894-1961)

Skitt - 13 Feb 2010 21:12 GMT
>>> Yes, we are on that registry (for home phones). We are not on the
>>> one for cellular phone numbers, as it's not really necessary.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I don't know. I just assumed there's one list for land lines (home
> phones) and one for cellular (BrE "mobile").

There's just one telephone number registry.  It does not care what kind of
phone that number serves.

<rest snipped>
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Maria Conlon - 13 Feb 2010 22:55 GMT
>>>> Yes, we are on that registry (for home phones). We are not on the
>>>> one for cellular phone numbers, as it's not really necessary.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> <rest snipped>

Thanks for the information. One list makes sense, in that many people
have cell phones only -- no land line.

I've also just learned (through snopes.com) that there's an Opt-in
option for the (planned?) nationwide directory of phone numbers, (not to
be confused with the DoNotCall directory) which will include numbers for
land lines and cells. Anyone, apparently, can say No to having his or
her cell phone number listed. (I presume that the Opt-In listing option
may apply to land lines, too, but I'm not sure. I may have missed that
detail.)

In any case, I'm not sure I'd want a cell number listed in any sort of
accessible directory. One, it would, I presume, cost more for cellular
service than we currently pay if the volume of calls received/accepted
increased; and Two, I wouldn't be surprised if the (planned?) directory
of phone numbers inspired a lot of folks to mine the data for sales and
donation leads no matter what the rules are. But... according to snopes
(again), my fears are exaggerated. See
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp (scroll down a bit);
the top part is mostly about the Do Not Call directory.

Signature

Maria Conlon, signing off for a while to fix dinner.

Stan Brown - 14 Feb 2010 14:23 GMT
Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:55:45 -0500 from Maria Conlon
<conlonmaria@sbcglobal.net>:

> I've also just learned (through snopes.com) that there's an Opt-in
> option for the (planned?) nationwide directory of phone numbers, (not to
> be confused with the DoNotCall directory) which will include numbers for
> land lines and cells.

Snopes is a great resource, and I turn to it first whenever anyone
sends a broadcast panic message, as people do about once a month at
each of my workplaces.

But in this case I think you missed the tense that Snopes carefully
used in its description: not "will be" but "was to be".  The plan
seems to be dead in the water (quotes below).

ObAue:  What tense is "was to be"?  Is it subjunctive mood?

What about "was to have been" in G&S's Mikado: "your bride that was
to have been"?

> But... according to snopes
> (again), my fears are exaggerated. See
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/cell411.asp (scroll down a bit);
> the top part is mostly about the Do Not Call directory.

"The Wireless 411 service was to be strictly "opt-in" ? that is, cell
phone customers would be included in the directory only if they
specifically request to be added. ..."

"The Wireless 411 information was not to be included in printed phone
directories, distributed in other printed form, made available via
the Internet, or sold to telemarketers. ..."

"Qsent's Wireless 411 service still has not seen the light of day,
and several states have since passed laws Cell phone requiring
wireless carriers to obtain the consent of subscribers before listing
them in directories."

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

John Varela - 10 Feb 2010 18:46 GMT
> Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com>:
> >I don't mind calls from organizations that pick up donated used
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> charitable cause selection criteria amount to convenience of location
> and availability of nearby parking.

Here, if you do that once you are on their list and they will call
whenever they have a truck scheduled to tour your neighborhood.
Which is OK, except that there was an article in the newspaper
several years ago identifying which charities -- it turns out mostly
the ones that claim to serve veterans -- deliver the least amount of
money to the intended recipients. I stopped giving to them, but they
still call every few months when their truck is coming by.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Default User - 10 Feb 2010 19:46 GMT
> Default User <defaultuserbr@yahoo.com>:
> > I don't mind calls from organizations that pick up donated used
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> The charitable cause selection criteria amount to convenience of
> location and availability of nearby parking.

I could request that they remove me from the calling list, but for the
most part it's not a significant intrusion.

