Interesting piece on Livestrong

[Barrus]

Charity Navigator gives them the same rating. Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good. You know, jet fuel blah blah blah.

I don't care what charity navigator says, but the good that the international organization of red crosses/ crescent/ diamands, and the antional organizations, far outways anything LAF will ever do. Just the training of the military does far more good than LAF will ever do. You do realize there is more to the red cross than just the US branch. I don't know particularly what the US branch does, but the main organizations and the national organizations I have come into contact with do far more to better the world than teh LAF will ever have done

 

[JRTinMA]

I don't care what charity navigator says, but the good that the international organization of red crosses/ crescent/ diamands, and the antional organizations, far outways anything LAF will ever do. Just the training of the military does far more good than LAF will ever do. You do realize there is more to the red cross than just the US branch. I don't know particularly what the US branch does, but the main organizations and the national organizations I have come into contact with do far more to better the world than teh LAF will ever have done

You used Red Cross not me, no need to explain the obvious to me. I fully understand the different organizations. I don't dispute it has a much greater reach, maybe the discussion should be why any rational thinking person would ever try and compare the two.

 

[Barrus]

You used Red Cross not me, no need to explain the obvious to me. I fully understand the different organizations. I don't dispute it has a much greater reach, maybe the discussion should be why any rational thinking person would ever try and compare the two.

Miloman brought it up that it was worse than the LAF, that was why I came back into this thread, I jsut could not let that stand

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't include you in the so called informed but I will add your name if you like. I'm not sure what the hell you are getting at in point two, again two examples equals two examples, you + maff = struggle. To the coffee issues, give up coffee and get one of these, you will not be disappointed. Thank me later doc.

http://www.nespresso.com

Damn right you didn't include me - as I have never said that the LAF is "no good". In fact I have said the opposite and praised what Doug Ulman has done.

You are trying to infer negative comments (which you don't appear to disagree with) that some have made like RR & TheHog and suggest they mean the LAF is "no good".

Neither of them have ever said that - don't confuse negative comments on how Armstrong abuses the LAF & Livestrong as anyone saying that the LAF is "no good" - you want to find out people opinions, just ask them. These "informed" posters are well able to articulate their views without your exaggeration of their position.

 

[JRTinMA]

Miloman brought it up that it was worse than the LAF, that was why I came back into this thread, I jsut could not let that stand

I know he did, some things are better left alone.

 

[Barrus]

I know he did, some things are better left alone.

Yeah, in this instance I could not do that

 

[JRTinMA]

Damn right you didn't include me - as I have never said that the LAF is "no good". In fact I have said the opposite and praised what Doug Ulman has done.

You are trying to infer negative comments (which you don't appear to disagree with) that some have made like RR & TheHog and suggest they mean the LAF is "no good".

Neither of them have ever said that - don't confuse negative comments on how Armstrong abuses the LAF & Livestrong as anyone saying that the LAF is "no good" - you want to find out people opinions, just ask them. These "informed" posters are well able to articulate their views without your exaggeration of their position.

I didn't exaggerate or infer anybodies position. Two poster made the statements regarding experiences in oncology and I accurately summarized their comments and added my opinion. Get it straight.

 

[miloman]

I promised I would stay out of it, but this cannot stand.

The red cross does more good each year than the LAf will ever do

Based on what criterion? You are obviously biased. Ask someone who felt shortchanged by the Red Cross after hurricane Katrina how great the organization is, and you will get a different answer. The point with the LAF and any charity for that matter is that they have to specialize. They can’t be all things to all people. The material or lack of materials in treatment facilities is probably a decision made by the administrators. I assume as with most charities, the office needs to make contact and order the material. LAF isn’t going to contact them; they can’t because they probably don’t even know they exist nor have a need. I would be willing to bet the absence of LAF materials is due to two main reasons: 1) no one asked for the materials; and 2), there was probably better information available from another organization. I never said it was a “great” charity, I only said that under the current guidelines, it meets the minimum requirements, and the same can be said for numerous others charities that you hold in higher regard.

