Maria should be commended

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by ma2t, Jan 1, 2005.

  1. ma2t

    ma2t Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    142
    I read the news story that Maria Sharapova donated $10,000 to the Tsunami relief fund. Nice to see that she is willing to do that.
     
    #1
  2. court_zone

    court_zone Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    269
    Not only should she be commended, but many other ATP and WTA players are contributing to the cause. For example, Roger Federer and Andy Roddick each donated a signed racquet which i guess will be auctioned with proceeds going to the tsuanami relief.
     
    #2
  3. BreakPoint

    BreakPoint Bionic Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    43,475
    Not to knock either Federer nor Roddick for their gesture of goodwill, but a signed racquet doesn't cost them anything. They get the racquets for free and all they have to do is sign them. How about some $$$$. They both should have more than Maria. And didn't those two play in the Thai Open in Bangkok just a couple of months ago?
     
    #3
  4. court_zone

    court_zone Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    269
    The doubles team of Bjorkman/Bhupathi who will play at the Chennai Open will donate their prize money to the relief effort and they will also try to encourage other players of the event to donate as well.
     
    #4
  5. danniflava

    danniflava Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    397
    I think that for how much money Maria is making, $10,000 to Maria is like $5.00 to me.
     
    #5
  6. schaefferm46

    schaefferm46 Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2004
    Messages:
    291
    canadian or american?
     
    #6
  7. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    All such gestures would be much nicer and more genuine if none of us ever hear about them. The fact that the players/actors/musicians, etc, or their agents, or PR directors, have to inform the media of their 'generosity' smells too much of opportunistic self promotion for my liking.
     
    #7
  8. david aames

    david aames Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    1,181
    If you were to check out the facts before ranting you would learn that it was announced by the Deputy Prime Minister of Thailand. FYI, it's how it works in the real world -- celebrities donate money to a charity or cause. Charity reports it to the press to attract more donations.

    Whatever amount is donated by an individual is all symbolic anyway and shall be reported for that matter. The corporations you bash so often are doing the real work here (a moral duty for Nike in this case I might add). And no, they can't do it without the public knowing because they are publicly traded and have to report to their shareholders.

    http://www.nike.com/nikebiz/news/pressrelease_print.jhtml?year=2004&month=12&letter=j

    Now, where is your million dollar donation, Deuce?

     
    #8
  9. bismark

    bismark Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    303
    Self promotion or not, every dollar means a lot to the Tsunami victims. Get real, Deuce.
     
    #9
  10. BLiND

    BLiND Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Not to say its bad, because every donation is great, but the UK has raised over $100m which is over $1 for EACH person in the country... which makes her donation a joke. My GF's farther donated like $180 to it, and he is retired, and not got a lot of money!
     
    #10
  11. BLiND

    BLiND Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,615
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    Actually sorry, that is more like $1.8-2 for every man woman and child in the country.
     
    #11
  12. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    David, as usual, you are so eager to criticize when you see my name that your eagerness interferes with rational thought.

    You express that Nike is doing "something good", (as if this somehow justifies the bad that they do), and you offer as evidence of this 'good deed' something from the Nike website.

    Please tell me that you don't truly expect people to take this foolishness seriously. Methinks that you should stick to your 'caption this' and 'funny' posts exclusively, because your attempts at seriousness fall short.

    As for the issue of celebrities using the unfortunate circumstances of others to promote themselves (and their movies, their sponsors, etc.)... It is perfectly feasible to insist that one's contribution not be made public. Further, any and all donations can be made anonymously. Both celebrities and corporations can make donations and other contributions anonymously.

    Make no mistake - when we hear about a corporation's or a celebrity's 'good deed', it is entirely because that corporation or celebrity WANT us to know - for purposes of self-promotion.

    Unfortunately, parasites like the typical agents, managers, marketing executives, etc. are well aware of the general public's insatiable appetite for heroes - and they take full advantage of it. They realize that people crave heroes to such an excessive degree that they'll believe just about anything that makes their heroes appear to be wonderful and 'larger than life'. Such 'thinking' is hardly rational or objective.

