Livestrong did you know ...

[ggusta]

You seriously want proof that movies routinely operate at a loss? I'll work on that while you work on proving that Living LARGE AND STRONG abuse their charitable funds. I would honestly like to know if they are up to no good and need some proof.

They are up to the same as most other charities. Read my post, not what you want to impute to my meaning.

Seriously, take a chill pill and go read the whole thing. And did I mention take a chill pill first?

Never said abusing, unless you would like to infer that S.O.P. is abuse.

 

[elapid]

Wow, way to kill an anti-Lance thread, gjdavis 60, well done. And you even gave yourself some street cred in here by stating you think he is a doper.

I wonder how many millions of cancer patients Lance has inspired, can we put a price one that one? Has he profited from that, haters?

This is the exact problem with posters like ProTour. This thread has been informative and well debated. There are genuine concerns of how LAF is organized and it is correct that these be raised. There are also posters who have experience with charities and provide another valuable insight into the debate. Then someone has to come in and be an immature idiot. I don't see anyone else on this thread providing valueless input and immature taunts.

 

[scribe]

They are up to the same as most other charities. Read my post, not what you want to impute to my meaning.

Seriously, take a chill pill and go read the whole thing. And did I mention take a chill pill first?

Never said abusing, unless you would like to infer that S.O.P. is abuse.

I didn't think you were serious about your suggestions. I'll see you around the next stink over the foundation's intentions.

 

[TRDean]

I am really unpersuaded. I am happy that you apparently are in remission, but the charity, which was linked to by someone who I believe is pro-LAF dot whatever shows the charity to run rather high expenses and is lower rated than many other cancer charities. The expenses could be used to mask the lavish lifestyle of its namesake or chief executives. (Just imagine if your paycheck covered only your discretionary needs, but the fund paid all of your major expenses, house, clothing food, 1st class travel and entertainment, assistants. That's living LARGE and STRONG!)

Their mission statement says 1 word about research at the end. I'd be curious to see what research is funded and how much is given. Has anyone drilled into this report to find out those details yet?

So far, ranked against both larger and smaller foundations, they do not appear to do anything very unique aside from its uber-high profile namesake.

Lastly, those of you took econ in high school or college may remember the term 'opportunity cost'. For every dollar that gets spent on cars for clunkers, there is another dollar NOT spent elsewhere. (Let's take gov't out of the equation since they don't play by any rules.) This means that $20m for 'awareness'. (I am sorry, I am not aware of what that means.) is $20m less available to some pointy heads in a lab rolling up their sleeves and maybe curing something. The pointy heads go unfunded, the disease goes uncured, but there are 6 racks of really cool overpriced t-shirts at d!cks sporting goods sporting a black and gold neat swoosh and some cool 'Hey man I REALLY care !' slogan. That next guy will tell you he cares, but I just dropped $30 on a shirt and a bracelet to advertise how much more I care then him. Where the profits go, if they go anywhere, isn't terribly exciting to most. Being able to wear that bracelet or flash that little advertisement for their own aggrandizement is the big payoff for lots of donors.

Sorry, but it's true. If the sporting goods store sends $3 per shirt to LAF, let them put a little can at the exit to the store. Let's compare the revenuesmonth to month. They want that shirt much more than to just give to what they think is a worthy cause, I'd be willing to wager. They want that bracelet. THAT is the payoff. They spent the money so they can advertise how thoughtful they are. The foundation and their funds raised through t-shirt sales are benefiting each other mutually in a way that writing a check towards some vague far away sounding research project never will. LAF enables many donors to feel good about himself and in return it enables Lance to live a very privileged existence and maintain the delusion to himself that he is just a super duper guy.


To me, it's a scam, to you it's a great and noble enterprise. We can argue the point ad nauseum. Each of us has made up our minds.

Psychology state exactly what you have articulated above... that humans only do good things to make themselves feel good.