Again, you can hate the guy and the fact that he may be a cheater, but he isn’t the devil incarnate. There are a lot of people who have benefitted from his high profile message and I assume there is a loyal cadre of volunteers for the LAF helping in their communities and trying to make a difference. There are employees of LAF that are probably passionate about the cause and given the nature of working for a non-profit organization are working more hours and for less money than their for profit counterparts. Please, don’t paint stokes with such a wide brush, there is more here than one’s personal objection with a professional cyclist. Keep that in mind when you bash the charity

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I didn't exaggerate or infer anybodies position. Two poster made the statements regarding experiences in oncology and I accurately summarized their comments and added my opinion. Get it straight.

You didn't exaggerate or infer anybodies position??
You must have forgot you wrote this....."Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good."

Now instead of "most" you have 2 posters - both said they had visited many oncology offices and were suprised not to see any information from the LAF during their visits.

 

[Barrus]

Based on what criterion? You are obviously biased. Ask someone who felt shortchanged by the Red Cross after hurricane Katrina how great the organization is, and you will get a different answer.

That is not the core of the foundation, at least not the international red cross. The international red cross first and foremost is a organization that is concerned with the treatment of people during a war.

Also actually the fun fact is that during the Katrina disaster the US red cross sent the largest amount of people and aid to the region than at any time during its history

The Red Cross gave 1.4 million families—approximately 4.5 million people—emergency financial assistance in response to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, which was 19 times more than the previous record. Donors gave the organization a total of $2.2 billion for people affected by the storms, which helped the Red Cross provide:

* Shelter for survivors across 31 states and the District of Columbia
* Hot meals and snacks
* Financial assistance for survivors to purchase groceries, clothing, diapers and other basic needs; and money for people to return home, make home repairs and get back to work
* Physical and mental health services to help them cope with stress and ease the trauma
* Tools to help survivors chart a path to recovery
* Disaster preparedness training so people know the steps to take to protect themselves and their families

“Never before had the Red Cross served so many people after a disaster, and never before had so many people come forward to help,” said Paulsen. “But we learned that there are some disasters that are so big that no agency—government or nonprofit—can do it all. We learned that everyone needs to play a part.”

For a more detailed look:
http://www.redcross.org/www-files/Documents/pdf/corppubs/Katrina5Year.pdf

anyway if we continue debating charity foundations and how they compare to the LAF, I'll just make move these posts to another thread

 

[JRTinMA]

You didn't exaggerate or infer anybodies position??
You must have forgot you wrote this....."Most of the so called informed in the clinic would say LAF is not good."

Now instead of "most" you have 2 posters - both said they had visited many oncology offices and were suprised not to see any information from the LAF during their visits.

I gave you two examples. What I said is "Most of the so called informed", again you misrepresent my words after stating them in the first sentence. In the second you say only "most" and present that as what I said. You are un****ingbelievable. You do understand that "most" and "most of the so called informed" would constitute two different groups. So, are you purposely misrepresenting me, lying or just being sloppy?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Based on what criterion? You are obviously biased. Ask someone who felt shortchanged by the Red Cross after hurricane Katrina how great the organization is, and you will get a different answer. The point with the LAF and any charity for that matter is that they have to specialize. They can’t be all things to all people. The material or lack of materials in treatment facilities is probably a decision made by the administrators. I assume as with most charities, the office needs to make contact and order the material. LAF isn’t going to contact them; they can’t because they probably don’t even know they exist nor have a need. I would be willing to bet the absence of LAF materials is due to two main reasons: 1) no one asked for the materials; and 2), there was probably better information available from another organization. I never said it was a “great” charity, I only said that under the current guidelines, it meets the minimum requirements, and the same can be said for numerous others charities that you hold in higher regard.

Again, you can hate the guy and the fact that he may be a cheater, but he isn’t the devil incarnate. There are a lot of people who have benefitted from his high profile message and I assume there is a loyal cadre of volunteers for the LAF helping in their communities and trying to make a difference. There are employees of LAF that are probably passionate about the cause and given the nature of working for a non-profit organization are working more hours and for less money than their for profit counterparts. Please, don’t paint stokes with such a wide brush, there is more here than one’s personal objection with a professional cyclist. Keep that in mind when you bash the charity

So - your current position is that the LAF reaches the lofty heights of 'minimum requirements'.....