    In the end, it is up to each individual whether they wish to see the ugly reality of things, or to comfortably cling to pretty illusions. But if one chooses to cling to illusions (and it is a conscious choice), don't go around telling people that reality doesn't exist.
     
    #12
  13. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    One problem, these top pros are human beings. Just because they're good tennis players doesn't mean they're not every bit as human as most of the general populace. In other words, they're hearts probably do genuinely go out to the tsunami victims. These pros aren't that evil now are they? I suppose they could be, but I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt as I do most human beings. We are fundamentally good people, in my opinion. But are we all Mother Teresa? Probably not. If everyone were THAT humanE, the world would be a better place. But everyone's not, so we take what we can get.

    When I hear about Maria Sharapova stealing money from Tsunami victims, I might change my opinion on her. Otherwise, I consider her to be a fairly decent human being, or at least whereabouts in the general statistical mean relative to society at large, or at least that was the impression I got of her when I saw her playing before she was a star.

    Certainly, her speech at the year ending championships didn't seem to canned...

    I think she's got a good heart on her, Robert Landsdorp thinks she's got a good heart on her, and just maybe, she does.

    But until I actually know her, I wouldn't pass such severe judgement on her. Why condemn such a young "chic" pardon the pun. But really, that's what she is. Let her grow up and be, until she proves to commit crimes to the contrary; I say give her the benefit of the doubt.

    Furtheremore, no celebrity HAS to give; but if their publicist does their job? So what? I don't mind. Giving is giving. As long as good comes out of it, I have no problem with that. We're not fighting on moral grounds here, but rather on the ultimate grounds...which is to say those who really need help, get some. Every little bit counts. And, believe it or not, when you see those NBA superstars go and visit sick kids in the hospitals and the cameras are rolling...those kids, those smiles that light up the room are not the product of Hollywood acting lessons. It's all real, the cameras too.

    These celebreties are roll models. Like it or not. When the cameras are rolling, and they're giving; that inspires some common folk to open up their hearts to. Might the celebrity be putting on a little bit of a show? Possibly. Does it really matter if it does some good?

    I don't think so.

    Look, I see where you're coming from Deuce, but I think it's not being realistic or fair to the spectrum of who we are. I used to run multiple inner-city community service programs, and I have to tell you that some "give" to make themselves look better; that's a given, including from other "officers" in charge. I mean in community service, there is the behind the scenes work, and the I'm giving a speech in front a lot of people, look at how wonderful a person I am work. That's all true, but in the end, something good does get done. And you've gotta have those speeches too. Like 'em or not, a little fluff and bs helluluja decorum is a part of what makes the world go round. It is what it is.

    We can try to fight it, or we can all just forget it, and do what we *ourselves* can do. It doesn't have to be the best thing anybody in the whole world could do, something that just might put Mother Teresa to shame; but, really, we are not all Mother Teresa, and every little bit does goes a long way...but we'll never know that, because too many don't even give a little bit.

    So why criticize celebreties who do? If they're being hams, hams stuffed with desperately needed money, then let them.

    Please, PLEASE let them. The world needs more of that.

    There's no perfect form of giving, maybe that's for some higher being to decide that I don't know about not being religious myself; but hey, in the mean time...we gotta live.
     
    #13
  14. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    Good post, Tym.

    I can see where you're coming from, as well - but I can't agree with you.

    Firstly, I can't give Sharapova the benefit of the doubt because I know, from history, that, especially among 'celebrities', greed and ego and the need for attention override any instinctive desire to give to others the majority of the time. Why should I think Sharapova is any different? She's shown no evidence of being different. She's shown no evidence of not enjoying attention and the spotlight. In fact, she's shown very much that she craves attention and the spotlight - everywhere you look, you see her. Does she genuinely care about the tsunami victims? I have no idea. But, from my vantage point, it's safe to say that she has taken advantage of the disaster for purposes of self-promotion - and I cannot respect that.

