dealsyour donation can help protect those animals that…

vote-for48vote-against
vote-for7vote-against

I would like the world wildlife fund better if they had not bullied the World Wrestling Federation into changing their name.

vote-for3vote-against

@abramokids: Really, aren't there other species to save, others with a far higher will to procreate?

I love charity Sunday.

vote-for4vote-against

This is not a deal nor the kind of organization that a thinking person would contribute. Sure, 1980's, WWF was on the leading edge. Now, 2010 - it's more of a political agency and hawker of junk environmental science. Avoid.

vote-for4vote-against

It's ironic that anything Woot is offering to support WWF since:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/ipcc_rainforest_rubbish_coup_de_grace/page2.html

*It's WWF's position, for instance, that economic growth is evil and will destroy the planet. We should actually be praying for a prolonged and massive recession with no recovery afterwards.

The organisation started out as a fairly mainstream outfit intended to protect wildlife, but has nowadays widened its remit into protecting the entire planet from unsuitable human activities. The initials WWF no longer stand for anything in particular.

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/faq/response.cfm?hdnQuestionId=3620012246264

vote-for5vote-against

Not a deal! In fact, a rip-off. Do some research before you give a dime to these boneheads! Cute panda logo or not

pik pik
vote-for4vote-against

These people are a bunch of athiests anyway and as such believe in Darwinism. Part of that theory is "the strong survive". Seems like they're acting against one of their basic principles. If pandas for example were a stronger more adaptive species they wouldn't need any help. Who ever heard of a 1 food diet as a good survival statigy.

vote-for5vote-against

Agree whole heartedly w/ shess01 skaarup and pik. Only donate if you want to donate to a political pro global warming organization. Good links provided in previous posts. Here's another: http://dagda.fpcn-global.org/content/WWF_World_Wide_Fraud Check it out. Don't throw your hard earned money away!!

vote-for5vote-against

Do I get some delicious panda steaks for my money? If not, then how is this a "deal?" The WWF is nothing but a front group for bogus enviromentalist wackos, and they're not getting a dime of my money. They produce opinion pieces, not scientific papers, that the IPCC uses to back their fake global warming claims.

vote-for3vote-against

I agree with the other comment above. The World Wrestling Federation lost millions in branding and marketing because of this group. I'm sure both side could have come to some agreement and everyone would have made more money.

vote-for4vote-against

I prefer the Nature Conservancy.They waste less money on advertising and political activism and mainly use donations to buy and protect threatened land.Often they then arrange to donate it to government bodies with the stipulation that it remain protected.Here in Alabama/Tennessee google Walls of Jericho park to see how that was purchased and protected until two state governments were able to take on the responsibility for permanent protection.They do great work.

vote-for1vote-against

@kelanth: Hmm, By identifying myself as an atheist,the only "belief" you could be certain of is my LACK of belief in theism (gods/magic.)Unlike you, I can't speak on behalf of all atheist. However,assuming an atheist understands the means through which our species came to rest at the top of the food chain, that being evolution through natural selection and our ability to rationalize) They would likely agree that as rational creatures we can choose, to intervene in the life of a dying species. Understanding how nature works allows us the freedom to do this without hypocrisy. What about the determinist who believes that fate has already been predetermined by some higher power in the sky? Yet they would have the audacity to attempt to intervene in this mystical plan? Sorry, who's the hypocrite here? These guys attack them on their ethics as environmentalist zealots, not on your presumption of their atheism and your flawed understanding of what that even means.

vote-for2vote-against

@dave17: I have to agree with Dave, while I love Charity Sunday, this is not my favorite charity. Frankly I would rather support a local ZOO than this organization, I feel about them like a lot of people feel about The Red Cross.

vote-for0vote-against

These charity posts always make me wonder... who are the wooters? I wonder if woot ever ran a demographics survey, besides where we ship our packages to... Actually, do we have statistics as to where unique purchasers (as opposed to individual sales) are located? Is that an invasion of privacy issue?

Sorry this isn't more substantive. I have very little familiarity with the WWF, but would assume that the general vibe that it's not the best agency (whether you consider global warming a concern or not). That said, I will throw out that removing the meaning from their acronym doesn't really make me change my opinion of them either way. Many companies do this. HSBC Bank (formerly, Hong Kong Shanghai Bank Corporation) dropped the meaning of their name as they tried to become more global. SAS (formerly Statistical Analysis System) also stripped the meaning from their product name -- I don't know why this is.

vote-for2vote-against

Who thinks it's hypocritical of the WWF to make the real "WWF" change their name because they had it first. Now the WWF uses it to promote donations. If Woot! did this, shame on you. I'm not even really a wrestling fan, but when organizations like this get up on their high horse because their so much better than this other company it really puts my panties in a twist. P.S. I usually wear boxers not panties.