 

[Digger]

Yes, I'm for real. Can you answer the question? What am I missing?

What's wrong? People are donating money thinking it is going towards the cause in question, and you're saying it's okay for some of that money to make it towards his own pocket. We've obviously got differing sets of morals here. I think a cut of millions in appearance fees, which he has earned personally this year alone for 'promoting cancer awareness', is more than enough.
Hey, if you're comfortable with his venture and believe it's a good idea, good for you.

 

[Digger]

It really took off here last night!!!


Charity Name Overall Score Overall Rating
Lance Armstrong Foundation - TX 51.40
Children's Cancer Center - FL 62.06
Melanoma Research Foundation - NJ 63.86
National Ovarian Cancer Coalition - TX 68.57
American-Italian Cancer Foundation - NY 57.98

Five charities mentioned...lowest effiency rating...


Amnesty International USA - NY 56.74
The Advocates for Human Rights - MN 62.32
International Justice Mission - DC 57.59
Human Rights Watch - NY 60.24
Alliance for Global Justice - DC 61.59


AIDS Research Alliance - CA 55.77
Discovery Eye Foundation - CA 67.43
Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation - NC 64.51
Monell Chemical Senses Center - PA 62.97
Sabin Vaccine Institute - DC 66.81

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What's wrong? People are donating money thinking it is going towards the cause in question, and you're saying it's okay for some of that money to make it towards his own pocket. We've obviously got differing sets of morals here. I think a cut of millions in appearance fees, which he has earned personally this year alone for 'promoting cancer awareness', is more than enough.
Hey, if you're comfortable with his venture and believe it's a good idea, good for you.

Some of the money people are donating is going into LA's pocket? How do you figure that?

The membership fee at livestrong.com is not a donation. The ads people pay for at livestrong.com are not donations. What are you talking about?

What specific donations are going partially into LA's pocket?

 

[Digger]

Some of the money people are donating is going into LA's pocket? How do you figure that?

The membership fee at livestrong.com is not a donation. The ads people pay for at livestrong.com are not donations. What are you talking about?

What specific donations are going partially into LA's pocket?

Okay I'll hold my hand up and say my use of the word 'donate' was incorrect.
However you honestly trying to tell me that EVERYONE is going into Livestrong.com, and are fully aware that the revenue generated is not meant for 'cancer awareness'? Nobody has been fooled by this you think?

Is it morally okay to have two websites, with such differing goals, having the same name?
I am not asking you, it is merely rhetorical, as you;ve shown clearly that you think it's acceptable. I don't believe it appropriate. As I say, we are coming at this from wildly different ideals....

 

[tubularglue]

What's wrong? People are donating money thinking it is going towards the cause in question, and you're saying it's okay for some of that money to make it towards his own pocket. We've obviously got differing sets of morals here. I think a cut of millions in appearance fees, which he has earned personally this year alone for 'promoting cancer awareness', is more than enough.
Hey, if you're comfortable with his venture and believe it's a good idea, good for you.

I finished chemo last week, am healthy and have researched livestrong.org/.com while sitting in outpatient wing the last 9 weeks or so. Cancer is big business, chemo drugs save lives, and the new anti nausea meds which are given to people in their 60, 70, and 80's allow little nasty side effects. Each and every patient who go through it sustain many levels of discomfort, so Lance is a form of inspiration - to a degree, there is no denying that: as it is a fact.

the foundations intentions, from my viewpoint, is a portal of giving information, allows a contact for patients in need, allows family members and friends an avenue to connect, tell a story, and gain support.

The .com/.org has aligned itself with big business. Maybe it was set up that way from its inception.

It is what it is. Nothing ever changes if nothing ever changes.

And what i have written before "motivation is a cancer patients best medicine."