Brian

Signature

Day 372 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

aquachimp - 12 Feb 2010 15:30 GMT
> We save stuff up, and when there's enough, we deliver it ourselves.

Out of curiosity, why  write "we save stuff up" rather than, "we save
up stuff"?
tony cooper - 12 Feb 2010 17:16 GMT
>> We save stuff up, and when there's enough, we deliver it ourselves.
>
>Out of curiosity, why  write "we save stuff up" rather than, "we save
>up stuff"?

Why not?

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

aquachimp - 12 Feb 2010 18:06 GMT
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:06 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

gather your things up;
gather up your things.

Bring up that point once more and ...
Bring that point up once more and ...

I think I'll take you up on that invitation
I think I'll take... oops

He just went up your road.
He just went ... oops

For me, "save stuff up" jarred a bit. I mean, "save stuff up where?"
was what immediately sprang to mind.
But on realising that's it might not be technically wrong, iI wondered
why that might be.
Mike Lyle - 14 Feb 2010 17:03 GMT
>> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:06 -0800 (PST), aquachimp
>>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> But on realising that's it might not be technically wrong, iI wondered
> why that might be.

Phrasal verb or not phrasal verb. If it's a phrasal verb, what looks
like a preposition acts as an adverb, so you can (usually) move it; but
when the thing really is a preposition, its position is fixed. E.g.:

Put your hat on.
Put on your hat.
But,
Put your hat on the table.
Put a badge on your hat.

Signature

Mike.

Mike Barnes - 12 Feb 2010 23:41 GMT
aquachimp <aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:

>> We save stuff up, and when there's enough, we deliver it ourselves.
>
>Out of curiosity, why  write "we save stuff up" rather than, "we save
>up stuff"?

I wrote "We save stuff up" because that sounds normal to me. "We save up
stuff" sounds American (or, by extension, YPBrE (young person's BrE)).

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

aquachimp - 13 Feb 2010 08:16 GMT
> aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Mike Barnes
> Cheshire, England

Thanks for the answer; I now have to admit I thought you might reveal
it was a typo.
The "save stuff up" type sentence structure is quite common in Dutch,
but its logic escapes me somewhat (as opposed to "its logic somewhat
escapes me") And I not a young person, nor American.

For me the logic goes like this;
Statement: I'm saving up stuff
Question: What are you saving up?
Answer: Stuff.

It's just that for me, in "saving stuff up" the "up" seems to hang
there superfluously, though obviously it defines the nature of the
saving (i.e. "stuff"  didn't need to be saved from danger)
Mike Barnes - 13 Feb 2010 09:53 GMT
aquachimp <aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:
>> aquachimp <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>there superfluously, though obviously it defines the nature of the
>saving (i.e. "stuff"  didn't need to be saved from danger)

The last word carries more weight, especially when spoken. So I'm
emphasising the idea of accumulation rather than the nature of what's
being accumulated.

In some circumstances "stuff" can be a strong word, indicating the
varied and irrelevant nature of the things or material. That usage has
developed within my lifetime. But here it's a very weak word and doesn't
deserve that prime location at the end of the sentence.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Stan Brown - 13 Feb 2010 11:28 GMT
Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:06 -0800 (PST) from aquachimp
<aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:

> > We save stuff up, and when there's enough, we deliver it
> > ourselves.
>
> Out of curiosity, why write "we save stuff up" rather than, "we
> save up stuff"?

Interesting question.  "To save up" is one of a large class of
phrasal verbs. There are rules about where to place direct and
indirect objects, but I don't know how to articulate them.  I'd love
to see some expert state the rules.

For example, I would prefer "we save stuff up" to "we save up stuff",
but the latter doesn't actually sound wrong to me.

On the other hand, consider answers to the question "Where did you
get the money for that purchase?" "We saved up it" sounds quite wrong
to me, and only "we saved it up" sounds right.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

aquachimp - 13 Feb 2010 12:20 GMT
> Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:06 -0800 (PST) from aquachimp
> <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> indirect objects, but I don't know how to articulate them.  I'd love
> to see some expert state the rules.