    What you're saying in the rest of your post, in essence, is that the ends justify the means: If celebrities are giving money, that's all that matters - it doesn't matter WHY they are giving, as long as they are giving. I disagree. While it is true that money from any source, given for any reason, will help, my question is What is stopping them from giving for the RIGHT reasons? I'm not saying the money should be refused if it is given for the wrong reasons - especially at a time like this, money cannot be refused. What I'm saying is that we should not be so quick to praise celebrities simply because we have heard that they have given 1% of their annual $10 Million income. We should not be that desperate for heroes.

    As I said - if the public is made aware of the 'good deed', it is entirely because the celebrity (or corporation, etc.) want the public to know, and want the public to think highly of him/her, and to support their professional endeavors. They are therefore exploiting and taking advantage of the circumstance to promote themselves. Decency and class strongly suggest that the suffering of others is not an appropriate time to be thinking of self-promotion. And when this self-promotion occurs, I think that, rather than praising them for their um... 'caring', we should openly question their motivation. Because if giving and aiding others was truly their primary intention, as they claim, none of us would ever hear about their 'good deeds'.
     
    #14
  15. Camilio Pascual

    Camilio Pascual Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,825
    True. But I don't care how nice and genuine the gestures are or are not, if they fill some kids' bellies with food and reduce widespread disease, I'm all for it.
    These gestures, which can contribute real help to really needy people are best publicized widely, imo. Let's go ahead and get Sharon Stone, Charlize Theron, Richard Gere, and Sting (or their agents) into a who-can-give-the-most-and/or-bleed-the-most contest, if the effect is MORE aid to the destitute.
    I agree much with the sentiments you are expressing, Deuce, but feel you have chosen to miss the point that the PR DOES generate greater contributions which will accomplish the bottom line of what we want...better relief of the suffering.
     
    #15
  16. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    I can see your point. You're one for self-imrpovement, holding people to a higher standard than the status-quo. I'm more of a realist (in this case)...I don't see the self-improvement forthcoming so to battle otherwise would be mostly futile...in the case of celebrities I feel this way, in the case of people I actually can ask out on a date in the flesh and not get slapped across the face for not being Tom Cruise in Giorgio Armani elevator shoes? Well...I have nothing to say that...I won't even dignify that with a response!

    But, yes, Sharapova does welcome the lime light, but that does not a bad person make in my world. You can love the limelight and still be a good guy...heck, didn't Tom Cruise save some the lives of some couple or something or other not pretty and delicate like a Japanese oregami flower only white, err Australian-bred caucasian...on a boat once? No wonder, Rosie O'Donnel loves him...he be keepin' it real. How do I know? I think I saw THAT (ooh, oh-oh, ahhh, oooh...) face standing there, just staring at me like he was talking to ME (...and only me :confused: ); in my corner, non-organic grocery store once, in one of those Do-Ditty-Rags, Nationa Inquisitor or something or other.

    It was cool. Tom Cruise's not my hero, but I herein submit to his will; because he's famous. Actually, see the thing is; I don't consider celebrities heroes, never have. I may enjoy a body of work they may star in or whatever, but that's a separate venture. The caring, feeling portion of my brain says, they just "normal" folk like me. And some celebrities like Tom Cruise come from humble beginnings and others don't. So that doesn't necessarily mean that once you become rich and famous the one who came from the trying beginnings will be any better people than those that don't. It varies. But the lowest common denominator is that most don't shy away from the press...and more particularly, the gratuitous presence of money...once they get there.

    As Latrel Sprewell recently made poignantly clear, "I've got my children to feed!" So sad...the Timberwolves only offered him $21 million dollars s-c-a-t-t-e-r-e-d over three years. I could barely pick up the pieces of my life when I heard that, those are my t-e-a-r-s scattered...shattered...like rareifed it-doesn't-even-matter all over the place. Then, I realized that Latrel wasn't talking about just his four children, he was talking about his CHILDREN-children, you know his CHILDREN-children...ahh...the children of the world our his children! Latrel speaks on behalf of the withering Sally Struthers Foundation in all of 'Supgruelia, or what not, or whatever, or wherever it's called. Yes, that's it!