 

[Digger]

I finished chemo last week, am healthy and have researched livestrong.org/.com while sitting in outpatient wing the last 9 weeks or so. Cancer is big business, chemo drugs save lives, and the new anti nausea meds which are given to people in their 60, 70, and 80's allow little nasty side effects. Each and every patient who go through it sustain many levels of discomfort, so Lance is a form of inspiration - to a degree, there is no denying that: as it is a fact.

the foundations intentions, from my viewpoint, is a portal of giving information, allows a contact for patients in need, allows family members and friends an avenue to connect, tell a story, and gain support.

The .com/.org has aligned itself with big business. Maybe it was set up that way from its inception.

It is what it is. Nothing ever changes if nothing ever changes.

And what i have written before "motivation is a cancer patients best medicine."

All I want to say to you is that I'm glad you've done the chemo and are feeling healthy. Fair play to you.

 

[tubularglue]

From living through it, from the inside and out:

It would seem to make sense that Livestrong could directly link with the actual patients/sufferers by not only giving them their current media package (the notebooks within the hospitals) but also human contact. As every state has a leader within the "army" - contact person through the site, it would seem so much more beneficial to hire others, within each state, to personally hand out the material, talk with the patients, offer peer support through functions/meetings/fundraisers - outside of the bike rides.

Walking the walk is different and separate. As it is currently: most of this is done by the social workers (within the hospitals) trying to give as much aid and information from other organizations along with the livestrong info.

Livestrong has sided with Blackbaud, for software integration, on the donor fundraising side of it , and media consultants - as mentioned within the thread, but lacks what most patients need for survival, which is human contact. jmo. Electronic contact is lost on the elderly. Spray painting messages in a foreign language in a foreign country on the roads - is an odd way of saying "look what we can do"

what you can do, is strive to comfort the sick and suffering by sending out the message in person. A memory never to be forgotten, and which has nothing to do with profit, empire building, and spreadsheets.

time to go jump on my bike and go to work

http://www.netwitsthinktank.com/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=ifINKZOzFmG&b=4487123&content_id={278B1951-8D30-44A8-934B-EE5CDE4B0E14}&notoc=1

excerpt:

We use Twitter to:

1. Recruit international LIVESTRONG Leaders and advocates that help promote cancer policies in their home countries.

2. Scan for people facing cancer and then (without being a troll myself) try to offer our support and encouragement.

3. Give other groups pats on the back and elevate their good info and ideas.

4. Connect our supporters with each other - if someone wants to get involved in Chicago and we know we have a LIVESTRONG Leader up there then we’ll connect them.

I must mention one quick story. Doug, Twitter and the $25,000 Challenge . Doug Ulman (LAF CEO) was contacted by a donor that made him a lofty bet. If Doug added enough followers on his Twitter account by the end of the week to reach a total of 25,000, then the LAF would receive a donation of $25,000. Check out what happened here.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

Okay I'll hold my hand up and say my use of the word 'donate' was incorrect.

Thank you.

However you honestly trying to tell me that EVERYONE is going into Livestrong.com, making payments, and are fully aware that the money here is not meant for 'cancer awareness'? Nobody has been fooled by this you think?

I can't speak for others. I do know that when I decided I had a weight problem and started googling for help, I stumbled onto livestrong.com. With tools like the daily plate, I figured out my BMI, set goals, calculated daily calorie amounts incorporating how much exercise I get, tracking calorie intake, and, guess what? It worked. Lost weight for the first time in my life. Initial membership was free, but I decided to upgrade to a paying membership because of all the value I got from that. It had nothing to do with cancer, and I had no reason to believe it did. Everything I saw and read clearly stated what I was getting. It did not occur to me to consider my livestrong.com membership to be a tax writeoff donation for cancer. Frankly, I think you would have to be a moron to think otherwise, but morons can think just about anything by definition; no one can really control for that.

Is it morally okay to have two websites, with such differing goals, having the same name?
You comfortable with the low efficiency rating?

Yes. Livestrong.com is one of the most valuable sites I know of on the web.
It's also okay to have whitehouse.gov and whitehouse.com, by the way.

