«

Small favor to ask...

Please tell ten friends to tell ten today!

The Breast Cancer site is having trouble getting enough people to click on
their site daily to meet their quota of donating at least one free mammogram
a day to an
underprivileged woman.

It takes less than a minute to go to their site and click on "donating a
mammogram" for free (pink window in the middle).

This doesn't cost you a thing, but a moment of your time and a click!

Their corporate sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits to
donate mammogram in exchange for advertising.

Here's the web site! Pass it along to people you know. Either click or copy
& paste

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/


AGAIN , PLEASE TELL 10 FRIENDS TO TELL 10 TODAY

"ANovice" <> wrote in message
news:n7adnbobLp-...
> Small favor to ask...
>
> Please tell ten friends to tell ten today!
>
> The Breast Cancer site is having trouble getting enough people to click on
> their site daily to meet their quota of donating at least one free
mammogram
> a day to an
> underprivileged woman.
>
> It takes less than a minute to go to their site and click on "donating a
> mammogram" for free (pink window in the middle).
>
> This doesn't cost you a thing, but a moment of your time and a click!
>
> Their corporate sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits to
> donate mammogram in exchange for advertising.
>
> Here's the web site! Pass it along to people you know. Either click or
copy
> & paste
>
> http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
>
>
> AGAIN , PLEASE TELL 10 FRIENDS TO TELL 10 TODAY
>

Legit: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/mammogram.asp

"tom" <> wrote in news::

>
> "ANovice" <> wrote in message
> news:n7adnbobLp-...
>> Small favor to ask...
>>
>> Please tell ten friends to tell ten today!
>>
>> The Breast Cancer site is having trouble getting enough people to
>> click on their site daily to meet their quota of donating at least
>> one free
> mammogram
>> a day to an
>> underprivileged woman.
>>
>> It takes less than a minute to go to their site and click on
>> "donating a mammogram" for free (pink window in the middle).
>>
>> This doesn't cost you a thing, but a moment of your time and a click!
>>
>>
>> Their corporate sponsors/advertisers use the number of daily visits
>> to donate mammogram in exchange for advertising.
>>
>> Here's the web site! Pass it along to people you know. Either click
>> or
> copy
>> & paste
>>
>> http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
>>
>>
>> AGAIN , PLEASE TELL 10 FRIENDS TO TELL 10 TODAY
>>
>
> Legit: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/mammogram.asp

Regardless, I still have mixed emotions about it. While on the surface it
seems like a fine thing, underneath it's not so fine (to me) anymore. I'm
sure the "corporate sponsors/advertisers" involved made their promise to
this charity in good faith. I'm *not* so sure they expected messages such
as this would be posted which serve no purpose other than to artificially
inflate traffic to the website. To me, that's the antithesis of good
faith.

I think I'll just make my annual donation to the American Cancer Society
and call it even.

TJ wrote:
>
> Regardless, I still have mixed emotions about it. While on the
> surface it seems like a fine thing, underneath it's not so fine (to
> me) anymore. I'm sure the "corporate sponsors/advertisers" involved
> made their promise to this charity in good faith. I'm *not* so sure
> they expected messages such as this would be posted which serve no
> purpose other than to artificially inflate traffic to the website.
> To me, that's the antithesis of good faith.
>
> I think I'll just make my annual donation to the American Cancer
> Society and call it even.

Same here, TJ. from Wiki:

"CharityUSA owns and operates various click-to-donate-sites. CharityUSA
currently claims that 100% of the website's sponsor advertising revenue is
paid to the aforementioned non-profit partners, however, the company does not
publicly disclose the amounts it actually donates or the salaries of its
executives."

If it's so 'legit', why not disclose actual numbers?
Probably not as benevolent as Paul Neuman's salad dressing. <g>

