Favor to ask

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by ANovice, Dec 19, 2007.

  1. ANovice

    ANovice Guest

    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, Dec 19, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ANovice

    tom Guest

    "ANovice" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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, Dec 19, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ANovice

    TJ Guest

    "tom" <> wrote in news::

    >
    > "ANovice" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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, Dec 19, 2007
    #3
  4. ANovice

    Leroy Guest

    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, Dec 19, 2007
    #4
  5. ANovice

    tom Guest

    "Leroy" <leroy@ addy.invalid> wrote in message
    news:eek:Ndaj.33675$...
    > 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, Dec 19, 2007
    #5
  6. 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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 19, 2007
    #6
  7. ANovice

    TJ Guest

    "Leroy" <leroy@ addy.invalid> wrote in
    news:eek:Ndaj.33675$:

    > 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.
     
    TJ, Dec 19, 2007
    #7
  8. ANovice

    tom Guest

    "Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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.............
     
    tom, Dec 19, 2007
    #8
  9. ANovice

    Lookout Guest

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

    >
    >"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> 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, Dec 19, 2007
    #9
  10. Lookout wrote:

    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>news:p...
    >>> 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
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 19, 2007
    #10
  11. ANovice

    TJ Guest

    "tom" <> wrote in news::

    >
    > "Leroy" <leroy@ addy.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:eek:Ndaj.33675$...
    >> 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


    They aren't "free". SOMEBODY (in this case the "corporate
    sponsors/advertisers) are paying the x-ray techs to conduct them, and
    the radiologists to 'read' them.

    BTW .. The former is *useless* without the latter.

    <snip>
     
    TJ, Dec 19, 2007
    #11
  12. ANovice

    TJ Guest

    Blinky the Shark <> wrote in
    news:p:

    > Lookout wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:p...
    >>>> 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.


    Yeah. He also thinks these mammograms are "free".

    That's the problem with most Americans these days. They think as long
    as the money doesn't actually leave their pants pocket, they aren't
    paying for it.
     
    TJ, Dec 19, 2007
    #12
  13. ANovice

    Leroy Guest

    TJ wrote:
    >
    > They aren't "free". SOMEBODY (in this case the "corporate
    > sponsors/advertisers) are paying the x-ray techs to conduct them, and
    > the radiologists to 'read' them.


    Right on. And where do the sponsors get the money? Right.
    In the end, it always comes from *our* pockets.

    >
    > BTW .. The former is *useless* without the latter.
    >
    > <snip>
     
    Leroy, Dec 19, 2007
    #13
  14. ANovice

    Lookout Guest

    On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:57:07 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    <> wrote:

    >Lookout wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:p...
    >>>> 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.


    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=Alternative medicine
    In almost all cases alternative medicine refers to treatments.

    Stop being silly.
     
    Lookout, Dec 19, 2007
    #14
  15. ANovice

    Lookout Guest

    On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:03:25 -0600, TJ <> wrote:

    >Blinky the Shark <> wrote in
    >news:p:
    >
    >> Lookout wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:p...
    >>>>> 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.

    >
    >Yeah. He also thinks these mammograms are "free".
    >
    >That's the problem with most Americans these days. They think as long
    >as the money doesn't actually leave their pants pocket, they aren't
    >paying for it.


    In this case it's free to the patient.
    Stop trying to put a conservative spin on everything.
     
    Lookout, Dec 19, 2007
    #15
  16. Lookout wrote:

    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:57:07 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Lookout wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:p...
    >>>>> 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.

    >
    > http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=Alternative medicine
    > In almost all cases alternative medicine refers to treatments.
    >
    > Stop being silly.


    Ah. I guess alternative practitioners don't do any diagnosis. Right.

    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 19, 2007
    #16
  17. ANovice

    TJ Guest

    Lookout <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 14:03:25 -0600, TJ <> wrote:
    >
    >>Blinky the Shark <> wrote in
    >>news:p:
    >>
    >>> Lookout wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:p...
    >>>>>> 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.

    >>
    >>Yeah. He also thinks these mammograms are "free".
    >>
    >>That's the problem with most Americans these days. They think as long
    >>as the money doesn't actually leave their pants pocket, they aren't
    >>paying for it.

    >
    > In this case it's free to the patient.
    > Stop trying to put a conservative spin on everything.


    ROFL
     
    TJ, Dec 19, 2007
    #17
  18. ANovice

    Lookout Guest

    On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:08:01 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    <> wrote:

    >Lookout wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:57:07 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Lookout wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:p...
    >>>>>> 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.

    >>
    >> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=Alternative medicine
    >> In almost all cases alternative medicine refers to treatments.
    >>
    >> Stop being silly.

    >
    >Ah. I guess alternative practitioners don't do any diagnosis. Right.


    For breast cancer? You'd have to be nuts.
     
    Lookout, Dec 19, 2007
    #18
  19. Lookout wrote:

    > On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:08:01 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Lookout wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 11:57:07 -0800, Blinky the Shark
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Lookout wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:34:57 -0600, "tom" <> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"Blinky the Shark" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:p...
    >>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictionary&q=Alternative medicine
    >>> In almost all cases alternative medicine refers to treatments.
    >>>
    >>> Stop being silly.

    >>
    >>Ah. I guess alternative practitioners don't do any diagnosis. Right.

    >
    > For breast cancer? You'd have to be nuts.


    In general (but add sarcasm markers to what I said about alternative
    practitioners, as needed) -- we left "breast cancer" behind and were
    talking about alternative versus mainstream medicine. At least I was.


    --
    Blinky
    Killing all posts from Google Groups
    The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
     
    Blinky the Shark, Dec 20, 2007
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. slatconsulting

    Favor

    slatconsulting, Oct 15, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    836
    slatconsulting
    Oct 15, 2005
  2. chris

    A test of SQL server 2000. Can someone do me a favor?

    chris, May 18, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,267
    chris
    May 18, 2004
  3. Consultant

    ot do consultant a favor

    Consultant, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    943
    billyw
    Jul 2, 2003
  4. gangle

    Mercy killing por favor

    gangle, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    860
    Miggsee
    Dec 30, 2003
  5. joevan

    Hijack this log por favor

    joevan, Feb 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    649
    °Mike°
    Feb 20, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page