Haven't looked into the low efficiency rating, and don't really care since I'm not a LAF/livestrong.org donator.

The sad thing about hate is that once you're in that mindset, you will perceive just about anything in the person or entity that you hate, no matter how benign it may be, as a negative. This aspect of human nature was captured remarkably by Danny DeVito in one of the early scenes of Ruthless People where his character rants about all the things he hates about his wife (played by Bette Midler). Even the way she breathes in her sleep, if I remember correctly.

You haters are in the pit of the hate mindset. But I believe all of you are capable of climbing out and start seeing things objectively again. Lance Armstrong is a fascinating flawed human being, just like you. When you come to this realization, you will have grown, and all the relationships in your life will improve. But we each have our own paths, and travel at our own speed on them. I truly wish you love and good fortune.

 

[tiggertoo]

I lost interest in Livestrong when I looked at their finances and saw that only a third of their revenue goes to cancer relief programmes. The rest is made up of salaries, administration costs and expences. The CEO alone (Armstrong buddy) gets half a million dollars a year salary and expenses. Big office building, travel, promotions, etc. eats up a lot of money. This is why the Texas legislature nixed Armstrong's request for tax dollars for his company.

 

[Digger]

Thank you.


I can't speak for others. I do know that when I decided I had a weight problem and started googling for help, I stumbled onto livestrong.com. With tools like the daily plate, I figured out my BMI, set goals, calculated daily calorie amounts incorporating how much exercise I get, tracking calorie intake, and, guess what? It worked. Lost weight for the first time in my life. Initial membership was free, but I decided to upgrade to a paying membership because of all the value I got from that. It had nothing to do with cancer, and I had no reason to believe it did. Everything I saw and read clearly stated what I was getting. It did not occur to me to consider my livestrong.com membership to be a tax writeoff donation for cancer. Frankly, I think you would have to be a moron to think otherwise, but morons can think just about anything by definition; no one can really control for that.


Yes. Livestrong.com is one of the most valuable sites I know of on the web.
It's also okay to have whitehouse.gov and whitehouse.com, by the way.

Haven't looked into the low efficiency rating, and don't really care since I'm not a LAF/livestrong.org donator.

The sad thing about hate is that once you're in that mindset, you will perceive just about anything in the person or entity that you hate, no matter how benign it may be, as a negative. This aspect of human nature was captured remarkably by Danny DeVito in one of the early scenes of Ruthless People where his character rants about all the things he hates about his wife (played by Bette Midler). Even the way she breathes in her sleep, if I remember correctly.

You haters are in the pit of the hate mindset. But I believe all of you are capable of climbing out and start seeing things objectively again. Lance Armstrong is a fascinating flawed human being, just like you. When you come to this realization, you will have grown, and all the relationships in your life will improve. But we each have our own paths, and travel at our own speed on them. I truly wish you love and good fortune.

Lol...

I'm in good company...and I'm glad I'm in this company, I really am....

Thank you for the words of advice

 

[tiggertoo]

"You haters are in the pit of the hate mindset"

Glad to see you keeping an open mind about this.

 

[TheNJDevil]

I find this funny. Any moron knows there is a difference between .com and .org. .com stands for commerical. .org stands for organization. It used to be that any site with a .org suffix was not allowed to be a for profit.

Anyway, it's pretty widely accepted that if the website you are surfing is a .com, it has the potential to be making someone money. So anyone that is tricked into thinking that the livestrong.com site is a non-profit site probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway. And if they are, they should be visiting my websites so I can swindle them out of some money also.

 

[elapid]

You haters are in the pit of the hate mindset. But I believe all of you are capable of climbing out and start seeing things objectively again. Lance Armstrong is a fascinating flawed human being, just like you. When you come to this realization, you will have grown, and all the relationships in your life will improve. But we each have our own paths, and travel at our own speed on them. I truly wish you love and good fortune.

