Letter from church - Formal notice of church rate due!

MarkyMarkD · 12 August 2007 at 3:47PM

I don't want to flog a dead horse, and I was happy with your previous couple of posts - including the one I thanked. But you are now trying to wriggle out of stating that issuing these letters was similar in many ways to "scam" letters, by saying that you weren't actually saying that these letters were "scams".

You honestly WERE inferring that these letters are scams, by attempting to compare them to true "scam" letters.

There is a very clear difference between:

issuing a letter, which the PCC is entitled to do under statute, asking for a voluntary church rate; and
issuing a letter stating that someone has won a prize but they just have to send a payment "to release that prize"; or
issuing a letter stating that someone has won a holiday but they just have to attend a timeshare presentation to receive that prize.

In both of the latter two cases, there is NO prize - there is NO competition. The entire letter is fraudulent and intended to deceive.

In the first case, the demand is legitimate. The demand states clearly that it's voluntary. The demand is permitted by law. The recipient is a genuine recipient with a genuine financial need.

There is NO similarity between the circumstances at all, other than the fact that you would personally treat all three requests with disdain - which it is your right to do.

superscaper · 12 August 2007 at 4:02PM

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

You honestly WERE inferring that these letters are scams, by attempting to compare them to true "scam" letters.

I can't be inferring anything if I've already made it quite clear (but consistently ignored) that I was making explicit statements and there was no hidden meaning, any implication is on the part of the reader because there was none put in. And more like flogging a straw man, you're saying I'm wrong by comparing three things, two of which you'd struggle to find in any of my posts in the context you presented. The ONLY example I gave as a comparison, was clothing collections. I mentioned a timeshare letter once as I was reminded of a recent real life occurance and that I used that only in supporting the point that an OAP can easily misunderstand an unsolicited letter received whereas many people would easily notice the actual meaning. I NEVER once used any of your examples. So kindly stop putting words in my mouth and leave the poor straw man alone.

The only statement I've said so far regarding their status as scams is "church rates are not scams". So why are you so desperate to ignore that statement?

superscaper · 12 August 2007 at 4:17PM

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

But you are now trying to wriggle out of stating that issuing these letters was similar in many ways to "scam" letters, by saying that you weren't actually saying that these letters were "scams".

But I've been saying it all along????? Why can some people get what I'm saying when you can't see the difference between comparing aspects of something and saying something IS something. I've not contradicted myself, I've spent most of my posts correcting the straw man statements made on my behalf. The only posts I've contradicted are the ones claiming to be my interpreters.

MarkyMarkD · 12 August 2007 at 4:36PM

The relevant post said:

superscraper wrote:

It's a begging letter, no different than if a local school sent out letters to everyone locally asking for money for more resources. In that respect it actually is just the same as many "scams" like the clothing collections who are doing it for profit.

Regarding the first sentence, the difference to a "begging letter" from a school is that the PCC has a statutory right to issue these demands and to levy a church rate if they deem it necessary. That's an important difference.

Regarding the second sentence - the one that has prompted the replies from others including me - "in that respect it is actually the same as many "scams".

No, it's NOT the same in that respect as many scams. Scam letters - such as your clothing collection example - aren't letters referring to a legitimate need and asking for funds to meet that need. They are simply attempts to obtain money (or in the clothing example, goods) by deception. A school letter is a far better example - and nobody in their right mind would call that a scam or even a "scam" or even "actually the same as a "scam"".

superscaper · 12 August 2007 at 4:51PM

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Regarding the second sentence - the one that has prompted the replies from others including me - "in that respect it is actually the same as many "scams".

Deary me, how many times do I have to elaborate on that one post and apologise for the ambiguity? Now who is flogging a dead horse? For the umpteenth time, I don't care how you read that as I've already said you were WRONG in the interpretation because I wasn't clear enough. I would have thought you could move past that post once I explained it and apologised for the unclear structure. It is the same in that they are requesting something off you unsolicited. That was the aspect I was talking about, how am I wrong unless either scams or the church rates are NOT asking anything from you unsolicited? Please don't invent any other meaning for the sentence because there wasn't one.

And why do you keep bringing the law in as an argument against my posts? Another straw man! I haven't questioned the legality of what they're doing at all. In fact again, I've stated quite plainly I don't disagree that it is legal. That wasn't my point yet why you keep insisting it is, is beyond me.

superscaper · 12 August 2007 at 5:00PM

Can't we agree to disagree on our opinions. Contrary to what has been posted in reference to me, I have not once disputed any of the facts. I merely gave my opinion on the situation, which I'm glad some posters correctly read my posts as such so it can't be purely my grammatical error.

Edit: I guess there's not much more I can say since I'm apparently less qualified than others here to know/interpret the minutae of what my OWN posts mean.

MercilessKiller · 12 August 2007 at 5:21PM

MarkyMark, you mis-interpreted superscaper's post. That's very obvious... Don't now carry it on.. just move on.

MarkyMarkD · 12 August 2007 at 7:55PM

I've moved on. I don't agree with you, MK, but I don't care any more.

Maybe superscraper will simply post more accurately and clearly in future posts hence avoiding confusing most of the others who've commented on this thread.

superscaper · 12 August 2007 at 8:05PM

I guess only some of us admit to not being infallible. I think my posts are actually clear enough on revision since the majority understood it and I've never had any problems in the past with being misunderstood. I'm not superhuman and can't account for every person who is easily confused.

Labman_2 · 13 August 2007 at 12:11PM

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Maybe superscraper will simply post more accurately.....

....more accurately it's superscaper !:rotfl:

Letter from church - Formal notice of church rate due!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free