If they wish to help children so much, let them send their money anonymously.

hehe... chickenshit? ;)

Most people donate money NOT to receive recognition. This was purely a marketing strategy for these people.

...and they have a crap analysis team, as well, I see.

As a "strategic marketing maneuver," the cost-to-benifit ratio is, frankly, under the heading of "sucks ass." Its net marketing effect would fall somewhere under "Todd got a letter and feels better about pedophiles," or something.

...I really don't think Todd needs no persuadin', and yet, as a marketing strategy, it wouldn't have had any other effect.

The money they collected could just as well have been going for an advertising campaign.

...well, at least the analyst admitted the analysis sucks - yes, the money donated could've financed an advertising campaign across about 5-10% of the US, or possibly more with a bit of care.

...as any idiot could see, this would have far more marketing effect than, say, "a direct-mail marketing campaign to Todd." Which, frankly, changes nothing.

Their motive was to be able to say that Save the Children accepted THEM

Funny, did I forget to add that text to my sigpic? ~sigh~ I get so lazy with the redesign tasks, don't I...

...so, we've already pretty well established that the "just wanting people to love us" angle is, well, utter shit - we could've got a lot more for a lot less, and the direct-mail would've been recieved by more than one person... stamps are a lot cheaper.

...a more sensible analyst would've probably viewed this as having a dual purpouse... practice at anarchic direct networking - yes, practice is good - and the option of pinging a random organization to find out if it is "neutral or better"...

If they wish to help children so much, let them send their money anonymously. Money works just as well that way doesn't it?

...so that 100 million persons of paederotic orientation in the US alone could know whether their anonymous donation will be embezzled towards nazi sympathizers in the US and abroad. The donor has the right to know.

...frankly, we lost out on StC. The most cost-effective way to ping the network is to get refused - you find out the organizations which are predominantly concerned with nonpublished goals above their published goals, and being refused is free. The more you get bounced, the more of the network you get to map out before you actually have to pay up.

;)

BUT! Thanks to bloggers such as Rose DesRochers and LILO, Save the Children has now realized their error and are sending the money back! Good for them! Now these perverts will know that their cash is most certainly not welcome.

Luckily, it looks like they're trying to give us the "free play" we missed out on. ;)

Here's my word............if you care about children and want to donate money, send it in as an anonymous donor.........not with the end motive being the use of such donation as a propoganda tool.

...what amuses me, though, is how desperate they are to stuff us back in the closet. The AD fundraising is just a leverage marker for the anonymous bulk, but they're running around all afraid that we might be out and proud.

...y'know, I've seen this "please get back in the closet" routine before, a thousand different ways... the ID action resorted as a tactic of desperation at fear of activation of the populace. I've always found it... illuminating.