Coug, I don't have feelies bookmarked any more, but came upon a link on DAR to the post of yours to which I'm responding, and need to reply to it.
You made three points, and I believe I was by implication referenced in them.
First, you questioned the sponsors, and the general concept of the thread.
This is the reply I gave you on the DAR thread. You didn't reply to it, but I'd like others to see it, lest I be misunderstood:
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.
Second, you said that the person associated with the clicks -- that's I -- "agreed publicly that the poor do not feel cold or hunger."
It is hard for me to even reply to this. But I have to. Here is the reply I gave you to that. (It's possible you have corrected your error later in the thread; if so, I apologize for the redundancy.)
[Coug,] 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.
Third, you said that some of those about whom you were talking about joked about JFK's death, and others "piled on." Coug, you and I were on the same side on that issue. I wrote at greater length, on the subject of that tragedy, which, as I said, deeply saddened me, than did anyone else on the feelies thread during that discussion. You wrote a post to me personally, coug, expressing your appreciation for my posts on this subject.
So I hope I've explained why I have posted the hunger site, and that I don't think it is all there is to do, or even the best way to approach hunger-- but nonetheless, is a worthwhile effort on the part of these corporations; and explained (amazed to be doing it) that I do not believe the poor feel suffering less than the rich; and reminded you that I wrote at length about the genuineness of the tragedy, and the real, human, valid reasons I thought it was felt so genuinely and deeply by so many Americans. And I expressed my own deep sadness at the deaths, and described the feelings of friends of mine who had feel terrible sadness, or sorrow, at the deaths. I did my best to "explain" this to some who didn't understand it.
Do you understand now, coug, that your representation of me has been based on misunderstanding and misremembering? I hope you do, and that all those who thought those representations were accurate now understand that they weren't.
I hope I'll hear from you on this, by PM if you'd prefer. And I wish you and yours a very Happy Thanksgiving, and the same to all on Feelies! |