The same applies to the true lovers as well. And I doubt there are many true haters (or lovers) out there. BroDeal has valid reasons for his disdain of the LAF because of his personal experiences. Most other posters expressing anti-Lance opinions are quite objective, but they see his flaws as more significant than you. But most are still objective. I don't rate you as a hater because I can see you are quite objective as well. I doubt my life has improved or that I have grown personally since (or because of) knowing that Lance is a flawed person, may be because I was a Lance fan until I learned of his flaws, but I do agree with your last two sentences.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

The same applies to the true lovers as well. And I doubt there are many true haters (or lovers) out there. BroDeal has valid reasons for his disdain of the LAF because of his personal experiences. Most other posters expressing anti-Lance opinions are quite objective, but they see his flaws as more significant than you. But most are still objective. I don't rate you as a hater because I can see you are quite objective as well. I doubt my life has improved or that I have grown personally since (or because of) knowing that Lance is a flawed person, may be because I was a Lance fan until I learned of his flaws, but I do agree with your last two sentences.

Well, let's not conflate love and infatuation. Love is seeing someone as they truly are, with all their flaws, and still caring for them and wishing them well. Infatuation is not seeing the flaws. Hate is only seeing the flaws, as well as seeing flaws where there are none.

I still think condemning someone for something as benign as making money from a .com is an indication of non-objective hatred.

Another thing most haters seem to overlook about LAF is that it is not organized to primarily be a conduit for medical research like other apparently similar charities are. Much of what LAF is about is providing services to cancer victims, services to help them research their particular disease, finding the best resources, hospitals, methods, and doctors, etc. Providing all that information and service, and maintaining it, costs money, and looks like "overhead" (salaries, equipment, IT, etc.) on the balance sheet. Of course a lot of the donations go to funding that machine.

 

[lean mean &green]

before i start, this topic has already been argued ad nauseum a few weeks ago, i don't know why we're re-hashing it

lance armstrong's credibility and character can be attacked in a lot of ways. he does a pretty good job providing a steady stream of ammunition for critics to feed upon with his frequent acts of minor stupidity which are tweeted to the entire world.

the websites and minor naming confusion aren't really one of them. they perform a useful service and if the ".com" produces profits it's because they've found a niche and do it better than others. it's mostly ad supported by large corporations who know where their money's going. anyone making a donation is steered back to ".org"

if you attack armstrong in this way you look like a fool. the only thing worse than "trading on cancer" is wrongly accusing someone of it. whether he is or isn't you come off looking like a hateful idiot. if, and it's a big if, you believe the LAF is a huge PR shield you'll be falling right into that trap by attacking livestrong.

the LAF helps a lot of people. if you want to discredit armstrong because of it's efficiency please re-read the paragraph just above this one.

if you're wondering, i'm mostly neutral on LA, maybe a 51% dislike.

let's close this thread, again.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

before i start, this topic has already been argued ad nauseum a few weeks ago, i don't know why we're re-hashing it

lance armstrong's credibility and character can be attacked in a lot of ways. he does a pretty good job providing a steady stream of ammunition for critics to feed upon with his frequent acts of minor stupidity which are tweeted to the entire world.

the websites and minor naming confusion aren't really one of them. they perform a useful service and if the ".com" produces profits it's because they've found a niche and do it better than others. it's mostly ad supported by large corporations who know where their money's going. anyone making a donation is steered back to ".org"

if you attack armstrong in this way you look like a fool. the only thing worse than "trading on cancer" is wrongly accusing someone of it. whether he is or isn't you come off looking like a hateful idiot. if, and it's a big if, you believe the LAF is a huge PR shield you'll be falling right into that trap by attacking livestrong.

the LAF helps a lot of people. if you want to discredit armstrong because of it's efficiency please re-read the paragraph just above this one.

if you're wondering, i'm mostly neutral on LA, maybe a 51% dislike.

let's close this thread, again.

Exactly. Well stated.

