Letter from church - Formal notice of church rate due!

superscaper

ben500 wrote: »

All very well, yet each time you post you make a comparison between church donations and scams or scamming your agenda is clear.

I never even mentioned church donations. Anyone can donate anything they want to church. As Dawkins says, I don't want to ban religion so long as it's done between consenting adults in private . It was these begging letters I was talking about and I do think begging is as bad as scamming which I thought I'd made quite clear but it seems this is almost a libellous comment to some people. I'm glad my agenda is clear, I wasn't trying to hide it. I've got many agendas and many prejudices. My agenda here is that I think it dispicable that an organisation has the audacity to request money through unsolicited mail. I never said it was a scam but again I do think it's as bad as a scam. If you're trying to imply that I have some kind of prejudice in this then well duh!! of course I have. I've never denied any of the prejudices or agendas I have. I'm just writing what I think, obviously I think I'm right or I wouldn't think that way and the same goes for you and anyone else. There's no hidden meaning in my posts, if you think there is then all it means is that my posts are badly written.

slarge

superscaper wrote: »

I never even mentioned church donations. Anyone can donate anything they want to church. As Dawkins says, I don't want to ban religion so long as it's done between consenting adults in private . It was these begging letters I was talking about and I do think begging is as bad as scamming which I thought I'd made quite clear but it seems this is almost a libellous comment to some people. I'm glad my agenda is clear, I wasn't trying to hide it. I've got many agendas and many prejudices. My agenda here is that I think it dispicable that an organisation has the audacity to request money through unsolicited mail. I never said it was a scam, I think it's as bad as a scam. If you're trying to imply that I'm bringing some kind of prejudice into this then well Duh!! of course I am.

I agree with you. Apparently anyone who has an opinion that conflicts with ben500 and Markymark is wrong. I had an "invoice" last week from a company offering to enter a trademark which I applied for into a journal. This is a well known "scam". Is the church sending round a formal demand for a rate (while stating in the small print it is voluntary) that much different? Personally I don't think so. That is my opinion. And I am entitled to it, just as others as are entitled to their opinion that the church's behaviour is far from a "scam". If my local greengrocer or butcher started sending me unsolicited "voluntary" demands for money, I'd be fairly !!!!ed off. Why would I treat such an approach from my local church any differently?

ben500

slarge wrote: »

I agree with you. Apparently anyone who has an opinion that conflicts with ben500 and Markymark is wrong. I had an "invoice" last week from a company offering to enter a trademark which I applied for into a journal. This is a well known "scam". Is the church sending round a formal demand for a rate (while stating in the small print it is voluntary) that much different? Personally I don't think so. That is my opinion. And I am entitled to it, just as others as are entitled to their opinion that the church's behaviour is far from a "scam". If my local greengrocer or butcher started sending me unsolicited "voluntary" demands for money, I'd be fairly !!!!ed off. Why would I treat such an approach from my local church any differently?

Your confusing opinions with facts and holding others responsible for your own ignorance, yours is an opinion the statements mark and myself have made in reference to solicited church donations are facts. People are attempting to identify the difference for you but you somehow cannot grasp the principal.

The church is entitled under parliamentary statute to request such payments, the requests are CLEARLY identified as being of a voluntary nature there is no ambiguity about them if you'd like to check with the op I'm sure he will confirm this for you. It is a formal notice that voluntary church rates are due for those that wish to contribute, I too do not agree with them but that does not make them illegal, crooked or dubious to make such references is in the least mutton headed but if you want to nitpick also libelous. The statement in brackets which I have kindly emboldened for you is another demonstration of your ignorance, the reference to the contribution being voluntary is far from small print it usually heads the document in text of two or more fonts larger than the main body text, I take it you have never even set eyes on such a document? Yet you feel fit to sit as judge and jury in your own little kangaroo court.

superscaper

ben500 wrote: »

Yet you feel fit to sit as judge and jury in your own little kangaroo court.

