I just wanted to confirm that nihil's post wasn't serious, and my agreement wasn't, either. But they weren't "serious" only in that they weren't meant to be understood literally, but rather ironically.
Really, irony is often serious, though, isn't it? Nihil and I were making statements that might be described as ironical with a dark or bitter edge. I don't want you to think we were making a "joke" in the "ha ha" sense, coug.
And I want to respond also about the food-with-a-click.
I guess I want to say that any way it gets into an outstretched bowl is fine with me. Capitalism has some amazing mechanisms for making things happen. In this case, numbers of hits on a site, representing viewings of a sponsor's banner, and hits on the banner that convert to exposures to possible customers... well, coug, it's undoubtedly an experiment; and if, in the end, it doesn't benefit the sponsors in any way, the 2 1/4 cups of food I put into that particular bowl today won't be put there tomorrow. (Or if it is, it will be by another mechanism.)
In the meantime, it's hard for me to understand why anyone wouldn't add to their "charitable giving" plans, a click, one little click a day, until this opportunity ends and others more to your liking are offered, by you or by someone else with a plan.
It isn't a test, to me, to see whether I can think of a better way to give. It's just... a click, and 2 1/4 cups of food. |
