Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/05
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 6/4/03 8:55:03 PM, sonc@sonc.com writes: << > If the point of a charitable organization is let's say, to feed the starving > people, then the more money they make, the more people they feed. Well, Theresa, When my TV station laid me off, I took a year off from being TV producer to work at the Food Bank for Emergencies, (later merged with Second Harvest of New Orleans.) My job, (at a fraction of the price of a TV producer, and probably less than you garner) was to get corporations, schools, and churches to donate real food so people can eat. I loaded the donated food into my truck and brought it to the food bank, and we made parcels for people in emergency situations, and sent the rest to volunteer kitchens across the greater New Orleans area. Thousands of meals for pepole who otherwise could not make it from one month to another. I really don't need you to tell me how the situation works, I've been in the trenches. A stupid camera sold at the wrong price means far less than your donation of a case of peanut butter to your local food bank. Sonny >> Hmmm. I'm not sure I understand your point. Other than it seems to me you're pissed that I rained on someone's parade by mentioning that getting a "stupid" little Leica for $5 from a charitable organization doesn't somehow seem all that charitable to me. I get it that you've paid some dues by working at a charitable organization for not too much pay. (working the trenches as you put it). That's more than most people do, but of course, none of us who do or have done charity work can expect too much pay or even accolades from it, can we? I think that's why they call it charity, because it comes from the heart. Thank you for sharing with me the role that food banks play in feeding people, though actually I already understand their role, having relied on them to help with food when I worked with battered women's as well as homeless teen shelters. So far we see eye to eye, and without having to be terribly defensive or churlish about it either. What I'm having a hard time reconciling is your response to my assertion that the idea behind selling items to raise money for charity is that they want to raise as much money as possible. That seems like a pretty logical assertion, yes? The more money they raise, the more they have to spend for charitable purposes. To which you say...."a stupid camera sold at the wrong price means less than a case of donated peanut butter." So here's my confusion--besides the fact that my post had nothing to do with peanut butter.... The lucky guy gets the M3 with lens for $5. Let's say it's really worth $250....keh lists a bargain one for $600 but lets say this one barely even works, and this is worth only $250. That's a difference of $245. I'm not sure how much administrative overhead is in the Salvation Army, but even at half, the difference of $245 can certainly buy more than a case of Jiffy Peanut Butter or paper clips or a bell and bucket for the Salvation army guys to ring during Christmas time.... IF your point in your post is that organizations such as the Salvation Army aren't worthwhile compared to Second Harvest who get direct food donatations, then fine, I allow that as your opinion. But your peanut butter claim doesn't detract from the fact that a Leica valued at $250 picked up from a charitable organization for $5 because the organization was either overworked or ignorant--still means less $$ to be directed to charity. Ultimately if you guys want to celebrate "steals" from charitable organizations, great. As long as it's a Leica, eh? I guess the idea is a bargain is a bargain, life is short, get what you can while you can from whom you can. If charitable seller is stupid, ignorant, overworked and thus unaware of a the true value of their item, sod on them, that's their fault for being so lame! And besides, you donated a can of tennis balls to them last year and the year before that you didn't even take a write-off for the amazing talking fish wiggling pencil sharpener that you donated but originally paid $175 for. It's funny, I remember seeing a thread not to long ago on the LUG about civility and courtesy, lots of hand wringing about population density, too many rats in a cage and lack of decency, courtesy and a general decline in Western values on the whole. Tell me, does civility and decency extend beyond opening doors for women and calling them ma'am? I stand by my original assertion. Assuming the camera was really a bargain, and the guy buying it knew/knows it as such, I hope he throws a little extra time or money to the army. Knowing that pretty much most of the active LUG doesn't appreciate or agree with my point, I leave it as that. Kim - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html