Ummm, isn't that what having an opinion is? I mean that's exactly what you are doing in response to posts. Although what is different that while I and slarge have (whether right or wrong that's the whole point of opinion) have attacked the principal/subject, you've attacked the posters. Calling them ignorant, mutton-headed etc, implying others' posts are less valid than yours (we only have opinions, you have facts). Can you at least stop these ad hominem attacks on being allowed to have opinions? I mean with your above statement we're only putting the ideas and actions of organisations in our "kangaroo court", you're actually putting individuals in yours.

ben500

It really is a no brainer, it is a fact that the requests are legal, it is also a fact that they are clear that the due payment is optional. Your opinion that it resembles a scam is merely an opinion and an ill informed one at that.
Is that simple enough for you?

superscaper

ben500 wrote: »

Your opinion that it resembles a scam is merely an opinion and an ill informed one at that.
Is that simple enough for you?

Good arguing tactic, completely make up what I say so I can't disagree with it. I never said it resembles a scam. How many times are you going to ignore that I said I think it's as bad as a scam as I do of all unsolicited money requests? Is that simple enough for you? I mean I've even stated it's my opinion, I wouldn't have the arrogance to state anything is fact when it is just my opinion yet you're making out that I'm stating things as fact because the only things you're emphasising are what I've already emphasised myself. Just because an opinion is different from yours that doesn't automatically make it ill informed.
Have I disagreed that it's legal? No
Have I disagreed that payent is optional? No

What is a no brainer is trying to argue with me over something I haven't actually said is pointless. Why do you have to resort to insulting people's intelligence and condescension (I wouldn't presume to know how much you know so I wouldn't comment on it) in order to get your point across?

Edit: Never mind, I've just realised what you're doing. You're using the straw man argument so it's pointless in me expressing any opinion no matter what it is. Well that was a colossal waste of me posting responses to you, next time you could warn me so I don't get suckered in to a false argument.

MercilessKiller

Superscraper was making a point which everyone's ignored and just looked at his use of the word "scam".

He is NOT saying that it is a scam which people seem to have taken it?!?!

He's making the point that the tactics and mindset used when developing the situation from the church is the same that scammers would use. There's a big difference. The church aren't scamming you, but obviously want you to pay

marleyboy

Having no idea about the "ins & Outs" of the facts behind the letter, I can only look at this in a completely neutral way. However from the original letter, it would have at first confused me and most certainly had me worried, up until I had checked it out. That doesnt make the letter a scam, but it would appear to be an attempt to mislead, else the aforementioned letter would surely have in BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS, "PLEASE MAKE A DONATION".

As it clearly does not, I would agree that the letter would at first APPEAR as a demand, that would make it APPEAR to be a scam, but that doesnt make it a scam, more a cleverly worded letter.

In that respect, I think BEN500 is being self opinionated, and maybe he is right, Legally and Factually, but that doesnt make IT right. SS is merely offering his opinion on the FACTS, of which everyone is entitled to do, wether it is ill informed, is a matter of opinion. I could say the same about the letter in question.

imoneyop

Another thing to bare in mind is that a lot of the people who receive this 'demand' could well be OAPs (it is not clear from the OP whether this is only going to a business or to homes as well). They are likely to see it as something that they have to pay because it has come from the church. So the people who are most likely to pay it are those who are probably the least able to afford it.

It can't really be deemed a scam, as it is a legitimate demand. However, it appears to have been written in a way to maximise the number of payments received.

superscaper

imoneyop wrote: »

It can't really be deemed a scam, as it is a legitimate demand. However, it appears to have been written in a way to maximise the number of payments received.

Depends on which definition of legitimate you use as it isn't synonymous with "legal". And as I've gone to great pains to explain I think everyone is agreed it isn't an actual scam and noone has said it is. Unfortunately a couple of posters decided to make this a straw man and change what I and others were saying about them using some of the same methods as scams (such as you point out about maximising payments) and considering them on the same level as scams into being the same as saying that they ARE scams.

It's the equivalent to me saying a motorbike is similar to a car in that I would classify it as a transport vehicle and it uses similar principles in some of the mechanics, it's internal combustion engine in principle is the same as that of a car and then someone arguing with me about how I shouldn't be calling a motorbike a car. I have to agree that I shouldn't call a motorbike a car but I didn't actually say that. Just expressing an opinion on why I consider equating them in some specific aspects.