    Geez, don't these up to no good, practically BUZZILLIONAIRE (not millionaire :( ) owners know that "the NBA lockout is about being able to feed our families." - one Patrick Ewing, who was making about 18.5 million dollars at the time.

    "We spend a lot of money, so we deserve to make a lot of money." Double take that grinchaholic owners! Again, one Patrick Ewing.

    Of course, Ewing does have a point...doh...

    Owners: "We spend a lot of money (on frivolous dunkers like you), so we deserve to make a lot more money...than you." Peace.

    One thing's for certain, it's a different and rareifed stratosphere up there.

    Call it cloud 9...really, they're just friends.

    ...and they wouldn't have it any other way!

    Point being, neither can make money with out each other, let them rape themselves, exploit themselves for what...I mean, for who? (The NBA is fantastic!)

    Lest, we forget the point of this lecture children; never forget to feed the children. Thank you Latrel Sprewel and Patrick Ewing for always putting OUR best interests foreward. For remember, children; we are the children. The future, the now, on which these mega salaries are built. We sit in seats, because it's fun!

    Ah, drats, the end is near. Life is bleak, and I shall perish peniless with the rest of them...GEEZ, hel-LO! Someone throw me a dime here (a lot of dimes, preferably...shiny ones), I'm dying out here...I'm out. Peace.

    But, don't forget to drown in a sea of guilt while I'm out. :D
     
    #16
  17. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Yawn. Philosophy 101 tripe. Effects of one's actions with or without consideration of one's motivations. To either exclusively "mean well" or "do well" obviously doesn't work - so what are we left with?

    First of all - we (apart from the resident mind reader who seems to know - and judge - everyone's inner most thoughts) don't know Maria's motivations. So apart from IF we should judge her reasons, there's the fact that we can never really know what those reasons are.

    Second, even in the worst case - which is a better act in total? 1) Giving the money with no concern for anything other than one's public image or 2) Not giving anything at all, because one doesn't have the correct reasons in mind? Clearly #1 wins - and it's not even close. For reference: Kohlberg's law and order orientation (stage 4 of 6 - most of us reach this stage as children. Some never leave, obviously).

    And this is how it always goes. It's the same post, over and over and over again. At least the search for the holy grail is on topic.
     
    #17
  18. ma2t

    ma2t Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    142
    Wow, I didn't think this would be so controversial. I agree that donations can be self-promotional and even self-congratulatory, but my original thinking was that it was great to see a 17-year-old girl (who is a role model to many other teenage tennis players) being one of the first professional tennis players to step up and give a donation. One percent of your income isn't that shabby either. How many people have given that much of their yearly income? I doubt that very many who made $50K last year have given $500.
     
    #18
  19. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    ohplease again conveniently presents less than the whole:

    "Second, even in the worst case - which is a better act in total? 1) Giving the money with no concern for anything other than one's public image or 2) Not giving anything at all, because one doesn't have the correct reasons in mind? Clearly #1 wins - and it's not even close. For reference: Kohlberg's law and order orientation (stage 4 of 6 - most of us reach this stage as children. Some never leave, obviously)."

    That's the problem - people conveniently twisting things around to suit their own agenda. Ohplease compares two - conveniently only two - possibilities: 1) that people give with only their public image in mind, or 2) that people give nothing at all. (As if lowering the standard rather than elevating it is a positive thing.) By presenting these as the only two options, option #1 doesn't appear so bad...

    But wait...

    Where is the option that people give for the right reasons, to give anonymously, with no thought as to how it reflects on them; with no ulterior motive whatsoever? Why is this not proposed as an option? Simply because such an option does not aid the argument he's making. Convenient and voluntary omission, in order to deliberately skew the perspective in favor of his position. A time honored strategy - Compare something bad to something even WORSE - and ONLY to something worse - so as to make the bad thing appear better in comparison. Avoid, at all costs, comparison of the bad thing to something BETTER - to a higher standard - else it may ruin your argument.

    Yawn, indeed...

    Making sure that one's contribution is well publicized is akin to the mayor feeding the homeless on Xmas day, with dozens of newspaper and television cameras present. No matter how strong one's need to believe, it's still pure PR - nothing more.

