Trucker GoFundMe (split from: Covid-19 miscellany)

[Metaphor]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything. In fact, I discussed explicitly how making you do something in order to get a refund is not an ethical choice: the default should be automatic refunds.

Indeed, that's what GFM is now doing: automatic refunds. So even GFM disagrees with its prior decision.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too. You are misrepresenting their policy.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

 

[Toni]

Wait—GFM NEVER asserted that it would disperse the funds to charities if it’s choosing. They outlined a princess for donors to be reimbursed and stated what they would do with unclaimed donations.

Yes: they would disburse unrefunded donations to charities of its choosing.

Which they quite quickly switched to simply processing refunds without any effort on the part of the donors.

Normally one has to ask fir a refund. gFM found a way to streamline the process.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

Sure Jan. You know we can see you, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

Sure Jan. You know we can see you, right?

Nothing goes over his head. His reflexes are too fast; he would catch it.

 

[TomC]

Precisely why you think an analogy to your phone service provider is pertinent, I'm sure I don't know.

It was an illustration of making an agreement, like the donors and truckers/supporters did with GFM.
Feeling entitled to change it later doesn't obligate the entity they made the agreement with to change anything.

But, I will simply reiterate what I've said before a number of times. The term that GFM can exercise capriciously and unilaterally is an awful one, and I will never use GFM for that reason.

You can do what you want with your own money.

I've never bought anything online. I don't give cash to strangers. Believe me when I say, I can't imagine my using GFM for anything.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Which they quite quickly switched to simply processing refunds without any effort on the part of the donors.

Normally one has to ask fir a refund. gFM found a way to streamline the process.

This is ri-fucking-diculous.

The facts are not under dispute. I relayed the events as they happened, including GFM's original position and their changed position. Everyone agrees that GFM unilaterally decided that the convoy violated its terms and conditions, and that its original plan was to disburse the remaining funds to charities of its choosing, less any funds that had been refunded via manual request.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

Sure Jan. You know we can see you, right?

I know you could quote the posts where you think I've misrepresented the situation with GFM.

I'll wait.

 

[Metaphor]

It was an illustration of making an agreement, like the donors and truckers/supporters did with GFM.
Feeling entitled to change it later doesn't obligate the entity they made the agreement with to change anything.

That GFM had a term in its policies that entitles them to unilaterally decide not to disburse when they find the target unworthy after the fact is simply a very good reason to never, ever use GFM again.

The fact that GFM decided to change its initial stance (of time-limited manual refund requests and disbursing to charities of its choice the remainder) is a sign that it realised its initial stance was a very bad one, and it made a decision to limit the damage to its reputation.

Now, I don't think the GFM is a good company to act as a trustee, so as long as it has this clause I would never use it.

 

[Metaphor]

I've never bought anything online. I don't give cash to strangers. Believe me when I say, I can't imagine my using GFM for anything.

I have to admit that even though I lived through the period where grocery stores closed at noon on Saturdays and ordering from a catalogue was the closest you got to 'virtual buying', I would find it extremely difficult to manage now without internet purchasing.

You didn't even order groceries for delivery during COVID lockdowns?

 

[TomC]

That GFM had a term in its policies that entitles them to unilaterally decide not to disburse when they find the target unworthy after the fact is simply a very good reason to never, ever use GFM again.

Like I said, I know next to nothing about GFM and wouldn't use them. But you are definitely misrepresenting what happened.
What's happening in Canada now is not a peaceful demonstration. Maybe it started out that way, but that changed. GFM didn't change, the "protesters" did. I put protesters in quotes very deliberately, because I'm not sure what they are anymore.
That's the real problem. Not GFM changing, but the truckers changing. GFM didn't agree to accept funding for what's happening now. People donated anyways. That's on the donors and truckers, not GFM.

Frankly, I wouldn't donate to GFM. Nor would I start a company with this sort of liability problem. How different from the original must the recipient be before they aren't the original recipient any more? I dunno. What rights do people donating to a cause that turns into criminal activity have? I dunno. Too many unanswerable questions and the information landscape changes too fast to keep up.