We can but ask. And I was shot of your terminology to do so myself.
Mike Barnes - 13 Feb 2010 13:55 GMT
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm>:
>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 07:30:06 -0800 (PST) from aquachimp
><aquachimp@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>indirect objects, but I don't know how to articulate them.  I'd love
>to see some expert state the rules.

Calling John Lawler...

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

John Lawler - 15 Feb 2010 04:28 GMT
> Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm>:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> Mike Barnes
> Cheshire, England

Well, the rules for phrasal verbs say that
a particle (the prepositiony word) may *either*
precede *or* follow the direct object (the
rule is called Particle Shift)

       save up your pennies
       save your pennies up

No difference in meaning, your choice.

When there is an indirect object, everything
depends on whether Dative has applied.  If
not, then the indirect object comes last and
has a 'to', and the normal rule applies:

    give up your prisoners to them
    give your prisoners up to them
   *give your prisoners to them up

If it has, however, things get dicey:

   *give up them your prisoners
 ?*give them up your prisoners
   *give them your prisoners up

Generally, either Dative or Particle Shift
may apply, but not both.  That's not too
difficult to remember, given that each rule
extracts a penalty in processing to unpack
the original structure.

See  http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/phrasal.html
and  http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue/phrasals.html

-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/punctuation.html
"If a sentence really has something of importance to say,
 something quite remarkable, it doesn't need a mark to point
 it out.  And if it is really, after all, a banal sentence
 needing more zing, the exclamation point simply emphasizes
 its banality!"    -- Lewis Thomas, 'Notes on Punctuation'
Stan Brown - 20 Feb 2010 21:23 GMT
Sun, 14 Feb 2010 20:28:27 -0800 (PST) from John Lawler
<johnmlawler@gmail.com>:
> Generally, either Dative or Particle Shift
> may apply, but not both.  That's not too
> difficult to remember, given that each rule
> extracts a penalty in processing to unpack
> the original structure.

Thanks, John!

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

John Varela - 10 Feb 2010 03:35 GMT
> >> Bob Lieblich:
> >>> Of course they do.  They've focus-grouped their approach to the
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> anything, and I find that actually reading their requests makes me
> less inclined.  I can make the decision more rationally without them.

I don't mind getting mailings from charities and good works
organizations. They serve as reminders. Once a year, however, would
be often enough. If I'm going to give, I will give. But only once a
year. Multiple solicitations are a waste of the money I donated.

What really bugs me is phone solicitations.

When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
please remove me from your telephone list, and good day. Then I hang
up without waiting for a protestation.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Evan Kirshenbaum - 10 Feb 2010 06:54 GMT
>> That's why I make a habit of throwing out charity request mail
>> unopened.  We still give a lot, but we don't need them to send us
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> be often enough. If I'm going to give, I will give. But only once a
> year.

For the bulk of our donations, we go through justgive.org.  This has
the advantage that you can select all of your donations at once and
pay with a single credit card payment (and get a single receipt
itemizing all of the donations).  You can also say "Let's start with
what we did last year and just decide if there are any changes we want
to make" in either amount or set of charities.

> Multiple solicitations are a waste of the money I donated.

Agreed, but if I support the cause and they seem otherwise like an
efficiently-run organization (and I have to admit that I'm atypical
and they probably wouldn't do it if they didn't have reason to believe
that it increased their donation levels), I try not to hold it against
them.

> What really bugs me is phone solicitations.

Ayup.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |There are just two rules of
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |governance in a free society: Mind
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |your own business. Keep your hands
                                      |to yourself.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |             P.J. O'Rourke
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Chuck Riggs - 10 Feb 2010 13:47 GMT
>>> That's why I make a habit of throwing out charity request mail
>>> unopened.  We still give a lot, but we don't need them to send us
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>the advantage that you can select all of your donations at once and
>pay with a single credit card payment...

