[TheZenPsycho]

Sorry I just saw this:

>"That meets my definition of "profit", but apparently not yours. So we may be talking somewhat at cross purposes."

is that the same definition you used here?

>"It looks like Ovishinsky's corporation did make a profit, at least while he was running it. "

Profit is defined as total income minus expenditure. When talking about corporations, that is, by convention, the one unambiguous meaning in that context. But you now say that simply having income at all, is good enough to be considered "profitable". Huh!

You know it is very dishonest to just go around changing the meaning of words mid conversation, sir.

> In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling the service of helping people.

HELP ME! HELP ME I AM DYING.

RC: Sure thing. That will be $1200. Don't worry we'll send the bill to your family.

you know, like this sort of sane world?

House Burns Down While Firefighters Watch [1]

[1]: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/tennessee-family-home-b...

[pdonis]

you now say that simply having income at all, is good enough to be considered "profitable"

No, that's not what I said. I said people pay the Red Cross to do what it does: but the amount paid in must be at least as large as the amount spent by the Red Cross or they won't be able to continue doing what they're doing. The likelihood that, averaged over time, the amount they take in is exactly the amount they spend is miniscule. So practically speaking, they must be making a profit, in the sense of taking in more money than they spend, in order to continue functioning. (As I said, the fact that they are called a "nonprofit" is a subterfuge; they have to be making a profit in the sense of total income minus expenditure.)

You know it is very dishonest to just go around changing the meaning of words mid conversation, sir.

I did no such thing. I didn't spell out all of the above because I assumed you would be able to figure it out for yourself. Apparently I assumed wrong.

RC: Sure thing. That will be $1200. Don't worry we'll send the bill to your family.

So you missed the part where I explicitly said that people pay the Red Cross to help other people. The Red Cross does not charge the people they are actually helping. That would also be true in the hypothetical sane world I was describing: people would pay the Red Cross to help others. They just wouldn't have to lie about the Red Cross being a "nonprofit": the Red Cross could openly admit that it was taking in more money than it spent, and investing the difference in finding ways to help people better.

You know that it is very dishonest to put words in other people's mouths and accuse them of taking positions they have not taken, sir.

like this sort of sane world?

Was the local fire department a for-profit corporation? Or even a "nonprofit" like the Red Cross? Or was it, as I strongly suspect, a governmental entity? (The reason I strongly suspect that is that the city's mayor defended the fire department's action.) If it's the latter, then you are misrepresenting what happened to make it seem like it supports your position, when it actually does not. You know that it is very dishonest to do that, sir.

[TheZenPsycho]

> No, that's not what I said. I said people pay the Red Cross to do what it does: but the amount paid in must be at least as large as the amount spent by the Red Cross or they won't be able to continue doing what they're doing.

that's still not profit. That's breaking even.

> Was the local fire department a for-profit corporation?

A for-profit corporation. a privatised fire service. Because socialism is evil, supposedly, in this rural town, paying the fire fee is a voluntary choice, not an involuntary tax, and thus the fire service made sure nobody was going to die and then stood by and watched the house burn down. Because the family had opted not to pay the monthly subscription fee.

> So you missed the part where I explicitly said that people pay the Red Cross to help other people.

when what you wrote is right there and you haven't even bothered to edit it to fit this lie, saying something like this is a bit on the absurd side.

I'll put what you actually wrote, here again, for your own benefit.

> In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling the service of helping people.

and so

> You know that it is very dishonest to put words in other people's mouths and accuse them of taking positions they have not taken, sir.

It's dishonest to switch your positions at your convenience and make an accusation like that. It's stupid to do this when there's a visible record of you having done so.

OF COURSE you can say explicitly that you've changed your position, and that you've realised you were mistake in your view of the word "profit" but somehow I don't think this is going to happen.

[pdonis]

that's still not profit. That's breaking even.

You failed to quote the next two sentences: "The likelihood that, averaged over time, the amount they take in is exactly the amount they spend is miniscule. So practically speaking, they must be making a profit, in the sense of taking in more money than they spend, in order to continue functioning."

A for-profit corporation. a privatised fire service.

Reference, please? The article you linked to doesn't say this, and as I noted, it implies the opposite, since the city mayor defended the fire service. Also see below.

supposedly, in this rural town, paying the fire fee is a voluntary choice

"Supposedly"? Did you actually read the article you linked to? It says: "Residents in the city of South Fulton receive the service automatically, but it is not extended to those living in the greater county-wide area." In other words, the city (not town) only charges the fee to people living outside the city limits, who don't have the same expectation of receiving city services anyway.

I'll put what you actually wrote, here again, for your own benefit.

Sure, I'll even quote it again: "In a sane world the Red Cross would be a normal corporation that was selling the service of helping people."

Does that say "selling helping services to people"? No, it doesn't. It says "selling the service of helping people". By which I meant, as I clarified in subsequent posts, that people can pay the Red Cross to help other people, instead of helping those other people directly.

Was what I originally said ambiguous? Yes. But that means you ask for clarification; it does not mean you assume that I meant whatever is most convenient for you.

[DonGateley]

My, but you do run on.