I never said Floyd was a jerk -- he may be, I don't know. No, this is just a cautionary warning to not be so quick to judge Armstrong and his ilk, and even slower to canonize Floyd. “Me thinks” there is more dirt to come. By the way, Armstrong’s charity does a lot more than pay for jet fuel (I think that was your insinuation). His foundation provides considerable training, support and information to the cancer community. That statement was a gross disservice.

....bit of a come down from the above highlighted that you wrote just yesterday.

 

[miloman]

That is not the core of the foundation, at least not the international red cross. The international red cross first and foremost is a organization that is concerned with the treatment of people during a war.

Also actually the fun fact is that during the Katrina disaster the US red cross sent the largest amount of people and aid to the region than at any time during its history
For a more detailed look:
http://www.redcross.org/www-files/Documents/pdf/corppubs/Katrina5Year.pdf

anyway if we continue debating charity foundations and how they compare to the LAF, I'll just make move these posts to another thread

Do you have personal knowledge of those facts, or did they come from their web site? Again, unless you have benefitted or been snubbed by either charity, how can you make these claims? Does anyone have intimate knowledge of Lance using his charity’s funds inappropriately? If so, send the proof to the proper authorities; they love to go after fraudulent charities. I agree the point to the thread was not about charities. However, some love to throw everything save the kitchen sink into the discussion when it comes to Lance. I think until anything if proven one way or another, the charity should be off limits. In the mean time, we can talk about things all can agree on and is purely objective – politics and religion!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I gave you two examples. What I said is "Most of the so called informed", again you misrepresent my words after stating them in the first sentence. In the second you say only "most" and present that as what I said. You are un****ingbelievable. You do understand that "most" and "most of the so called informed" would constitute two different groups. So, are you purposely misrepresenting me, lying or just being sloppy?

I didn't misrepresent what you said - in fact I quoted it.

So, 2 posters represent the majority (most) of the 'informed' posters here......ooookkkkayyy.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I didn't misrepresent what you said - in fact I quoted it.

So, 2 posters represent the majority (most) of the 'informed' posters here......ooookkkkayyy.

Save your fingers doc, JRT is just a contrarian. He will argue to the death against whatever he perceives to be the majority opinion irregardless of whether or not he actually disagrees with it.

 

[miloman]

So - your current position is that the LAF reaches the lofty heights of 'minimum requirements'.....
....bit of a come down from the above highlighted that you wrote just yesterday.

"Minimum requirement" is a term use by the organization rating charities. I don't believe it means anything more than they are in compliance with the standards established to be rated positively. It isn’t any different than when you have minimum or maximum requirement for anything from opening a bank account or applying for a driver’s license. You meet the requirement or you don’t. It has nothing to do with my or their personal feelings regarding the charity.

 

[Barrus]

Do you have personal knowledge of those facts, or did they come from their web site? Again, unless you have benefitted or been snubbed by either charity, how can you make these claims? Does anyone have intimate knowledge of Lance using his charity’s funds inappropriately? If so, send the proof to the proper authorities; they love to go after fraudulent charities. I agree the point to the thread was not about charities. However, some love to throw everything save the kitchen sink into the discussion when it comes to Lance. I think until anything if proven one way or another, the charity should be off limits. In the mean time, we can talk about things all can agree on and is purely objective – politics and religion!

So I disprove what you say and now you are focusing on whether you are snubbed or not. I'm talking objectively here. OBJECTIVELY the LAF will never do as much good as the red cross does each year.

Also you are the person that brought up the charity angle

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Do you have personal knowledge of those facts, or did they come from their web site? Again, unless you have benefitted or been snubbed by either charity, how can you make these claims? Does anyone have intimate knowledge of Lance using his charity’s funds inappropriately? If so, send the proof to the proper authorities; they love to go after fraudulent charities. I agree the point to the thread was not about charities. However, some love to throw everything save the kitchen sink into the discussion when it comes to Lance. I think until anything if proven one way or another, the charity should be off limits. In the mean time, we can talk about things all can agree on and is purely objective – politics and religion!

Say again?
"Some people love to throw everything save the kitchen sink into the discussion when it comes to Lance" and now you suggest that "the charity should be off limits"

Thats rather an odd position as YOU were the very first person to "throw" in anything about his 'charity' (the LAF, Livestrong etc) with the below post (no. 153) on this thread.

