In my formulation, Person B was the money-giver (not otherwise involved in the event).
Ha. Whoops! I meant Person A says “give me money because I ran” versus Person B who says “give because this is a great cause”.
Yep, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.
And you can explain a simple concept many times, but you can’t make the person you’re talking to understand it, especially if they’ve got their fingers in their ears and they’re shouting I CAN’T HEAR YOU, I CAN’T HEAR YOU.
And its even more difficult trying to get them to make a straight answer thats actually RELEVANT, to the point that you’ve made.
Instead of wandering off on a tangent; and hoping that I don’t notice that they haven’t actually dealt with the point that I made.
I’m afraid that ducking and diving don’t work with me.
No far from, it you’re doing something very worthwhile for those worse of then yourselves.
You’re an example to us all .
Sending good thoughts your way.
Also the lady near the start of the thread who holds charity “eats”, you are also doing something useful for charity, as opposed to doing something useful to your image/ego.
Best of luck in your endeavours, to you aswell.
So, what, they steal the money or something? Of course they’re raising money for charity.
Who cares whether they enjoy the process or not? The point is that the charity gets money.
I’ll remember to run any charity events I’m involved in past you in the future. “Sorry, orphan kids, Lust4Life disapproves because I’m not suffering enough during this event, so no vital medicines for you this year!”
In 2010, 38,000 runners in Indianapolis raised $2.5 million for the Susan G. Komen Foundation to find a cure for breast cancer by running 13 miles. Please tell how their time have been better spent, or how 80,000 man hours of trash collecting come even close to $2.5 million. The Indy run was one of 124 other such races that took place in the US. It would be a shame to lose those resources if everyone adopted the OP’s silly and myopic view of what charitable activities should be limited to.
Exactly. These organizations would have serious fund raising issues if they only depended on door-to-door, phone or personal solicitations. Most people dislike being asked to donate in those ways and I’d bet that the majority of funds that go to these programs come from running events (etc.). You cut that, and you cut a huge portion of their income.
I also really fail to see the connection between these types of fundraising activities and the media thing. Yes, there are some individuals that do HUGE fundraising events (think Terry Fox or someone that runs across the country/sails across the ocean type people) and get lots of media attention for it, but the average person who is raising a few hundred dollars for their run is certainly not getting any type of media attention.
Also, you think I don’t suffer when I’m running or cycling for charity? HAHA! Yeah, right.
I have no problem with runners paying a charity to run, but I do have a problem with people asking others to sponsor them to do either pointless activities, or for activities where the main motivation is to put the sponseree (If that actually is a word) in the spotlight.
“Excuse me could you give some money to help starving children in Africa ?”
“No sorry .I’m not interested”
"But I’m going on a fun run/dressing up in a TuTu and tapdancing my way to the next town "
"Oh my god !Why didn’t you say so !, of course I’ll give money to help starving children in Africa. "
If I go out and buy such and such a product,the company will donate one tenth of a cent , or whatever, to buying a computer for a school somewhere.
Must be good, some money is going to charity so I couldn’t possibly criticise it as being cynical and self seeking.
Lets face it by criticising self serving people who as a by product, bring some money to charities ,I’m obviously someone who hates children, secretly practice Satanism and if I were American would probably be un American, if not actually a communist .
So I’ll put you on the spot.
What IS your opinion of a couple of obese women dieting for “Charity” as I mentioned in the O.P. ?
They did actually raise some money for charity .
Should they be applauded for their noble self sacrifice ?
Or should they receive a different impression from others, for their cynical use of peoples compassionate emotions in a self serving exercise to help their own self induced health problems ?
If you go up to a friend, relative or colleague and ask them to give so much money to charity, if you’re reasonably forceful they will give it.
Trust me on this cos I have done it .
And I still do it with equal success)
May I stress that I applaud ALL people who help others, including the posters that I have so vehemently argued against on this thread .
But I still would prefer that they went out and did something that was actually USEFUL to the underpriveleged , or society in general.
And yes I know that I’m reiterating my previous posts, when you’re passionate about something, you hope that even if its in just one case, you get through.
Who could argue with someone so egoless they’re prepared to repeat themselves endlessly on a message board for the good of humanity?
Yes, it sounds entirely ridiculous, but as a former fundraiser, I can attest that this is more or less *exactly *how many people respond in real life. Just giving because someone asks? Meh. Giving in order to “challenge” someone to do something (even - maybe even especially - if it’s something fun)? Count me in!
It’s got nothing to do with self-aggrandizement; it’s just a talking point, a conversation starter, a gimmick to get people to donate when they otherwise would not. And it works.
You know what else works really well? Matching grants. Company X will match every dollar you give to Organization Y, up to $250,000. Great, right? Come on, let’s all give now, so we can double the money Organization Y is getting. But wait - isn’t this just a self-serving move by Company X? If they’re really so nice, why wouldn’t they just give the full $250,000 anyway and shut up about it? The answer is, they would. But the organization makes a point of setting up a challenge to inspire people to give more than they normally would.