    Would these celebrities and corporations have given as much if their contribution could only have been given anonymously? Would they have given at all? Only they know, I suppose - but their publicizing their contribution weighs the evidence somewhat...

    Camilio, you are right in that, at this time, money is needed, and it serves no immediate purpose to dissect from where the money comes, or for what reasons. But I propose that if we continue to use the philosophy that the ends justify the means, we are headed for great troubles within what we egotistically refer to as civilized society. To employ the philosophy of the ends justifying the means may indeed help to solve an immediate problem - but it also helps to create an even greater problem in the long run, because it is a very, very dangerous way to live. The consequences of living by such a philosophy can perhaps be outrun for a time - but it is inevitable that there will be a huge price to pay in the end. The longer we ignore the larger problem, the greater the consequences will be.
     
    #19
  20. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    The only agenda I have is to point out that:

    1) You ain't nearly as omniscient as you think you are.
    2) And even if you were, how that surely does not entitle you to judge others' actions so freely.
    3) What part of "even in the worse case" do you not understand?

    How many additional people does an anonymous donation help? Zero. How many additional people might be inspired to actually do something other than posting on the internet? More than zero.

    There's your comparison - and guess what - it still ain't better.

    As far as "the ends justifying the means" bit - that might pass for nuanced moral consideration in dorm rooms at 2am, just before ordering pizza - but past that it's just embarassing. For example:

    "That's the problem - people conveniently twisting things around to suit their own agenda."

    And:

    "The consequences of living by such a philosophy can perhaps be outrun for a time - but it is inevitable that there will be a huge price to pay in the end."

    What were you saying about a convenient number of considered options?
     
    #20
  21. garland

    garland New User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    21
    Okay guys, rather than engaging in what is a mildly pointless debate on giving, how about donating the amount of money you could have earned in the length of time it took to write these messages? Then, you can choose to post it to a website or not, depending on your desire for humanitarian glory. Deuce, I basically agree that announcing the deed is for promotional purposes, but that doesn't imply that the initial gesture was not heartfelt ... We cannot analyze motivations or intentions ... that's lit. crit. principle 1. We can only hazard guesses. While it's okay to be cynical, I sense some fundamental doubt about the goodness of human nature. Perhaps this indicates too much time with Thomas Hobbs or his tennis-playing disciple, Ion Tiriac :).
     
    #21
  22. tennis4you

    tennis4you New User

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    40
    The problem is you are judging someone you do not know personally.
     
    #22
  23. !Tym

    !Tym Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Messages:
    1,697
    Haha, but see you misjudge me in this case. I do not take my posts as very zeriously as zome othzers zeem to think? ...at least not always (although that Stinkin' Bliip, Soggy Boo-bera, would be an exception, because he and I are above the law...always), and definitely NOT in this case.

    Latrel Sprewell is actually one of my favorite players, believe it or not. Sprewell's "spinners" wheels business, in fact, is quite a service to his extended family members whom he uses as employees...happy and thankful employees at that.

    This last post was made in a jest-icular, hypothetical fog, because I was trying to distract myself from other things more pertinent to me...like my selfish real life, I actually think Sharapova's a good person, but I've got my own demons to battle right now.

    Always take my posts with a grain of salt, particularly, when I go OVER THE TOP...I'm just trying to keep my mind sharp is all, I can and will and would desire to debate anything, and from any angle, and any side...which makes me wish I had tried to puruse law instead so I could be making the BIG BUCKS to donate to my favorite basketball player in the whole wide world, Latrel Spreeeeeeee...we!!! Well, sorry, Spree, I just can't support you here, not in this case.

    Take what I wrote, as *theory* made for argument's sake...not my word, and not my herniated standard...as I said, just trying to keep my mind fluid and sharp for real life uses when I write long posts. Call me hypnotically "high," in the "spur of the moment."

    Whatever the case maybe, I know in every case, any side can be argued and *satirized* as the moment or mood suits.
     
    #23
  24. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    !Tym wrote:

    "Always take my posts with a grain of salt, particularly, when I go OVER THE TOP..."

    Believe me, we do. Always.
     
