And what do you imagine is the clever scam here? More charity?
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
I respect your support for leveraging social media for public charity, but I doubt Pulte is the right guy. I am getting a lot of complaints, and his reaction to criticism is unfortunate. Key criticism: using charity for self-promotion & data mining at expense of other charities.
19 replies 20 retweets 169 likes -
Replying to @barnes_law
I would think it obvious to you (maybe not so much to less experienced observers) that data mining is not a thing here. And all charities do self-promotion. See Jerry Lewis.
16 replies 1 retweet 31 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Fair enough. The "data mining" criticism (as you note, an over-expanded use of the term) I received was more about people feeling they had to give up private information they didn't realize was a precondition of receiving charity than the idea it was a means of money-making.
7 replies 3 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @barnes_law
Recipients of charity/money/gifts normally need to provide name, address, phone number, email, depending on the situation. You can't even win a large slot machine jackpot without giving up your personal info for taxes. Normal.
9 replies 0 retweets 20 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
True. Also necessary to make sure the recipient is not, themselves, trying to do a scam. It's more of the p.r. side of the equation on that issue, in terms of public expectations, especially in an age where people are accustomed to being misled into giving their information.
5 replies 1 retweet 23 likes -
Replying to @barnes_law @ScottAdamsSays
You are never going to satisfy Mr. Adams. if you do not believe exactly as he does on any given subject then he pushes back. Its a shame really to know Dilbert is this condescending.
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @PhilosopherSto6 @ScottAdamsSays
Scott is just a very effective advocate about topics he is passionate about. He strongly supports more charity, by whatever means achieves more charity, and sees Pulte as a template for more charity. He may be right. Either way, Scott would have made a very, very good lawyer.
7 replies 2 retweets 41 likes -
Replying to @barnes_law @PhilosopherSto6
Thank you! I always appreciate your opinions.
3 replies 1 retweet 25 likes -
There is also a question as to whether or not many recipients ever receive what has been promised. Can we confirm the reported outflow of money actually occurs? Don’t know, but the answer, I think, would be key,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
You can see the recipients on Twitter getting the money in most cases. I think a few situations dropped between the cracks temporarily and are being fixed as discovered.
-
-
The most credible accusation is that he runs “sweepstakes” where reporting rules are not followed and the “winners” are fictitious. Easy enough to prove or disprove. The rest seems to boil down to a touchy personality & intense ego, which might be distasteful, but not criminal.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That's the sort of accusation that requires evidence, which doesn't exist. It is not up to the accused to prove a negative (proving something is NOT happening). If someone accuses you of a crime someday, you'll want actual evidence.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.