VA Advogado: Fair enough. I think we both agree on this.
It seems to me with the above admission by you, that the debate on this thread should have ended as between the main protagenists. You concede that the Red Cross slashed one of its own critical arteries, and that all the blood drives in the world may not be sufficient to make up its own blood deficit.
There is no room in the mainstream charitable world for disingenuousness, and slickness. None. At least not when they get caught at it.
Again, I agree. The life(blood) of any charity is trust and the perception of trust. I personally don't feel they've violated *my* trust. But others have. I happen to know that do-good organizations sometimes do things that maybe we all dont agree with. They get beyond what we feel should be their critical mission. But they do that usually with good intentions. Normally I wouldn't argue good intentions because thats a liberal thing. But thats what these groups are. Not liberal in a politcal sense, but 'giving professions' attract that type. But all this is a far cry from the ignorant, misinformed claims made early on this thread that the Red Cross "STOLE" the money or lied about how it would be used. Diogenesis and his ilk deserve to be come down on and down on hard to answer for their blubbering lies. You, Miss Marple and some of the more intelligent posters are a bit more interesting to discuss things with. :)