    #24
  25. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    Ohplease - as you consistently choose to infer that I have taken positions which I've not taken, as well as otherwise manipulate matters, I feel no desire to further any discussion with you. In my opinion, your history on these boards shows that you do this rather regularly, and so do not 'fight fair', so to speak. Again, basing my perspective on your history here, you seem to view yourself as an intellectual of sorts - and that's fine - you may or may not be. But, to this eye, you are not a straightforward individual, and so I abstain. Your 'signature' at the bottom of your posts is an interesting one. One might even call it quite ironic, considering the behavior of the individual who chooses to include it in all of his posts.

    Those who say that "we cannot judge those we don't know personally", etc. themselves judge people every day. It is incredible how people don't seem to realize that giving a person the benefit of the doubt is judging them, too. Why is it that the great majority of people don't realize that a judgement, or assessment, can be either a positive one, or a negative one? It is only when negative judgements are made that the Politically Correct zealots surface and cry foul. The fact is that judgements of others - both positive and negative - are made dozens of times daily by everyone. It is human nature to judge; to assess. How else would we distinguish our friends from our foes, as but one example?

    As far as Sharapova's true motivations are concerned, I have already stated that I do not claim to know if she has a genuine concern for the tsunami victims or not. I possess the same basic ignorance as concerns the concerns of other celebrities. Some people conveniently choose to ignore the fact that I wrote that previously - again, because doing so aids their position.

    And so, I am not judging whether they truly care or not - because I am not in any position to judge this.

    But, in assuming a celebrity who donates does care, are you not judging them? Of course you are. You are judging them based on their giving. I, on the other hand, am judging them based on their announcement of their giving. The only difference here is in the choosing of which element we judge. I have chosen what I believe to be the more significant element. I feel that anyone can claim to care - but that doesn't necessarily mean that they actually care. Nor does it mean that they do not care. But if they publicize their contribution, it does definitely mean that they want the publicity. There can be no other motive for publicizing one's contribution. And I am of the opinion that seeking personal publicity by exploiting the tragic circumstances of others is a contemptable offence, and one for whom its author does not deserve my respect.

    Look at it this way: Whatever monetary donation a famous person or corporation makes, and announces publicly, will come back to them two or three fold. It is an investment - just like any other type of advertizing. If Sharapova, for example, donates $10,000, this will likely bring her extra dollars in incresed paid public appearances, as well as a few million dollars in extra 'earnings' when she signs her next endorsement contract - because she will be more popular, and more 'liked', after announcing her 'generosity' and 'caring', and will therefore be a 'hotter' commodity to the sponsor, who will correctly project that their company earnings will increase as Sharapova's popularity increases. To the sponsor, the money they give Sharapova is an investment into future (and larger) monies. To Sharapova, her 'charitable donation' is also an investment into future (and larger) earnings. So, viewed this way - which I feel is closer to the truth than to view it any other way - when celebrities announce to the public that they've made a donation, it is a selfish and self serving action.

    I'm probably picking on Sharapova too much, however. After all, she's just a kid. But this thread was begun about her... More than likely, her donation - or at the very least the announcement to the public of her donation - was the 'brainchild' of her agent, or publicist, or father, or some other person of a self-serving nature within her 'entourage'. That Sharapova went along with it is not a good sign - but she's still very young, and there is time for her to become less self-absorbed. Unfortunately, however, this rarely occurs among those who are cursed with 'fame'. History shows that much more often than not, the famous become more self serving and self absorbed with age, as their awareness of their power and influence over people increases, and their insecurities uncovered.
     
    #25
  26. big ted

    big ted Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    1,840
    maria made 2.5 M in prize money last year
    probly 1 M in endorsements
    to = 3.5 M total last year

    $10,000/3.5M = 0.3% of her earnings
     
    #26
  27. alan-n

    alan-n Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,304
    Sandra Bullock donated $1,000,000.
     
