On 10/22/2009 12:35 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:53:29 -0700, rurpy wrote: > >> On 10/21/2009 03:13 PM, Lie Ryan wrote: >>> > ru...@yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >> On 10/21/2009 01:40 AM, Lie Ryan wrote: >> [...] >>>>> >>> As a metaphor, which one do you think is better in the long term: >>>>> >>> charities or microcredits? >>>> >> >>>> >> Both of course. Why on earth would anyone think there is a simple, >>>> >> single, best answer for complex problems? >>> > >>> > Nope, read again. On the *long term* (as I have stated in the >>> > question), microcredits is proven to be much more effective to >>> > solving poverty. In the short term, charities will have much quicker >>> > effect but not one that is lasting and in fact too much charities >>> > makes a lot more problems. >> >> Uh, let's see, charity is no longer needed since micro- credits have >> been *proven* to eliminate their need. > > Lie did not say that. Rurpy, how stupid do you take us for, leaving Lie's > direct quote there in your email and then outrageously misrepresenting > him like that?
What he said was, "which one do you think is better in the long term: charities or microcredits?" I said, "both" (thinking in the sense that both are necessary.) He said, "Nope". I concluded that means one or the other is better followed by the unjustified conclusion (influenced by his incorrect claim that microcredits were *proven* and *much* more effective than charity) that if one was better then the other was unnecessary. My apologies Lie, for misrepresenting you. However I don't agree that micro credits are "better" (whatever that means) than charity but am not interested in arguing the point here. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
