Clarification on the Mudcat's financials

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 02 - 01:07 PM

'Tis my policy not to respond to trolls, but since there are already fifty messages here, then what the hell!!

Considering the benefits and the enjoyment that I derive from Mudcat, it warms my heart to think that Max and Jeff and Dick and all their mysterious hench-persons such as Joe Offer and the various Joe Clones are able to ride around in chauffeur-driven limousines, wear the finest clothes, eat in the finest restaurants, drink the most expensive booze, and in general, live the high-life — and that they actually manage to do it on the pathetic small check that I send to Max at highly irregular intervals. I consider that to be very efficient use of my meager contribution, and I am more than satisfied. There'll be another check in the mail very shortly, Max. Keep up the good work.

Don Firth

P.S.: Doesn't GUEST have a life?

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: kendall
Date: 12 May 02 - 01:16 PM

GFuest is obviously a power freak. At no point does he/she say WHY it bothers him/her. So, rave on Guest, but, get this: WE DON'T FUCKING CARE!

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 May 02 - 01:18 PM

Not on my keyboard, BillD. I tried it on both Word and in this space and nuttin' happens. What am I missing?

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: IvanB
Date: 12 May 02 - 01:45 PM

Guest, where is the discrepancy between the Home page and the "Solicitation" page? The home page states that Mudcat and Digital Tradition are both registered non-profit organizations. The solicitations page clearly states that donations are not tax-deductible, i.e., are not charitable deductions. There is no conflict in that. Many types of organizations are registered as non-profit without being charities. A labor union is one type that comes quickly to my mind.

Unfortunately, I can't tell by your moniker if you're the same 'Guest' to whom I already replied in this same vein in the other thread on this subject, but, if so, you seem to delight in beating a dead horse. I believe most of users of this site are of the belief that the benefits far outweigh our contributions. And, frankly, you seem to persist in implying that Mudcat and DT are some vast conspiracy raking in money by the bushelsful. Although I certainly have no proof of my belief, I still firmly believe that such an assumption is highly erroneous.

As has been stated numerous times, don't donate if you don't feel comfortable with it. But, although I try to be openminded about such threads as this, your persistence leads me to believe you have a hidden agenda of sowing seeds of doubt in order to harm this site.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 May 02 - 01:55 PM

*LOL* Well said 'Spaw...my own sentiments exactly!

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:14 PM

IvanB, the discrepancy is between the homepage, which says Mudcat Cafe is a registered non-profit organization, and the solicitation page, which says it isn't.

My objections are not about how much or how little money is being made off this site. My objections are about integrity, character, and truth in solicitation.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Dani
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:20 PM

"Integrity, character, and truth...." You show us yours, we'll show you ours ;)

Dani

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:31 PM

Not with the level of antagonism and hostility being directed at me I won't.

Which is why the Pennsylvania State Dept. of Charities allows people to bring complaints against an organization like Mudcat Cafe anonymously too.

If some of you could only see yourselves as potential funders/donors see you behaving, I think you might reconsider how showing this level of hostility and venom doesn't help the cause, but in fact, can do a tremendous amount harm to it.

It is always your choice how to respond to queries about the Mudcat Cafe's non-profit status. I suggest you all stay out of it next time, and let the site owners deal with directly themselves.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:37 PM

Dear Guest, Your obvious distress is heart rending. The only solution for you would be to consult the state authorities. Do let us know what their response is.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:40 PM

And some of you people were troubled when I called these assholes by their proper names. They are worthless slugs, not worthy of your time. I even recognize the one that started this. It is so easy. And don't you just love how they try to cover their intent (which is to make themselves feel better, because we didn't give them the "attention" that their poor self worth felt they were due) by making it seem to be a legitimate question on non profit status. And then you let them elevate it to discussion level. Then they feel they are sucessful.

This slug has been here a long time s/he even operates with a handle. This slug delights in getting you into circular arguments such as this one. This slug has been here so long that they know full well that it evolved and that Max just keeps it going as best he can.

They only proper response is to ignore the arguments that this slug is raising and send in another contribution. Don't let this slug feed on your indignation. That feeds its need for legitimacy, and does nothing to cause IT to seek help for low self worth.

Mick

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:46 PM

None of this is any of the members' business. It is Max and Dick's business, so why not just shut the hell up and stay out of it?

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: DonMeixner
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:57 PM

The whole notion of knowing ones accussor seems to have fallen away with our dear Guest. Once again I don't care that he/she,she/he has an opinion different from my own. Go ahead and report what ever you wish to the IRS and any charitable enforcement agency you like. But have the common decency of using your own name when you do. The accussed has to stand before the judge, his name out front for all to see. The accussor may be able to justify his personal cowardice before the court by standing behind his right of anonymity. And further justify it to himself by saying. "It's the public's right to know."

