> Please don't lecture me about conspiracy theories or data. Ask yourself why you are being an apologist for this douche. It's pretty clear that you're not int

> Please don't lecture me about conspiracy theories or data. Ask yourself why you are being an apologist for this douche. It's pretty clear that you're not interested in reaching conclusions by interpreting the data. Rather, you just want to call Bill Gates names, and prefer to cherry-pick the data to do it with. For example: > It is disingenuous and smug for him to start claiming 5 years ago that he's going to start giving away half his money and have him end up with more than cash than when he started. It is an embarassment. First, he started giving away his money a lot more than five years ago. Second, he did not plan to give away half his wealth -- he planned to give away all of it. Third, very few people who've taken the Giving Pledge have seen their wealth decrease. The market has simply performed well recently. Imagine if Bill Gates followed a strict policy of ending each year with less money as you suggest. Thus, he would give $20 billion in a year in which the markets one go up 30%, and $0 in a year in which the markets fall. This is a terrible way to give out money. Charities would be unable to undertake any long-term projects with that kind of fluctuation. That is why your criticism of Bull Gates is not only highly misleading, but highly illogical. Philanthropists should hold onto the money in good times, so that they can continue giving in bad times -- precisely when it is most needed.