    #27
  28. Dedans Penthouse

    Dedans Penthouse Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Antarctica
    A GRAIN of salt? Or in this case, the Bonneville Salt Flats? ;-)

    Alright, assuming I should take it with a grain of sale, how then WOULD I take it, I mean, there is no exact measure of how big a "grain" of salt is. So, the answer will be only correct within an order of magnitude (a factor of 10).

    First off, let's assume that salt grains are approximately 0.3 millimeters long.

    The density of NaCl btw, is about 2.165 gr/cm3. With the cube assumption, we find that a grain of salt is about 5.85x10^-5 grams.

    The next thing we need is the weight of a "salt atom." There is no such thing as a salt atom, it consists of Na (sodium) and Cl (chlorine) atoms. So, we need to use an average value. (Note: The atomic mass of Na is 23 gr per mole; the atomic mass of Cl is 35.5 gr per mole. So, the average 'atomic weight of salt' is 29.25 grams per mole).

    Thus, the # of atoms in a grain of salt, i.e. we should take !tym's 'tomes' with:
    5.85x10-5gr/ (29.25 gr / 6.02x10 to the 23rd power) = 1.2 x 10 to the 18th power atoms, half of which are sodium atoms and the other half are chlorine atoms, of course. (courtesy: Yasar Safkan, Ph.D, M.I.T.)

    ****AS PER THE ABOVE ABSURDITY:
    ........IS NOW THE TIME TO GET BOGGED DOWN IN "motives?" Just GIVE $$$. People are dead, people are starving, corpses are rotting and kids are being "more than taken advantage of" by horrible monsters. Just GIVE. If you need (ego or otherwise) to tell the world what a "great guy" you are, fine--just GIVE. If you want to get on the "good side" of some person or you want to "get over" on some girl you're interested in by telling them/her how "generous and compassionate" you are, fine---just GIVE. Motives, shmotives---I repect the points of view expressed in this thread, but I sincerely cannot devote my energy to focusing on "motives" AT THIS TIME. GIVE. Just give.

    Just GIVE.
     
    #28
  29. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Firstly, there can be other motives. You just can't understand them because of your obvious interpersonal tone deafness and lack of stature, influence, or authority (moral or otherwise) - both here and in real life.

    Secondly, even apart from that lack of understanding, someone else said it best: motives schmotives.

    Lastly, regardless of YOUR motivations for going there (which even in the best case aren't good) - the ACT of beating your anti-marketing/anti-publicity/blah blah blah drum, particularly in the context an almost incomprehensible number of dead - is absolutely shameful.

    There's one person who needs to get over themselves in this thread, and it ain't Maria.
     
    #29
  30. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Good for Maria! 10,000 is a lot of money.
     
    #30
  31. chazz

    chazz New User

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2004
    Messages:
    79
    She also donated a million dollars to the Red Cross after 911.
     
    #31
  32. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    Money is money and whether she gave 10G or a mill, she gave something.
     
    #32
  33. Phil

    Phil Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    3,877
    Location:
    In a tent, along the Silk Road
    You're right, Rickson (gulp!). The people living in the stricken areas, who lost friends and relatives and are struggling to put their lives back together are not sitting around like idiots arguing where the aid money is coming from or the motivation for donating it. They would find such a discussion ABOUT THEIR FATE, among mostly white, affluent and well-fed Westerners located a very safe 7,000 miles away, patently absurd, not to mention a waste of time and completly sophmoric.

    Whether it's Maria's dough or John Doe's, food is food, water is water-your stomach doesn't distinguish between self-promotion and 100% well-meaning donated food. What sophistry. Normally on this Board when sophmoric, left wing/hippie-like pollyamma arguments are being discussed, you can usually find Deuce not too far off.
     
    #33
  34. ClemsonTennis9

    ClemsonTennis9 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2004
    Messages:
    172
    yeah thats real good for her exposure
     
    #34
  35. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    Many of the posters in this thread possess rather blatant deficiencies in the area of reading comprehension and/or honesty.
     
    #35
  36. bismark

    bismark Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    303
    Ah.....a typical cynic.