They don't list the ISPCC, Evan, which is one of the best for several
reasons, IMO, or I didn't see it.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 10 Feb 2010 14:38 GMT
>>>> That's why I make a habit of throwing out charity request mail
>>>> unopened.  We still give a lot, but we don't need them to send us
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>They don't list the ISPCC, Evan, which is one of the best for several
>reasons, IMO, or I didn't see it.

Presumably the ISPCC has not signed up as a "Corporate Partner" of
JustGive. JustGive charges the partners for its services.
https://www.justgive.org/corporate-partners/faq.jsp

   # How much does it cost to partner with JustGive?
   
   Each of JustGive's partnership are customized to meet the needs of
   the client so we do not have a flat rate. Once we know the scope of
   the project we can provide an estimate for licensing and fees.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Evan Kirshenbaum - 10 Feb 2010 15:46 GMT
>>>For the bulk of our donations, we go through www.justgive.org.
>>>This has the advantage that you can select all of your donations at
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>     the client so we do not have a flat rate. Once we know the scope of
>     the project we can provide an estimate for licensing and fees.

That's for "corporate partners", not charities.  Corporate partners
are (typically) for-profit corporations that want to use JustGive to
manage their own charitable giving programs.  (Typically employee
donations with a corporate match.)

I suspect that Chuck's problem is that the ISPCC, being an Irish
charity, isn't an American 401(c)(3) corporation and that either there
are legal problems with dealing with foreign charities, tax issues, or
that it's simply not worth setting up to do all of the currency
conversions.

There's no fee for being listed as a charity or for being able to put
a "Donate Now" button on your site.  JustGive does take a 3%
processing cut off of donations, which I could see some considering
excessive, but I suspect that since donations are made by credit card,
the majority of that goes to the credit card transaction fee, so it's
not much less than the organization would have received anyway if you
had donated directly to them on-line.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |"It makes you wonder if there is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |anything to astrology after all."
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |
                                      |"Oh, there is," said Susan.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |"Delusion, wishful thinking and
   (650)857-7572                      |gullibility."

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 10 Feb 2010 15:51 GMT
>>>>For the bulk of our donations, we go through www.justgive.org.
>>>>This has the advantage that you can select all of your donations at
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>manage their own charitable giving programs.  (Typically employee
>donations with a corporate match.)

Ah. I had misunderstood.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Chuck Riggs - 11 Feb 2010 15:02 GMT
>>>>For the bulk of our donations, we go through www.justgive.org.
>>>>This has the advantage that you can select all of your donations at
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>that it's simply not worth setting up to do all of the currency
>conversions.

Ackerly, I don't have a problem.

>There's no fee for being listed as a charity or for being able to put
>a "Donate Now" button on your site.  JustGive does take a 3%
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>not much less than the organization would have received anyway if you
>had donated directly to them on-line.

The extra 3% you pay is one of the faults, as I see them, that I
mentioned yesterday. The ISPCC has very low overhead.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

the Omrud - 10 Feb 2010 08:36 GMT
> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
> please remove me from your telephone list, and good day. Then I hang
> up without waiting for a protestation.

I do the same to people who arrive at my front door.

Signature

David

Evan Kirshenbaum - 10 Feb 2010 16:34 GMT
>> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
>> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
>> please remove me from your telephone list, and good day. Then I
>> hang up without waiting for a protestation.
>
> I do the same to people who arrive at my front door.

Are they confused as to why you're telling them that you never respond
to telephone solicitations?

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is a popular delusion that the
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |government wastes vast amounts of
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |money through inefficiency and sloth.
                                      |Enormous effort and elaborate
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |planning are required to waste this
   (650)857-7572                      |much money
                                      |                  P.J. O'Rourke
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

the Omrud - 10 Feb 2010 16:39 GMT
>>> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
>>> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Are they confused as to why you're telling them that you never respond
> to telephone solicitations?

I could care less.

Signature

David

Chuck Riggs - 11 Feb 2010 15:06 GMT
>>>> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
>>>> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>I could care less.

Confuse the hell out of them next time, David, by saying you couldn't
give less.
Signature


Regards,

Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE

John Varela - 10 Feb 2010 19:42 GMT
> >> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
> >> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Are they confused as to why you're telling them that you never respond
> to telephone solicitations?

