Pericles,

You might have mentioned world vision generally, but only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs. I also showed that your analysis of what world vision did was also incorrect.

While some UN based charities such as UNICEF have political appointees who are career beurocrats, you specifically attacked the NGOs who are to a large extent examples of the complete opposite of what you accuse them.

You then argue based on emotion and half truths and spit the dummy when confronted with reason.

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r296/keeleyson/Tantrum.jpg

Your posts and reasoned arguments are strangers but, if you want to believe the world is flat please continue to do so. As for my nice life, I have it already.

You do seem to have a rather bloated opinion of your own arguments, Shadow Minister.

>>You might have mentioned world vision generally, but only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs<<

Here's an uncut excerpt for you to digest, in the light of your statement above:

"World Vision is the worst offender. It's just a marketing organization, its constant vainglorious self-promotion necessary for the continued welfare of its overpaid management.
http://www.worldvision.com.au/aboutus/annualreport/
The others mentioned are also major salary-machines - Oxfam, at the last (2007) count, had six executives earning over $100,000.
CARE Australia is very coy about its remuneration at an individual level, but does confess to spending $934,912 in salaries for its senior executives.
Plan at least does not pay its Board members, but the National Executive Director takes home a $145k package.
How do these people sleep at night, in the knowledge that their livelihood is entirely dependent on the continued suffering of others?"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8089#126409

From this, you managed to arrive at the conclusion that I "only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs"

Weird.

>>I also showed that your analysis of what world vision did was also incorrect.<<

You pointed out one, tiny, insignificant nit-picking difference of interpretation. That's all.

>>You then argue based on emotion and half truths and spit the dummy when confronted with reason.<<

As you are the serial personal-insult machine half of this relationship, Shadow Minister, I think you may misunderstand the term "spit the dummy" entirely.

>>Your posts and reasoned arguments are strangers<<

Unconvincing, given the evidence.

A last, desperate throw of the dice, in fact.

At least, one can hope it's the last.

Pericles

You state "You pointed out one, tiny, insignificant nit-picking difference of interpretation. That's all."

Here's one for you. The one that was top of my fat-cat list, World Vision.

Revenue: $356,474,735
Cost of Goods: nil

When I showed that the trade by world vision was substantial it showed that your entire premise that a charity was like an insurance company was incorrect.

Difference in interpretation was that one was able to read a financial report and one was not.

I am surprised that you can continue talking with nothing substantial to say.

No observations on the "only specifically mentioned Oxfam's execs" part, I notice Shadow Minister.

Probably slipped your mind.

>>When I showed that the trade by world vision was substantial <<

And when might that have been?

Perhaps you could direct us to the place where you showed the substantial amount of trade being undertaken by World Vision?

An amount that - if it had been material - would have been so identified in the accounts themselves, instead of a single reference to COGS being buried in the notes, with no value ascribed to them.

You're whistling in the wind, mon ami.

Tunelessly.