Please this service is NOT free.
|
|
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.)
|
|
|