burden of proof is in your court. Why should I trust the EFF with my money? Also moving the goal posts, the discussion here is about the effectiveness of the EFF.
I guess I could throw in Ad Hominem for calling me a troll. Are you into politics or sales? Sorry, that was a loaded question.
"the eff isn't accomplishing anything significantly useful by this, just making themselves look good and recieving donations."
"what would they have to do for you to consider them to be worth donating to?"
"something other than having people send forms. They haven't since a legal battle a decade ago. They also are making bad legislation sound good."
["they help, and you haven't been paying attention to them during the last decade."
"they haven't done anything (groundbraking) in the last decade. "]
"What would the eff have to do for you to consider them to have earned your donation? Also I think you are trolling"
"you have yet to prove that the eff has done enough to warrant my donation. We are not talking about what they would have to do to be deserving of donations, we are talking about whether they have done useful things. Also calling me a troll is an ad hominem. Also you are deceptive"
The initial comment for this sub conversation essentially stated that they had not done anything sufficient (lately) to deserve donations.
Afterwards, the person claimed that asking what would be sufficient action to justify donations.
So, "x has not y!" "how can you tell/what do you mean/[something] that x has not y?" "don't change the subject!"
What parts of this post I am making are innaccurate?
Edit 1:
Ok, first comment rather says that they take donations and do nothing useful, which isn't neccisarily exactly the same as saying that they haven't done enough to warrant donations.
I guess I could throw in Ad Hominem for calling me a troll. Are you into politics or sales? Sorry, that was a loaded question.