It's less the quality of the buggers than the
attitude of the buggees: I am a bad buggee.

I'd think that either the bugger or the buggee would determine the
outcome. If you have a bad bugger and good buggee, then good should come
of it, despite the bugger being bad. If the bugger is good but the bugee
is bad, chances are you might still get a donation, tho not that good.
If both are bad, no donation but if both are good, a better than
expected donation might be in order.

To me, the badness of the bugger would vitiate
everything that came after.

What was the assurance that your favorites
got the proper allocation? It has been said
(here and elsewhere) that United Fund played
fast and furious with the funds entrusted to it,

Trust, plus from time to time (depending on the organisation), a note of thanks from the group.

It is harder and harder to find a base of
trust nowadays, not only with the ease of
manufacturing evidence, but the increasing
tendency to actually do so.

True; it would take some time tho to figure what was for us as part

of > the team, for the team as a whole and us as not a part of the
team.
Strikes me as one of the few things that
spreadsheets would be good for.

If we really wanted to get that picky. It's a working vacation with
benefits like maple creemees. (G)

I too have been exceedingly lax about
documenting or even claiming contributions.
Of course, in my tax bracket which is as
close to zip as makes little difference,
there's hardly a point in doing so.

We have always had printed our names/addresses, etc on checks. It

was > required to have it on when cashing a check at the PX or commissary so > easier to have it printed on.
That's why I used traveler's checks, which
don't carry that kind of information, or
blacked and whited out the stuff on the
printed checks.

We do more on line paying now but still keep a checking account for
those times we can't do it on line.

Online contribution is something that I will
absolutely not do, because of the incredible
ease of tracking.

I refer to it as fetid feta; not much more
need be said about that.

Just like I've called coffee "battery acid."

Something like that.

Cucumber gazpacho with asparagus
categories: Swiss, starter, vegan, poison but not that poisonous
yield: 1 batch

1 organic cucumber
200 g green asparagus
1 lg onion
400 ml vegetable bouillon
1 chile pepper
1 lime, juice of
1 ds soy sauce
lemon salt
fresh ground pepper

Peel the onion and asparagus and cut them
into small pieces. Simmer 5 min in bouillon.
Let cool.

Wash the cucumber and cut into small pieces.
Puree with the chile and the onion and asparagus
mixture. Mix in the lime juice and soy sauce
and correct seasoning with lemon salt and pepper.

Gruezi magazine June/July 2018
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Fido Since 1991 | QWK by Web | BBS.DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)

Hi Michael,

It's less the quality of the buggers than the
attitude of the buggees: I am a bad buggee.

I'd think that either the bugger or the buggee would determine the outcome. If you have a bad bugger and good buggee, then good should

come > of it, despite the bugger being bad. If the bugger is good but
the bugee > is bad, chances are you might still get a donation, tho
not that good. > If both are bad, no donation but if both are good, a better than

expected donation might be in order.

To me, the badness of the bugger would vitiate
everything that came after.

If the bugger were bad enough, I'd walk out.

What was the assurance that your favorites
got the proper allocation? It has been said
(here and elsewhere) that United Fund played
fast and furious with the funds entrusted to it,

Trust, plus from time to time (depending on the organisation), a

note of > thanks from the group.

It is harder and harder to find a base of
trust nowadays, not only with the ease of
manufacturing evidence, but the increasing
tendency to actually do so.

I know, "trust but verify" seems to be the order of the day. Hard to
trust a lot of stuff but some, you just have to.

True; it would take some time tho to figure what was for us

as part > ML> of > the team, for the team as a whole and us as not a
part of the > ML> team.

Strikes me as one of the few things that
spreadsheets would be good for.

If we really wanted to get that picky. It's a working vacation with benefits like maple creemees. (G)

I too have been exceedingly lax about
documenting or even claiming contributions.
Of course, in my tax bracket which is as
close to zip as makes little difference,
there's hardly a point in doing so.

And being single............

We have always had printed our names/addresses, etc on

checks. It > ML> was > required to have it on when cashing a check at
the PX or

commissary so > easier to have it printed on.
That's why I used traveler's checks, which
don't carry that kind of information, or
blacked and whited out the stuff on the
printed checks.

We do more on line paying now but still keep a checking account for those times we can't do it on line.

Online contribution is something that I will
absolutely not do, because of the incredible
ease of tracking.

We only do it for organisations we absolutely trust.

I refer to it as fetid feta; not much more
need be said about that.

Just like I've called coffee "battery acid."

Something like that.

But I'd rather have feta than coffee.

Cucumber gazpacho with asparagus
categories: Swiss, starter, vegan, poison but not that poisonous
yield: 1 batch

Interesting--did you try this or just copy it out of the magazine?

---
Catch you later,
Ruth
rchaffly{at}earthlink{dot}net FIDO 1:396/45.28


... I DID Read The Docs! Honest! Oh, *That* page...

--- PPoint 3.01
* Origin: Sew! That's My Point (1:396/45.28)