Comment on Donors

• SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  But if it’s actually anonymous, how is that communicated?

  source

  • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Letter, fax, pager, smoke signal, Morse code, tin cans with string, eye blinking code, using the first letter of each word in a New York times obituary, carrier pigeon, skywriting… hmm… wait couldn’t they just say it out loud to each other? In person?

    source

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Good to know you’re remaining as condescending as possible.

      source

      • Coldcell@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        You’re bring an astounding level of naivety to the discussion, it should be a demonstration of how people that refuse to think can be led like sheep.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    lol there is one person in this whole thread who’s getting mad, but it’s not me

    and yes, as someone else said, it’s no big deal for someone to contact the business office of an institution and offer money on the condition of anonymity and other conditions. and the business people say okay, forms are filled out and signed, and money is transferred. they want to be anonymous because they don’t want all the other institutions calling them asking for money too. and/or they don’t want the world to know they’re the ones influencing the school’s spending

    no one wants donors to be able to influence whoever they’re donating to. but that’s how reality works

    source

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Yeah, Coldcell is having a real hissy fit.

      If the identity is known, it’s not anonymous, it’s undisclosed. That would be an entirely different thing.

      source
  • Cypher@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Are you really that braindead? An anonymous donation can mean the donor requested their name not be made public, it doesn’t necessarily stop the University from know where the money came from.

    source

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Then it’s not anonymous, it’s undisclosed. Do you not understand what “anonymous” means?

      source

      • Cypher@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        You’re the only person here failing to comprehend some very basic english.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    It sounds like the university called it “anonymous donor” for PR reasons whilst it is in fact “undisclosed donor”.

    Your point only makes sense if indeed the donor was genuinelly anonymous (I.e. even the University had no idea who they were) rather than merely described as anonymous by the University for the purpose of divulging it to the outside world.

    source

    • SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      So my only mistake was not assuming that the university was lying.

      source

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        You didn’t made a mistake, IMHO.

        Nobody made a mistake.

        There was just a mistmatch between your unvoiced assumptions and those of other people posting here, so all of you were really just starting from different points and hence going in different directions.

        I suppose many downvoters might have assumed you were purposefully taking a specifically literal interpretation of “anonymous” in this context for the purpose of defending the University whilst I myself just went with it being a perfectly valid explanation until proven otherwise that you’re just a more literal person than most.

        This is why I went for writting a post which I believed would provide some clarity rather than downvoting your posts.

        source