They don't need to know why.

Signature

John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email

Default User - 10 Feb 2010 22:01 GMT
> > >> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization
> > I >> always tell them that I never respond to telephone
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>  
> They don't need to know why.

But they're likely to respond by saying, "Then it's a good thing we
came by in person!"

Brian

Signature

Day 373 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Stan Brown - 10 Feb 2010 23:45 GMT
Wed, 10 Feb 2010 08:34:07 -0800 from Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>:

> >> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
> >> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Are they confused as to why you're telling them that you never respond
> to telephone solicitations?

I was hoping someone would explain how to hang up on the unwelcome
visitors.

Signature

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
                                  http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

Robin Bignall - 10 Feb 2010 21:32 GMT
>> When I get a phone call from a charity or political organization I
>> always tell them that I never respond to telephone solicitations,
>> please remove me from your telephone list, and good day. Then I hang
>> up without waiting for a protestation.
>
>I do the same to people who arrive at my front door.

Hanging them up is a good idea but they do smell after a while.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Robert Bannister - 11 Feb 2010 00:52 GMT
> What really bugs me is phone solicitations.

I don't like phone calls, except perhaps along the lines of "your car is
ready to be picked up now" or "the whatsit you ordered has arrived".

Signature

Rob Bannister

sjdevnull@yahoo.com - 08 Feb 2010 20:04 GMT
> Stan Brown:
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> Incidentally, it appears that at least some charities construct the
> numbers algorithmically based on the amount of our last donation.

Most likely using your previous donation amount as the low-end of the
numbers chosen.  This accomplishes 2 goals:
1) Past donors aren't scared away by absurdly high figures; and
2) They may be shamed into giving more than the "minimum".
CDB - 05 Feb 2010 13:47 GMT
Hongyi Zhao wrote:,

> I've read the following sentence from somewhere:
>
> Please this service is NOT free.
>
> I want to know  whether this sentence is clear and correct or not?

As others have said, there should be a comma after "Please".  If you
consider the unexpanded "please" together with the emphatic "NOT", I
think you can take it to mean "please have the intelligence, common
sense, or courtesy not to behave as if the service were free".  The
tone I get from it is one of exasperation: you ought to have known
there was a charge.
franzi - 05 Feb 2010 23:31 GMT
> Hongyi Zhao wrote:,
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> tone I get from it is one of exasperation: you ought to have known
> there was a charge.

This only makes sense in active ongoing dialogue. A says something
implying a free service, and B says "Please, this service is not
free," with emphasis on the "not". In this sense, "Please" is a
contraction of an older "If it please you", or a similar politeness
having not much literal meaning, but plenty of social meaning. Sorry
to bother you, squire, but you'll have to pay.

As a stand-alone statement or public notice having no antecedent
exchange, it is excruciatingly poor English style, comma or no comma.

Stopping a moment before posting, I see that the question was actually
whether the sentence was clear and correct. It clearly means that the
service is not free, and that the writer or speaker is making an
appeal to the reader or listener. It is not correct, because "Please
this service" is a command which cannot be followed by "is not free",
and "is not free" is a predicate which needs to follow a subject,
which "Please this service" is not. Or if it is, the statement is
nonsense: it is not meaningful that "Please this service" is not free.
--
franzi
CDB - 06 Feb 2010 14:48 GMT
>> Hongyi Zhao wrote:,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> the statement is nonsense: it is not meaningful that "Please this
> service" is not free.

After a little further consideration of my own, I think the
<utterance> ought to corrected by adding a semicolon after "Please",
or even a full stop.  I think there's an intermediate step between
your original "if you please" and the OP usage: the ironically polite
"Please!" that can be a reaction to some piece of egregious stupidity.
I have just read a cross-posting currently adorning the group,
something like  "Time for the tarbaby [Aka POTUS, remember that one?
Sounded so ... potent.] to do something."  Oh, please. (Try harder not
to be an a.shole.)
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.