Comment

Comment on Donors

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

Sort:hotnew top

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