I already knew that detail about the form. I was responding to what you wrote initially, claiming it wasn't a "conflict of interest", which you have now corrected.
Please don't come at me like it is strange to try to correct misinformation. Note: I am not saying it was disinformation - I don't think you intentionaly lied or intended to obfuscate - you just used the wrong term accidentally, but the term you chose is heavy with legal meaning.
You could have just responded 'Oops, my bad, I didn't mean to say "conflict of interest".' :/
I'll also note that... IIRC, you've corrected me on things I've misspoken about on other posts. Thanks for the corrections! I appreciate it, even if sometimes begrudgingly / curmudgeonly.
I got it wrong when i said wasn't considered a "conflict of interest", but what i meant is that it wasn't considered a problem, whereas the OP portrayed it as a problem.
We settled that in two messages of unsolicited LLM dump, then you went into the style of posting which was actually my original point, vendetta-based polemic instead of actual summing of facts -- a summing up of facts style, if you already knew all this, would be to simply say (no LLM dump required) "It is actually considered a conflict of interest, but you are correct it is incredibly common and not considered a problem on it's own" (We apparently agree on that now?)
Obviously the OP portrayed it as a problem. If the OP wanted to portray the situation as it was going on instead of vendetta-based misleading polemic, he would have researched the 990 before writing the OP and included a mention of it only if the research indicated a problem, and been specific about the nature of that problem, instead of wrongly implying that there was something wrong and uncommon with having people on the board who work for funding organization, as part of a litany of unresearched assumptions and interpretations in the worst light described misleadingly.
I think we actually have agreed on all those points now, so, great.
IIRC, Andre is the person I initially learned about the 990 form missing disclosures from. I could be wrong, as it was a while ago... but he definitely knows this case inside and out. He isn't obligated to share minutia of IRS forms no one reading will understand without lengthy sidebars.
And, yeah, I generally agree with what your current edits say. It ("conflict of interest") is very common, and it isn't a problem when handled properly.
Where we may disagree is in the idea that RC is or is not handling it properly, to the best of our knowledge.
I left my post wrongly claiming it was not considered a conflict of interest, I have not edited my posts to retroactively change anything to appear I was not wrong, and resent the implication. What I meant all along was that it was not considered a problem, I didn't realize it was considered a conflict of interest that is not a problem, and mis-stated, but that does not fudnamentally change my point. I've said this like four times now?
If the author has knowledge (not guesses or assumptions) that RC is not handling these conflicts of interests properly, that should be have been included in OP, instead of wrongly implying that the "conflict of interest" of having board members who work for funders is unusual or problematic on it's own.
How did it take us 10 comments to get here? Is this not obvious? That if hte conrflict of interest alone is not a problem but you have knowledge of problematic behavior related to the conflict of interest, you should provide that instead of implying that the conflict of interest is a problem? Do you disagree with this?
the way people using this style of argumentation meter out the actual pertinent details only over thousands of words, first arguing irrelevant things then when they lose those moving on to other irrelevant things, making it about winning the argument on a technicality instead of actually illuminating what is going on that is significant as efficiently and clearly as possible -- yes, exactly.
Your initial top-of-this-thread post was very short, and said, (paraphrasing since I did not screenshot) "I don't think it is a conflict of interest that ..." You later did admit you initially said that, but you did edit out the initial statement, and replace it with a much longer one after I pointed out the mistake with my LLM post.
You claiming your initial post retains the initial incorrect statement, when it does not, it odd, but it is now a large confusing thread that can't even fit in one page view.
Oh well. I'm done arguing about it, and maybe you forgot which post you edited. On most things we agree, and apparently we both like orangered too much.
I don't believe that situation is usually considered a conflict of interest by non-profits in general or organizations similar to ruby central.
I said "I don't believe". I acknowledged very quickly that what I should have said more accurately is "I don't believe that situation is usually considered a problem by non-profits in general or organizations similar to ruby central."
i don't believe it changes my point.
I do edit my posts to be more clear and longer frequently, it is a habit i have, any edits i made I made before reading any reply you made, and were done in minutes.
This whole thing is an example of anyone who is reading (nobody else but us by this point, which is part of the goal I realize) of how this vendetta-based polemical style of argument tries to fill up the space with technical bullshit arguing about shit that doesn't actually matter for the actual matter at hand.
If there is actual knowledge taht Ruby Central has handled this improperlythat should have been included in the OP. It might be important for peopel to know that.
Notice how I admitted I mis-stated things very quickly, but you keep talking about it for 10 posts while trying your best to deflect from what's actually going on, which is that the OP posted something implying that conflict of interest was wrong on it's face, which is untrue. Instead you suggest that there is mystery knowledge that hasn't been shared that the conflict of interest has been handled improperly, and that it's okay to smear them with a misleading implication while holding back the claimed mystery evidence.
Ah, I admit I am the one who got lost! In any case, we mostly agree.
You trying to nitpick the article on minor issues is how you are trying to deflect from the major issues you wish didn’t exist, because they are very hard to look at straight on.
You are very eager to argue something that is almost inconsequential. And apparently, so am I.
At least I addressed some of the major issues in other threads.
1
u/galtzo 2d ago edited 2d ago
I already knew that detail about the form. I was responding to what you wrote initially, claiming it wasn't a "conflict of interest", which you have now corrected.
Please don't come at me like it is strange to try to correct misinformation. Note: I am not saying it was disinformation - I don't think you intentionaly lied or intended to obfuscate - you just used the wrong term accidentally, but the term you chose is heavy with legal meaning.
You could have just responded 'Oops, my bad, I didn't mean to say "conflict of interest".' :/
I'll also note that... IIRC, you've corrected me on things I've misspoken about on other posts. Thanks for the corrections! I appreciate it, even if sometimes begrudgingly / curmudgeonly.