Wait, who’s cynical and self-seeking? The consumer, who’s trying to do some good, however small, with their everyday purchases? Or the company, which is letting consumers know it’s making a donation?
Neither. They should be applauded for helping raise money for charity. The fact that they enjoyed or benefited from doing so is completely irrelevant.
You should try asking your friends, relatives, and colleagues to sponsor you on a fun run sometime. You might find, as many have, that you have even greater success, and you don’t even have to be “reasonably forceful”.
Okay, then I’ll reiterate some other folk’s previous posts: how, pray tell, is raising money for a charity NOT USEFUL to those served by that charity?
So there’s an issue with Joe, who likes to walk and is trying to keep (or get) fit, signing up for a walkathon and then approaching 10 people to sponsor him, eh? And if I understand this correctly, the basic objections are:
Joe is doing this for Joe, not for the Starving Orphans Fund.
and
Joe is hitting up people for money (to sponsor him).
There seem to also be some concerns about Joe wanting pats on the back for being such a great guy, but let’s ignore those for the moment and assume that not EVERYone who participates in this kind of event is an attention-grubbing narcissist. Let’s assume–just for the fun of it–that the percentage of attention-grubbing narcissists is no higher in these charity events than it is in, oh, say the SD IMHO board. 
Who cares if Joe is doing this for Joe? If you don’t like Joe or are convinced those wimply little starving orphans should be spelunking in Dumpsters instead of accepting handouts, just politely say you already have charities you support, and you can’t contribute. If you can look past your distaste for what you perceive to be Joe’s ego trip, then contribute.
But let’s look at another reason nonprofits like these sponsorship events. If the Starving Orphans Fund solicits 1000 people, and 100 of them respond with donations, that would be considered an excellent rate of return. But if 100 people sign up for a “thon” event, and each one of them gets an average of 10 sponsors, you have 1000 donors. (Most participants also sponsor themselves, but I’m including them in the 1000 donors.) The participants in this case ARE the solicitors on BEHALF of the charity.
Furthermore, if the “thon” is a success, then the charity does not have to continually hit up potential donors, reserving more resources for the orphans (because it’s not spending money on frequent solicitations) and alienating fewer people–except for folks who hate sponsorship events so much, they quit contributing to the charity.
But I think, with all due respect, those folks are in the minority.
The only person “lashing out” here is you.
Lust4Life, what’s with your habit of putting spaces before punctuation? It’s bizarre. (Not to mention every sentence being in a separate paragraph.)
I’m giving him a dime for his favorite charity every time he uses unnecessary punctuation.
I was kind of shocked to hear an interview a few years back with a couple who were rowing up a river, I think (can’t remember details), for “charity”. They were asking for sponsors so they could buy food and equipment etc for the next leg of their journey.
Huh, so they wanted someone to pay for their holiday? I wondered if anyone gave anything to them, and if so, how much went to the charity.
Little ventures like this are a bit sus sometimes I think, but a well organized 'thon or similar event with a tight control on the money end of things can only be a good thing for charities.
Right, but there’s a world of difference between that situation, where donors are giving the fundraisers money in order to do something fun or beneficial for themselves (and maybe they’ll pass a little along to the charity), and the situation in the OP, where donors are giving the charity money because the fundraiser does something fun or beneficial for themselves on their own time and their own dime (e.g., “I challenge you to donate a dollar for every pound I lose”).
The former is obviously pit-worthy, but I just can’t see what there is to complain about in the latter situation.
oh yes, I agree.
So you’ve got nuthin’ eh ?
Pretty pointless entering a debate for adults if thats the best you can do.
Better luck next time, if there ever is a next time, where you can actually participate without embarassing yourself any more then you have already done so.
And Diana g, could be good advice for you also.
Feel free to argue the points by all means, but do please spare us the tripe that you have just posted.
I realise that some people on this thread have hurt feelings because their true motivations have been shown up in Black and White, but thats just tough luck on your part.
It was not my intention to expose people, but if you feel that you have been: try not to be so sensetive about it.
At least my tripe is spelled and punctuated correctly. Yours is misspelled, poorly formatted, and unbelievably petty. Like, literally unbelievably. As in I don’t believe that anyone would actually feel that it’s better to refrain from charitable activity than to engage in charitable activity that you enjoy. Because that? Would be really dumb and petty.
This also strikes me as fairly implausible, FTR.
No sorry, your tripe is just that…tripe.
You are offended and embarassed because I’ve touched a raw nerve in you personally, (I wonder why ?) and you’re reduced to commenting on my STYLE of posting for gods sake !
How sad is that ?
Oooooooooooooh I’m going to get all self conscious now and stop posting !
Ooooooooooooh I’m so distracted by the “Dirty pool”, that I’m not going to notice that you haven’t made any even vaguely relevant point .
Perhaps when it comes to formatting etc.etc. and grammar you might care to reexamine your own posts ?
You’re rather like the Elephant man laughing at Keira Knightley because she’s got a pimple on her face.
If you have something adult to contribute to the debate then by all means go ahead and make your contribution.
Otherwise I’d sstop making a fool of yourself if I were you.
I await your next post with bated breath.