In civics class I had always heard that on my day in court, if accussed or a crime, I would meet my accussor and the facts would be weighed and measured by my peers. The name of my accussor is my right to know. My guilt would be either proven to the accussor or my innocence sustained.

When you get around to accussing me of being a foolish supporter of a foolish place that may be guilty of filing the wrong papers or assuming that the world of folk music is a rose colored place with out malice be sure to get my name right.

Donald R. Meixner

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 12 May 02 - 02:59 PM

To quote from the literature of one folk club
"This is a non profit making organisation; we didn't plan it that way, but it is!"

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 May 02 - 03:02 PM

GUEST, if you have a legitimate complaint, then file it with the proper authorities and shut the hell up!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 02 - 03:03 PM

Troll or not, pissed off at guest's anonymonymity or not, butt out people, it is none of our business!

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: DonMeixner
Date: 12 May 02 - 03:12 PM

If it isn't my business why was this brought up in the forum in the first place? By stating a concern and then further suggesting that I and others are supporting people who may be perpetrating a fraud on us and others you made it our business.

Don Meixner

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 12 May 02 - 03:42 PM

I was going to ignore this bullshit thread, but I would like to make a couple of points.
Guest-This is a folk and blues forum, set up and run by Max because he loves music, I have bought a Mudcat T shirt and made a very small contribution, if I had a good job I would happily send more.I have had much more than my moneys worth from this site, I have met some wonderful people that I am proud to call friends, I have heard some great music from Mudcat members and learned a lot about music and instruments, attended some great sessions and gatherings.If I send a few pounds to Mudcat, I don't give a shit what they do with it, if as you suggest, Max has forgotten to fill in the correct forms would you really want him prosecuted or the site shut down? Or are you some kind of jobsworth arshole with nothing better to do?

On a final note, if you gave a couple of pounds/dollars to a busker, would you ask what he spent it on, his tax status, and how much he made this year? I don't think so! If you did, I reckon you would be told to get lost.
If you want this site to continue, then send what you can afford, if not get lost.
John (Evans)

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 12 May 02 - 05:42 PM

I wonder if our 'Guest' has ever tried to check his OWN Bank Balance without 'Proof of Identity'.....let alone expect to get info about SOMEONE ELSE's accounts while remaining anonymous.

Strikes me as being very similar to this...

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 12 May 02 - 06:04 PM

Ooooooooooo - GUEST - your anger!! Get bit by your own bite?? Too funny -

Steve

Hit this for the door prize!

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 12 May 02 - 06:27 PM

¢ Since this thread is wasted disk space, just practicing my html numeric code. Bill D, holding down alt and typing 0162 just gives me 4 bongs from my computer but nothing prints. I must put & and # and 162 and ; to get ¢

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: treewind
Date: 12 May 02 - 06:31 PM

Can someone explain something to me?

Why is this guest questioner talking about solicitation?

As I understand it, the people who run Mudcat make no requests for donations of any sort, other than charging for T shirts etc. which is different because it's sale of tangible goods and has nothing to do with charity.

With that, and not claiming for tax exempt status, the internal finances of Mudcat are NODODY ELSE's BUSINESS. It's as simple as that.

We might as well all interrogate "GUEST" about his/her family budget, for all the relevance it has.

Mudcat does not solicit donations.
What is there to complain about?

Anahata

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 02 - 06:43 PM

As has been said already, ANON.GUEST claims his/her/its original question was directed at Max and Dick and is nobody else's business, yet he/she/it directs it to us on the public forum instead of to Max and/or Dick, whose telephone numbers and addresses are posted under Contacts. And as has also already been said, DON'T FEED THE TROLL!!

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: treewind
Date: 12 May 02 - 06:59 PM

OK, I've found the donations page.

I'm not going to complain to any authorities or pursue a point, and I don't know what the legal position is, but our guest may have a point in that even if if an organisation is not making a profit, it might still need to have public accounts that show this to be true.

But then someone said that the turnover is far less than the threshold for any legal requrement for accountability. Surely that settles the matter?

Anahata

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Ferrara
Date: 12 May 02 - 07:33 PM

I went to the support page and couldn't find the statement about Mudcat and Digitrad being non-profit orgs. Where should I be looking?

If it really says that, this whole thing can be resolved, I believe, but changing "non-profit" to "not-for-profit." There is a legal difference.

I don't believe the two types of organization have the same reporting requirements but may be wrong on that. Eitheer way, Mudcat is definitely profitless, unless you count the personal and spiritual ways it profits its members....

