[sothatsit]

I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them. My point is that cherry-picking one expense that you don't like, and then saying all the donations go to that, is cherry-picking the financials, and is misleading.

[tete]

> I'm not trying to defend Mozilla begging for donations when they really don't need them.

They essentially do. The problem is they have a greedy, self-obsessed CEO taking it.

[closewith]

You're arguing that money isn't fungible. It's absurd.

[sothatsit]

This is absolute nonsense. I am arguing that cherry-picking one expense is ridiculous. A much more reasonable approach would be to say that your donation is spread out over the entirety of the spend of Mozilla. That would suggest 1% of your donation is going to the CEO, not 100% of it like earlier commenters suggest.

It is dishonest to pick out one expense you don't like and equate that to all of the donation money being spent on just that. That's all. I don't know how you got from that to "this guy thinks money isn't fungible."

[JumpCrisscross]

> much more reasonable approach would be to say that your donation is spread out over the entirety of the spend of Mozilla

Transactions happen at the margin. If a junkie spends every dollar of a bonus on dope, it’s fair to say the bonus is being burned on dope. Even if they also pay rent with their base salary.

[sothatsit]

From another user:

If donations doubled, would CEO pay double?

If donations halved, would CEO pay halve?

I suspect the answer is "no" to both of those.