Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Charities are private businesses, for the most part. Public charities are not government bodies and are fully, or primarily, funded by private contributors.

Charities differ from private businesses on several key issues. Most nations have strict guidelines to discern charities from companies, they collectively and individually define the differences.

dogma wrote:
Terrible journalists rely on human sources. If your research is either entirely qualitative or entirely quantitative, your research is awful.

People lie just as easily with words as they do with numbers. They do produce both after all.

For your 'logic' to make sense all human data is irrelevant. The wiser way forward is to look for something called multiple sourcing, one source hearsay, two a pattern, several is pretty strong evidence. It covers most errors except a collective lie.



Anyway, ending this one, its way off topic. Have a 'free' reply if you wish.

Using multiple sources of data is indeed the best and most responsible approach. Measurable numeric data is one of the best, though of course can be manipulated. This is why good researchers review the available data carefully. Whether they're reporters or working for another nonprofit evaluating and rating charities.

Large charities do tend to pay their chief admins respectable amounts of money, but normally a lot less than comparably sized for-profit companies. Raymond Offenheiser, the President of Oxfam America, gets paid $327,192.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4288

Anyone got some numbers on how much the chief exec of a private company pulling in $78.5mm per year in revenue tends to get paid?

Orlanth wrote:
Charities differ from private businesses on several key issues. Most nations have strict guidelines to discern charities from companies, they collectively and individually define the differences.

No, they discern NPOs (you can have a for-profit charity) from FPOs. Both are private bodies, the difference is in the accounting.

Orlanth wrote:
For your 'logic' to make sense all human data is irrelevant. The wiser way forward is to look for something called multiple sourcing, one source hearsay, two a pattern, several is pretty strong evidence. It covers most errors except a collective lie.

You do realize that "multiple sourcing" eventually leads to "statistics", yes?

And no, for "my 'logic' to make sense" all human data does not become irrelevant, that isn't what I said. Do you not know what the word "rely" means?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Anyone got some numbers on how much the chief exec of a private company pulling in $78.5mm per year in revenue tends to get paid?

The average (of all CEOs) in Montana, the lowest in the US, is a little over 100k USD.

The average of all CEOs in the US administering groups over 5000 is is over 800,000 USD. AI employs way more than 5000 people.

Amaya wrote:What happened to the topic?

I think it's lost to time and space at this point

Mannahnin wrote:
Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility

I know that you don't like to read facts if they don't say what you want them to say, but why is the story of dubious credibility?

Not that I agree with Orlanth particularly, or even read the Daily Mail, but the fact is, the Mail selects stories that promotes its agenda and then publishes them in a somewhat amusing and hysterical manner, but it doesn't fully make gak up. There is no reason to believe that the Bangladeshi bird who runs amnesty DIDN'T get £500,000 just because it was in the Daily Mail.

In fact, the last tabloid over here that I can think of that had to run an apology was The Guardian (ironically to the fething Sun of all the worthless rags!) and I am sure you and your pal KK would hold that paper up as a bastion of journalistic integrity.

Mannahnin is also persistently ignoring that thre article was backed up by double sourcing through the Sunday Times covering the same story.

I wouldn't have used Daily Mail as an unsupported source, but I see no reason not to if their article is also covered elsewhere.

My reason for not posting a link to the Sunday Times was a valid one, you need to subscribe to read it. You can still see links to the story by googling the info from the Daily Mail alongside Sunday Times and the date.

Writing it off as baseless 'Daily Fail' or some such is just clutching at straws.

mattyrm wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility

I know that you don't like to read facts if they don't say what you want them to say,

Matty, after an insult like that why should I respond to anything you write? Try to be sober when you enter a debate.

mattyrm wrote:...but why is the story of dubious credibility?

Orlanth is making an extreme, some might say absurd claim, that large charities routinely ("not uncommon" was his phrase) spend 95% of their collected donations on administrative costs including salaries, leaving 5% for actual provision of services.

This statement is so out there that it calls for a fairly high standard of proof/support. Not a single story in the Daily Mail. He has claimed that another story which I can't get access to supports this claim, but A) I can't verify that, and B) Given the absurdity of the argument he's advancing in the first place, I am less inclined than usual to take his word for it.

mattyrm wrote:... There is no reason to believe that the Bangladeshi bird who runs amnesty DIDN'T get £500,000 just because it was in the Daily Mail.

I'm not contesting the exact rate of pay of their chief adminstrator. I'm expressing incredulity at the larger and broader claims that Orlanth has made.

Mannahnin wrote:

mattyrm wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Right now the evidence you're offering is one of dubious credibility

I know that you don't like to read facts if they don't say what you want them to say,

Matty, after an insult like that why should I respond to anything you write? Try to be sober when you enter a debate.

You should respond because my retorts are always witty and filled with thunderous revelry!

It was hardly an insult...

And I'm sober, its Sunday afternoon feths sake!

Regards my point, I really think we know Orlanth well enough by now to know he doesn't fully make gak up either. I disagree with him all the time, but he doesn't tell lies. If he said its in the Telegraph then I am more than happy to take his word for it.

As I said I don't even really agree with him, I probably agree with you! I doubt most charities routinely fleece people and pay their staff staggering amounts. I'm just playing Devils advocate because I think its a bit harsh essentially accusing him of making gak up!

I also have a hilarious anecdote involving myself, a small child, and a pushy amnesty international door to door salesman. Its not suited for the thread, but suffice to say it ended with me saying "YES, LETS TORTURE PEOPLE, ILL START!" at him. The full yarn involves booze, crowds and fisticuffs, and would split even the solidly fused sides of the usually sombre Rogal Dorn...

But it probably goes down better amongst soldiers than well meaning liberal types so ill shut up now.

Stereotypes hurt everyone, Matty. I would probably laugh harder at that anecdote than most soldiers. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm on my third glass of Rakia (it's my father in law's birthday and we called them up over Skype and had a few drinks already, as it's seven hours later there),



I normally find Orlanth to be a respectable fellow and make respectable arguments as well, but this time he really seems to be taking the piss.

Mannahnin wrote:Stereotypes hurt everyone, Matty. I would probably laugh harder at that anecdote than most soldiers. Of course, it doesn't hurt that I'm on my third glass of Rakia (it's my father in law's birthday and we called them up over Skype and had a few drinks already, as it's seven hours later there),



I normally find Orlanth to be a respectable fellow and make respectable arguments as well, but this time he really seems to be taking the piss.

Fairy nuff broseph, Ill wind my neck in.

My mate got me a bottle of Rakia from Kosovo, I thought it tasted like Vimto with booze in.

I'd ask you to shake, but neither of us knows where the others' hand's been.

I don't know Vimto; I'll have to give it a try sometime. Bulgarian Rakia is basically a strong (usually homemade) Grappa, though it can be made from other fruit than grapes. My father in law also makes it using his homegrown cherries, or tangerines. We should be receiving a batch made from strawberries shortly. It drinks more like a whiskey, with a litle bit of a "twist" of vegetable flavor. Kind of like whiskey with a dash of tequila.

Mannahnin wrote:How about the folks who did not get rich and have never been rich, and work a zillion hours a week out of love for the cause?

I've known a lot more of those than the other two types. They tend to be the backbone of most charitable organizations.

yep