Mudcat is not a charity. It does not make a significant profit (in law or in fact!). Max says that On-Stage Media supports Mudcat. He certainly has made it clear over the years that Mudcat isn't supporting On-Stage Media!

Dick, if it really says "non-profit," don't we need to change that to "not-for-profit"?

Rita

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: IvanB
Date: 12 May 02 - 09:18 PM

Rita, the statement about Mudcat and DT being 'registered non-profit organizations is on the Mudcat Home Page, a page few of us probably see since I believe most of us have the Forum bookmarked rather than the home page.

I believe IRS would consider both the term "non-profit" and "not for profit" synonymous in determining tax exempt status. However, Guest seems to be operating under a perception that being tax exempt automatically makes an organization a charity and thus subject to laws regarding charities (more specifically, the Pennsylvania act). While the solicitation provisions of the act may certainly apply, my perusal of it shows no transgression on the part of Mudcat or the DT. I believe it's been made pretty clear to us that any donations made will be used to keep Mudcat running and that they are not, in fact, charitable contributions.

Either Guest is too hard-headed to note this fact or, as I believe, is purposely raising this issue to suit some agenda of his/her own. And, Guest, before you berate me again for the discrepancy between the home page and the funding page, let me state my belief that the term "tax exempt" as used on the funding page is an honest mistake in choice of words. I believe what Max intended to say was that Mudcat cannot afford to get "tax deductible" status, a status that is much harder to get than tax exempt status. If I'm wrong about this, I'll be the first to admit my error. And, unlike you, if that happens, I will have some accountability.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 May 02 - 09:22 PM

The difference between "non-profit" and "not-for-profit" is that there isn't any difference. Again, I can't speak fopr Mudcat, but The Digital Tradition Inc. has been running at a loss since its inception in 1988; doesn't solicit contributions (but will accept any, gratefully), and never expects to break even, even if we value labor at zero, I have a business--CAMSCO Music--that is independent of Digital Tradition, much in the same way that Onstage Media was (is?) independent of the Mudcat Cafe.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 02 - 09:28 PM

Thanks for replying again Dick.

Can you clarify why the homepage says both Mudcat & DT are registered non-profits, but the solicitation page says Mudcat isn't?

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Art Thieme
Date: 12 May 02 - 09:39 PM

Sorry I let this moron get to me. I'll be stronger next time.

Art

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 12 May 02 - 10:54 PM

I'm obviously lost. Can someone direct me to the "solicitation page"? I find it hard to believe that there's any statement posted to the effect that either DigiTrad or Mudcat isn't a registered non-profit corporation.

They're both incorporated as non-profit (or not-for-profit, if you prefer) corporations; neither has applied for C3 status, which would allow contributions to be tax-deductible.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: artbrooks
Date: 12 May 02 - 11:11 PM

One assumes goomba means THIS PLACE.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Robin2
Date: 12 May 02 - 11:38 PM

Call me dumb, but could someone post the address to send contributions to Max? I'd like to send some cash.

I think guest has done a service, in a round-a-bout way, by reminding us how much Mudcat does for how little.

Robin

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 May 02 - 11:42 PM

I posted this on the other thread. Max is very clear that donations are welcome BUT also says (emphasis mine): Anyhow, I hate the idea of accepting donations. We can't afford to get our tax exempt status, therefore any donations are not tax-deductible.

I post this for the benefit of members who have expressed an interest. Otherwise, Big Mick has it right. GUEST who started this shit doesn't give a flying fuck about Mudcat or any of its members. I am sure It has been able to jack-off quite a few times at the wind-up it's enjoyed, though, getting everyone into the discussion. Why otherwise intelligent folkers would give It the time of day....walks off muttering and shaking head....

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Hrothgar
Date: 13 May 02 - 04:36 AM

Haven't heard about your $25,000 donation, yet, Guest.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Mr Red
Date: 13 May 02 - 05:57 AM

I care about open debate! It proves the point we are making, we like love Mudcat and not blindly so.
Viva BS, Viva Mudcat - it is a folk custom to argue
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh yes it is.

Mr Red surfing for free at the local Library.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 02 - 07:16 AM

Dick, for your information, here is the Mudcat trail I followed:

I came to the homepage after doing a Google Search:

http://www.mudcat.org/

At the bottom of the page I clicked on "Go Ask the Bartender" which took me here:

http://www.mudcat.org/contact.cfm

I then clicked on the "Financial Contribution" link which took me here:

http://www.mudcat.org/support.cfm#contribute

For those of you who are regulars, I'm sure you don't normally follow those links, but it is probably fairly common for newcomers.