If you didn't want it discussed you should not have brought it up.

[/B]

So you don't care what a person's motivation is, just so long as they incriminate the people you dislike? I think most people who have been following this agree that if Floyd would have been given a ride with Radioshaft, none of this would have ever happend. I will be impressed if, and when, something really happens in this case and Floyd receives a settlement from his wb case and he pays everyone back and gives the rest to charity. Like him or not, Armstrong's charity has done more good in the world than Floyd's revelations ever will. Armstong is probably a jerk, and a doper, but what is Floyd?. . four words quickly come to mind: opportunistic, calculating, insincere, hypocritical.

 

[patricknd]

I don't care what charity navigator says, but the good that the international organization of red crosses/ crescent/ diamands, and the antional organizations, far outways anything LAF will ever do. Just the training of the military does far more good than LAF will ever do. You do realize there is more to the red cross than just the US branch. I don't know particularly what the US branch does, but the main organizations and the national organizations I have come into contact with do far more to better the world than teh LAF will ever have done

i'd say a charity's value would depend on what your needs are at the time.

 

[miloman]

i'd say a charity's value would depend on what your needs are at the time.

I couldn't agree with you more! Livestrong.com, Livestrong.org, whatever. Whoever you think gets what and why is less important than if somone's needs are being met at a given point in time.

 

[Berzin]

Why are you guys letting uber-troll Miloman derail this thread with nonsense abut Armstrong's charity?

The only thing he's accomplishing is making some of you repeat what has already been posted about Lance's .com and his .org.

We've dealt with this at length already. So why put so much effort put into trying to convince a him otherwise?

This is what trolls feed off of, like zombies feed off the flesh of the living.

Don't feed him and he'll go away. Stop giving this poster an avenue to continually throw these threads off-track.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why are you guys letting uber-troll Miloman derail this thread with nonsense abut Armstrong's charity?

The only thing he's accomplishing is making some of you repeat what has already been posted about Lance's .com and his .org.

We've dealt with this at length already. So why put so much effort put into trying to convince a him otherwise?

This is what trolls feed off of, like zombies feed off the flesh of the living.

Don't feed him and he'll go away. Stop giving this poster an avenue to continually throw these threads off-track.

Miloman is not a troll (IMO)- he is an LA apologist, so ignoring them does not work as they always return and try to sneak in their talking points.

If their viewpoint is OT then a mod should jump in with a reminder
or move/remove OT posts - if not then I don't see why their talking points should not go uncontested.
For some members the information is new - and it always helps those to gather the correct information.


But (if it is possible & not too time consuming)... perhaps a Mod could move the OT charity stuff in to the new Livestrong thread opened today?

 

[Barrus]

But (if it is possible & not too time consuming)... perhaps a Mod could move the OT charity stuff in to the new Livestrong thread opened today?

What do you think I was doing

Anyway, I would still like to hear why I am biased. Nor has miloman reacted to the claim that objectively the red cross is the far superior charity

 

[BroDeal]

Why are you guys letting uber-troll Miloman derail this thread with nonsense abut Armstrong's charity?

The only thing he's accomplishing is making some of you repeat what has already been posted about Lance's .com and his .org.

We've dealt with this at length already. So why put so much effort put into trying to convince a him otherwise?

This is what trolls feed off of, like zombies feed off the flesh of the living.

Don't feed him and he'll go away. Stop giving this poster an avenue to continually throw these threads off-track.

+1 million -1 for the bold font = +999,999

I stopped caring much about this forum because I got tired of threads being turned into page after page of responses to obvious baiting.

 

[Polish]

What do you think I was doing

Anyway, I would still like to hear why I am biased. Nor has miloman reacted to the claim that objectively the red cross is the far superior charity

The LAF is far superior to the Red Cross if you are a cancer patient or a cancer survivor. Far superior.

And the fact that multiple patient/survivors here in the Clinic were not even aware of the many programs the LAF has to offer, tells me that Lance needs to hop on his jetplane and continue to spread the word.

BTW, the LAF stands to make a TON of money from the deal Lance worked out with Demand Media. But I will not hold it against the LAF for capitalizing and piggybacking off the Fame of Lance. Its all for a great cause after all.