A pox on both their houses!
Tom

 

[TomC]

I've never bought anything online. I don't give cash to strangers. Believe me when I say, I can't imagine my using GFM for anything.

I have to admit that even though I lived through the period where grocery stores closed at noon on Saturdays and ordering from a catalogue was the closest you got to 'virtual buying', I would find it extremely difficult to manage now without internet purchasing.

You didn't even order groceries for delivery during COVID lockdowns?

Closest I got was ordering pizza delivery a couple of times. Only twice, and only when I knew the cashier I was giving the card number to.
I'm old, old school, and live in a small town.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

That's the real problem. Not GFM changing, but the truckers changing. GFM didn't agree to accept funding for what's happening now. People donated anyways. That's on the donors and truckers, not GFM.

Well, no, it isn't on the truckers not doing anything illegal, and it most certainly is not on the donors, who donated with the same understanding of what the convoy was about that GFM had when it allowed the GFM to be set up.

How different from the original must the recipient be before they aren't the original recipient any more? I dunno. What rights do people donating to a cause that turns into criminal activity have? I dunno. Too many unanswerable questions and the information landscape changes too fast to keep up.

A pox on both their houses!
Tom

Well, if I were to donate, I would also not want to rely on a clause that allows GFM to unilaterally decide those answers.

 

[TomC]

Well, no, it isn't on the truckers not doing anything illegal,

I'm no expert on Canada, but I'm pretty sure that the deliberately blocking highways and streets, for personal reasons, is against some law.

I could be wrong about that. Canadians are known for being excruciatingly nice.
Tom

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

Sure Jan. You know we can see you, right?

I know you could quote the posts where you think I've misrepresented the situation with GFM.

I'll wait.

You just quoted one of them.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, no, it isn't on the truckers not doing anything illegal,

I'm no expert on Canada, but I'm pretty sure that the deliberately blocking highways and streets, for personal reasons, is against some law.

I could be wrong about that. Canadians are known for being excruciatingly nice.
Tom

I don't know what specific acts the convoy is accused of that is illegal, but if there are some, those acts are surely carried out by some people, not all of them.

For comparison, there were people who went to Black Lives Matters protests and did nothing illegal. And then there were others who torched buildings and smashed windows and looted businesses.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

Sure Jan. You know we can see you, right?

I know you could quote the posts where you think I've misrepresented the situation with GFM.

I'll wait.

You just quoted one of them.

Quote it. I cannot see anything that I've written that misrepresents anything.

QUOTE IT.

 

[ZiprHead]

Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

That twice now you've dishonestly misrepresented GFM's stated position on the matter. They clearly stated that anyone who wants a refund can have one by simply asking. Anything left would then go to charity. Why do you keep leaving out the part about the refunds?

I have not once dishonestly misrepresented anything.

It's right there above for all to see. And you did it before too.

I didn't do it once let alone twice.

Sure Jan. You know we can see you, right?

I know you could quote the posts where you think I've misrepresented the situation with GFM.

I'll wait.

You just quoted one of them.

Quote it. I cannot see anything that I've written that misrepresents anything.

QUOTE IT.

I bolded it above.

Lie of omission[edit]​

In Catholicism, the eighth commandment is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." This includes lies of omission, also known as exclusionary detailing or continuing a misrepresentation. In common parlance, a lie of omission may be referred to as "playing dumb."

I like how they put that, "playing dumb".

Sin of omission - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Metaphor]

I bolded it above.

Oh, I see. You think
Do you think GFM should have automatically refunded the donators, or do you think they should have stuck to their original announced position of disbursing it to charities of its choosing?

is an unacceptable lie of omission, because, I presume, I did not append 'for funds that had not been manually refunded by application of the donors', even though I make multiple references to that situation in other posts and could not possibly be deceiving anybody reading the thread.

I will endeavour to make my posts less succinct in future.