One can also get to the homepage easily from the forum page by clicking on the Mudcat logo in the top left corner of the screen (many websites have this feature, ie when you click on the logo it takes you to the homepage).

One can easily get to the solicitations page by clicking on the "Help Support the Mudcat" icon in the top centre (or so) of the page. There one will find the address for sending money donations via snail mail, and a link to PayPal.

I figured all of this out in about 10 minutes time of reading and clicking.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST
Date: 13 May 02 - 07:58 AM

I would also add, it is quite unusual in my experience on-line, to have to take out a membership in order to contact a site owner. I can't think of a website I've been to of late where there isn't an email contact for the site owner/maintainer. One must join Mudcat to communicate with the owners. That is pretty strange too.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 May 02 - 08:23 AM

EXCELLENT JOB!!!! Troll, you have done well!!!

After not getting much of a bite on the page links and trying to make Dick look the fool, you decided that it was time to add in a new tack....the membership/contact thing. Superbly played. Now if someone once again gives you an answer as they have repeatedly, you have another "gripe" to fall back to....until someone addresses that one and you can then ignore it and get back to the charity silliness.

Nice job and I'm sure you'll be happy with the results as the more smokescreens you can intermix, the better!

Spaw

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: kendall
Date: 13 May 02 - 08:27 AM

The solution is simple enough for a moron to understand; We like it here; we are well satisfied here; we get our money's worth here, if you don't like it here, PISS OFF! start your own site.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 May 02 - 08:31 AM

Nah, 'Spaw...that pig won't fly. Following ANON.GUEST's set of links (rather than going directly to the site I linked earlier) takes you directly past the place where Max's and Dick's addresses and telephone numbers are posted. Of course, it has been obvious from the beginning that logic and reason are alien to this critter.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Big Mick
Date: 13 May 02 - 08:39 AM

I keep tellin' ya, fella's. This poor soul had his/her diaper changed improperly and now looks for ways to validate his/her existence. And shame on you folks for exposing this slugs tactics!!! Spaw.............how is this person, and I use the term lightly, going to validate in his/her sick little mind his/her mental superiority if you keep exposing the methods. Never mind that you will have ruined their sex life............you know, Spaw, the one they have when they touch themselves in that spayshul way when folks fall for their simple machinations. Wait..............I just figured it out..............you are trying to drive them into a trip to the NYCFTTS................are you getting a bonus on this?????? Are you moonlighting outside of your obligations to LFPS???????

Mick

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST,The Jester
Date: 13 May 02 - 12:23 PM

Money doesn't talk it swears

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 May 02 - 12:50 PM

Kendall: dick can look like a fool without help from anyone.

Re: "tax exempt" in the "help the Mudcat" page. The phrase --perhaps an unfortunate choice--refers to the fact that contributions are not tax deductions. Both Mudcat and Digitrad are non-profit/not-for-profit/tax-exempt (in the sense that we are not called upon to pay taxes) corporations. The tax-exempt status is academic; neither organization has ever had any net income.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: John J
Date: 13 May 02 - 12:59 PM

I wonder if the time is approaching when posts from anonymous guests should be ignored as a matter of course.

John

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: artbrooks
Date: 13 May 02 - 01:48 PM

John, that has been suggested a number of times in the past. Unfortunately, Mudcat members (including thee and me) somehow can't avoid responding.

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Ferrara
Date: 13 May 02 - 02:43 PM

Well, I kinda agree with Mr. Red ... it is a folk custom to argue.

Keeps us off the streets, and it's yet another way to avoid whatever real work we have to do on a given day.... :)

Rita

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: GUEST,Lyle
Date: 13 May 02 - 10:53 PM

You poor people and your cheap computers! All you have to do on a Mac is hold the Option key and press 4 and there is the ¢ symbol.

And GUEST, Macintosh is *registered* as a for profit company but often isn't!

Lyle

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Amos
Date: 13 May 02 - 11:17 PM

¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢There ya go!! Straight from the Mac's mouth.

But just for the record Macintosh is not a ocmpany, but a trademark; Apple has been consistently profitable since the Second Coming, and is more successful now than it has been since the original temptation of Jobs.

A

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 May 02 - 01:22 AM

¢¢

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: Hrothgar
Date: 16 May 02 - 03:31 AM

I still want to see this geezer donate $25,000 to make the Mudcat lodge reports!

Subject: RE: Clarification on the Mudcat's financials
From: kendall
Date: 16 May 02 - 07:02 AM

I know I shouldn't respond to trolls, but, when someone attacks a friend of mine, he also attacks me.My ex wife accused me of being Don Quixote in a past life.