Do some publishers have any idea?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Any moron knows that while all charities are non-profits, not all non-profits are charities. Any attempt to lump public libraries in with other real charitable organizations like the Red Cross, or the Salvation Army, or a soup kitchen is an attempt to bend the truth to fit their personal agenda du jour.

No, I just use the real definition of the word rather than follow my own opinion. Yes, I know that once you have expressed an opinion, anyone who disagrees is a moron and that you will never, ever acknowledge that you might be a little wrong or the other person might be a little right. Whatever.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

OED since unlike some, I don't have to make things up or twist words around to try prove my point.

Other definitions of charity in the OED that are to the point -

4. Benevolence to one's neighbours, especially to the poor; the practical beneficences in which this manifests itself.

5. That which is given in charity; alms.

6. A bequest, foundation, institution, etc., for the benefit of others, esp. of the poor or helpless.

Libraries qualify on a number of levels. I can understand some people's reflexive reaction to the idea that they take charity. But that's what things like libraries and parks typically are.

Historically, in 1919, roughly half of the libraries (around 1500) in the US were built using funds donated by Andrew Carnegie. My local library, the Atlanta Public Library was built using a Carnegie grant in 1902 (one of the first public libraries according to the library web site). Many parks were either donated or are maintained via donations.

Really, the point is hardly controversial. In the US, charity is the driving force behind many public institutions - libraries, schools, hospitals, parks. There are also a lot of organizations for feeding those in need, not just poor, but elderly who have trouble cooking for themselves as well.
Here is the URL for Meals on Wheels, just beware of the pop up that ask you to donate.
https://www.mealsonwheelsamerica.org/

I'm not sure why some seem to think that charity only applies to the poor or those "in need". Charity commonly applies to works done for the public good as well. The two most common charities in the US are universities, some of which have received billions in donations, and the various churches. Charities such as the Sierra Club in the US have nothing to do with the poor or those in need, but rather have much to do with the public good.

Just remember that the word "especially" does not mean exclusively.

The extra aspects of the OED definition you quote do not seem to appear in the online versions, at least the free ones. Nevertheless, they add little. Libraries certainly do not fit within the 3 aspects I quoted. And the additional aspects you quote clearly are not appropriate in this context. They seem to require little more than a benevolent intention. You can if you like regard all institutions of a civilised society as charitable if you like, but it renders the word essentially meaningless. Without that element of aiding the poor or needy, it is indistinguishable from any institution, government or otherwise, which performs benevolent acts. Even the armed forces, for instance, arguably fall within these wider aspects of charity. As arguably do telephone companies, ISP's and utilities of all kinds. If being charities mean no more than that they are established for purposes including the benefit of others, then yes, they are charities. As of course are the Big 5 themselves and indeed most businesses, especially if you believe their publicity.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, I know that once you have expressed an opinion, anyone who disagrees is a moron and that you will never, ever acknowledge that you might be a little wrong or the other person might be a little right. Whatever.

Hello pot. Have you met Kettle? "Whatever" indeed. Or perhaps you've truly never noticed that you nearly always believe yourself to be the most rational/objective person in the room.

[murraypaul]

Perhaps it is differences between countries, but coming from the UK, the idea of referring to (state provided) libraries as charities just seems bizarre.
They are government-funded services, paid for out of taxes.
I'm struggling to see a definition that would cover libraries, but not cover the post office, the fire service, the police service, the NHS, and so on.
State-run schools provide free education to all, including the poor. Does that make them charities?
My instinctive view of the word would be that an essential part of a charity is that it is run using funds donated voluntarily.
If you set up your own community library, funded by donations, then that would be a charity.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Perhaps it is differences between countries, but coming from the UK, the idea of referring to (state provided) libraries as charities just seems bizarre.

I would have thought the opposite, because of this:

Services continue to be targets for local authority budget cuts, with remaining services increasingly reliant on voluntary staff

If someone wants to say it's not the library that's a charity, but the "Friends of" group behind it, that's fine with me. I do not, but you could even say that, in a state like Ohio, which has, by national and international standards, high public library funding, the library isn't a very good charity.

What about a third world village reading room?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Perhaps it is differences between countries, but coming from the UK, the idea of referring to (state provided) libraries as charities just seems bizarre.

No. It's quite bizarre in the U.S., as well.

[Apache]

I have never gone into a library that had a book line. If they were a charity wouldn't they be giving books away? The Salvation Army and The Red Cross do not lend you clothing and other items expecting you to return them after two weeks.
Apache

[leebase]

I have no intention in engaging all the ridiculous “not the point” discussions. It doesn’t matter to me if a library is a charity or not. My story was about “sometimes you need the help, sometimes you need to be the helper”. Not “libraries are the same as soup kitchens”.

Somebody wrote aspersions on people who buy the new release books at new release book prices....as if those people were rubes getting ripped off. My take is that those are the very people who keep authors writing, keep the new books coming. They should be celebrated even if you can’t afford to be such a person.

If you want your favorite authors to keep on producing books...then maybe you don’t wait until you find their book at a local garage sale.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by leebase

If you want your favorite authors to keep on producing books...then maybe you don’t wait until you find their book at a local garage sale.

And maybe if you had said something precisely like that in the very beginning, no one would have taken issue.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Hello pot. Have you met Kettle? "Whatever" indeed. Or perhaps you've truly never noticed that you nearly always believe yourself to be the most rational/objective person in the room.

Probably because I don't believe that I'm the most rational/objective person in the room. I am, however, willing to admit it when I'm wrong and have done so. Can't really say that I've seen you admit being wrong, but I certainly haven't read all your posts. I do believe in following the data where it leads and generally double check my facts before I post.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Said no one ever.

This is the original post that touched off the big argument (at least the big argument before the one on whether libraries are charities):

Originally Posted by leebase

The fans paying the highest price at release are WHY the exists outside of patronage from the wealthy

And you have been arguing against it for days. So either you misunderstood the point, or yes, you have been saying that.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Can't really say that I've seen you admit being wrong, but I certainly haven't read all your posts.

Happens all the time. Just not very often out here where you live and quite often ARE wrong.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

So either you misunderstood the point, or yes, you have been saying that.

I misunderstood nothing. And no, I (nor anyone here) have been "saying that." So you're wrong on both counts.

How hard is it to comprehend that saying "Highest Price" and saying "New Release Window" isn't saying the same thing? That you can buy during the latter without paying the former?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I should have realised that any statement in this thread was liable to generate another argument.

Thanks for the Karma, everyone. Perhaps I should codify this...

Durrant's Law: Any statement in a contentious online discussion is liable to generate a fresh argument.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Thanks for the Karma, everyone. Perhaps I should codify this...

Durrant's Law: Any statement in a contentious online discussion is liable to generate a fresh argument.

No it's not!

Sorry Paul. Couldn't resist.