"Leroy" <leroy@ addy.invalid> wrote in message
newsNdaj.33675$. net...
> TJ wrote:
> >
> > Regardless, I still have mixed emotions about it. While on the
> > surface it seems like a fine thing, underneath it's not so fine (to
> > me) anymore. I'm sure the "corporate sponsors/advertisers" involved
> > made their promise to this charity in good faith. I'm *not* so sure
> > they expected messages such as this would be posted which serve no
> > purpose other than to artificially inflate traffic to the website.
> > To me, that's the antithesis of good faith.
> >
> > I think I'll just make my annual donation to the American Cancer
> > Society and call it even.
>
> Same here, TJ. from Wiki:
>
> "CharityUSA owns and operates various click-to-donate-sites. CharityUSA
> currently claims that 100% of the website's sponsor advertising revenue is
> paid to the aforementioned non-profit partners, however, the company does
not
> publicly disclose the amounts it actually donates or the salaries of its
> executives."
>
> If it's so 'legit', why not disclose actual numbers?
> Probably not as benevolent as Paul Neuman's salad dressing. <g>
>
Don't see how one can fault an organization for providing almost 475 free
mammograms a year "the site provides funding for approximately 1.3 free
mammograms per day". Don't know the number of lives that might save but
however small it seems worth the effort.

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/charity/mammogram.asp

tom wrote:

> Don't see how one can fault an organization for providing almost 475 free
> mammograms a year "the site provides funding for approximately 1.3 free
> mammograms per day". Don't know the number of lives that might save but
> however small it seems worth the effort.

http://www.gnarf.nl/images/free_mammogram.jpg


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org

"Leroy" <leroy@ addy.invalid> wrote in
newsNdaj.33675$. net:

> TJ wrote:
>>
>> Regardless, I still have mixed emotions about it. While on the
>> surface it seems like a fine thing, underneath it's not so fine (to
>> me) anymore. I'm sure the "corporate sponsors/advertisers" involved
>> made their promise to this charity in good faith. I'm *not* so sure
>> they expected messages such as this would be posted which serve no
>> purpose other than to artificially inflate traffic to the website.
>> To me, that's the antithesis of good faith.
>>
>> I think I'll just make my annual donation to the American Cancer
>> Society and call it even.
>
> Same here, TJ. from Wiki:
>
> "CharityUSA owns and operates various click-to-donate-sites.
> CharityUSA currently claims that 100% of the website's sponsor
> advertising revenue is paid to the aforementioned non-profit partners,
> however, the company does not publicly disclose the amounts it
> actually donates or the salaries of its executives."
>
> If it's so 'legit', why not disclose actual numbers?
> Probably not as benevolent as Paul Neuman's salad dressing. <g>

Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I know I'm getting grumpy
and more cynical im my old age but geez, Louise. Forget about where they
money goes ....

The first thing out of my mouth if ANY site contacted me requesting that
type of sponsorship would be, "What are your average clicks/month?" I
mean, that's the only way I could (roughly) establish the amount I can
afford to pledge, right? So let's say "they" say 1000 clicks, and I do my
homework and confirm. Based on that, I pledge a dollar a click allowing
for 2-5 hundred over considering the time of year. Since I was prepared to
donate $1500.00 anyway, no big deal.

Then along comes a post like the one you (appropriately in my opinion)
snipped, and the next thing you know there's 10,000 clicks.

Now how the HELL am I supposed to meet my obligation? I don't have a
"spare" $8500.00 laying around.

"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
news ynet.net...
> tom wrote:
>
> > Don't see how one can fault an organization for providing almost 475
free
> > mammograms a year "the site provides funding for approximately 1.3 free
> > mammograms per day". Don't know the number of lives that might save but
> > however small it seems worth the effort.
>
> http://www.gnarf.nl/images/free_mammogram.jpg
>
>
Alternative medicine.............

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:

>
>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
>news kynet.net...
>> tom wrote:
>>
>> > Don't see how one can fault an organization for providing almost 475
>free
>> > mammograms a year "the site provides funding for approximately 1.3 free
>> > mammograms per day". Don't know the number of lives that might save but
>> > however small it seems worth the effort.
>>
>> http://www.gnarf.nl/images/free_mammogram.jpg
>>
>>
>Alternative medicine.............
>
A mammogram is a test and not a treatment.

Lookout wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
>>news nkynet.net...
>>> tom wrote:
>>>
>>> > Don't see how one can fault an organization for providing almost 475
>>free
>>> > mammograms a year "the site provides funding for approximately 1.3 free
>>> > mammograms per day". Don't know the number of lives that might save but
>>> > however small it seems worth the effort.
>>>
>>> http://www.gnarf.nl/images/free_mammogram.jpg
>>>
>>>
>>Alternative medicine.............
>>
> A mammogram is a test and not a treatment.

He didn't say "alternative treatment". Both testing and treatment are
part of "medicine", which he did say.

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org