Now that's what I call being objective.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I find this funny. Any moron knows there is a difference between .com and .org. .com stands for commerical. .org stands for organization. It used to be that any site with a .org suffix was not allowed to be a for profit.

Anyway, it's pretty widely accepted that if the website you are surfing is a .com, it has the potential to be making someone money. So anyone that is tricked into thinking that the livestrong.com site is a non-profit site probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway. And if they are, they should be visiting my websites so I can swindle them out of some money also.

Also well stated.

 

[BroDeal]

I find this funny. Any moron knows there is a difference between .com and .org. .com stands for commerical. .org stands for organization. It used to be that any site with a .org suffix was not allowed to be a for profit.

Anyway, it's pretty widely accepted that if the website you are surfing is a .com, it has the potential to be making someone money. So anyone that is tricked into thinking that the livestrong.com site is a non-profit site probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway. And if they are, they should be visiting my websites so I can swindle them out of some money also.

Completely bogus. There are no rules on the registration of .com and .org domain names. Any business with a clue purchases all the common top level domain versions of their name as well as variations that could be mistaken for their name or used by others to steal "customers". Usually the variations are all pointed to the same site.

The above is an even more ludicrous statement when Demand Media's business model is taken into account. The CEO's businesses of late can be described as domain name spamming. In fact Demand Media owns at least one domain registrar. If my memory is correct, they own two. Rosenblatt's latest businesses come from discovering that there were companies that had registered hundreds of thousands of domain names and were making bank from advertising on empty websites. In many cases these business consisted of a handful of employees, like four, yet were making tens of millions dollars a year. He then got the idea that he could use this technique as a giant vacuum to suck people into sites with actual content. As near as I can tell, domain name confusion is the very essence of the CEO's business model.

 

[TRDean]

I find this funny. Any moron knows there is a difference between .com and .org. .com stands for commerical. .org stands for organization. It used to be that any site with a .org suffix was not allowed to be a for profit.

Anyway, it's pretty widely accepted that if the website you are surfing is a .com, it has the potential to be making someone money. So anyone that is tricked into thinking that the livestrong.com site is a non-profit site probably shouldn't be on the internet anyway. And if they are, they should be visiting my websites so I can swindle them out of some money also.

I am pretty neutral on this issue here...but what you posted is pretty pathetic. You are probably a fat lazy slob who does not have an ounce of brainpower...actively stating you want to swindle people. Jeez!! And I throw 95rpm in there with you for agreeing. Have some morals people.

 

[Ninety5rpm]

I am pretty neutral on this issue here...but what you posted is pretty pathetic. You are probably a fat lazy slob who does not have an ounce of brainpower...actively stating you want to swindle people. Jeez!! And I throw 95rpm in there with you for agreeing. Have some morals people.

I assumed he was joking, and the quotes around "swindle" were implied. Sheesh.

 

[Digger]

Completely bogus. There are no rules on the registration of .com and .org domain names. Any business with a clue purchases all the common top level domain versions of their name as well as variations that could be mistaken for their name or used by others to steal "customers". Usually the variations are all pointed to the same site.

The above is an even more ludicrous statement when Demand Media's business model is taken into account. The CEO's businesses of late can be described as domain name spamming. In fact Demand Media owns at least one domain registrar. If my memory is correct, they own two. Rosenblatt's latest businesses come from discovering that there were companies that had registered hundreds of thousands of domain names and were making bank from advertising on empty websites. In many cases these business consisted of a handful of employees, like four, yet were making tens of millions dollars a year. He then got the idea that he could use this technique as a giant vacuum to suck people into sites with actual content. As near as I can tell, domain name confusion is the very essence of the CEO's business model.

+ 1
Obviously I don't know as much about the topic as BroDeal here outlines above, but to the people who say that everyone shoud know the difference between a .org and .com, that's completely untrue. Whilst the original aim of these two is well known, over the past few years the waters have become muddied, and .org is no longer strictly non profit.