    But what are they? Cynicism is the combination of fear and ignorance, which in turn causes arrogance. A cynic often sound intelligent, speak with authority, but are really cowards and under their intellectual exterior. A cynic infect people around them with skepticism, negativity, blame and fear - disguised as intelligence. A cynic never compliment others. A cynic finds it easy to find fault and discover what is wrong. It is their way of protecting themselves from revealing their lack of knowledge, or lack of courage.
     
    #36
  37. ShooterMcMarco

    ShooterMcMarco Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2004
    Messages:
    3,017
    5 nba players including kobe bryant, jermaine o'neal, and tracy mcgrady are donating 1,000 per point they score on friday's upcoming games. all the money will be donated to UNICEF's tsunami relief program. they could donate more if they did that for more than 1 game. the best player out of the batch of 5 players is kobe, who averages 28.5 points ppg, so do the math, it won't be all that much unless every player scores 50 points or more. even though these players make tons more money, at least they're giving.
     
    #37
  38. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    or...

    "Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows." ~ David Wolf

    or...

    "Skepticism is the first step toward truth." ~ Diderot

    or...

    "It's hard to argue against cynics - they always sound smarter than optimists because they have so much evidence on their side." ~ Molly Ivins

    or...

    "Cynicism is an unpleasant way of saying the truth." ~ Lillian Hellman

    or...

    "The cynics are right nine times out of ten." ~ Henry Menken

    and finally...

    drumroll, please...

    "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." ~ George Bernard Shaw
     
    #38
  39. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    I'd rather believe that when people give to charity, part of their motivation for giving is that they really do want to help. Even if they do have other motives such as self-promotion, I believe that motive is only secondary (and maybe it's just a side benefit).

    I wouldn't want to go through life always suspecting people's motives. There'd be no joy in always fearing that someone might hoodwink you. Therefore, I'd rather believe that Sharapova had altruistic reasons for her donation (and succeeding charity work). If in the remote chance she's cold-bloodedly calculated that her visibility and market value will shoot through the roof because of this, companies have their advertising budget, and it's their decision who to spend it on. If they choose to spend it on Sharapova, so what?

    All that matters is that much-needed money still goes to the relief of people affected by calamity or illness or other malady. Big names get attention drawn to the plight of these people; it keeps the spotlight on them longer, thus drawing more aid. Every bit counts.
     
    #39
  40. Deuce

    Deuce Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2004
    Messages:
    5,270
    Location:
    A not so parallel universe...
    Do you believe in the awesome benefits of LiquidMetal, too, Noelle?

    "Big names get attention drawn to the plight of these people; it keeps the spotlight on them longer, thus drawing more aid. Every bit counts."

    Not necessarily. Firstly, we don't hear about a celebrity's donation for weeks - we hear about it for a day, and then it's replaced by more recent 'news'.

    Whether celebrity donations encourage others to donate is debatable. It may encourage other celebrities to donate (in a type of 'p!ssing contest'), but it can easily have the opposite effect on the common citizen who could well take the attitude that "well, so-and-so is donating $100,000, and so-and-so is donating $1 million - my measly $50 won't make any difference."

    Again, for the deficient, I am not saying that a $50 donation makes no difference. I am merely saying that a celebrity's donation can both encourage and discourage donations among the 'common folk', and therefore, in that sense, publicizing a celebrity's donation has a neutral effect on the general public's donations. And so, encouraging others to donate cannot really be cited as a legitimate reason for a celebrity to publicize their donation.
     
    #40
  41. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    Well, of course I've never hit with such a racquet, Deuce, but I read these forums, and I know that people have had bad experiences with Liquidmetal racquets, which makes me lean towards the view that LM doesn't have any benefits.

    (I also don't appreciate the inference that I'm naive and gullible to be taken in like that. I have a limited budget and am not willing to spend it on any "new" technology without sifting through feedback by people who know what they're saying, i.e. the players and experts on these forums.)

    Point taken that you weren't saying $50 makes no difference. I wasn't saying that you were saying that, either.
     
    #41
  42. Hyperstate

    Hyperstate Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    125
    Bravo! Bravo!
     
    #42
  43. Noelle

    Noelle Hall Of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,771
    Oh, I just noticed that my first post succeeded yours, Deuce. I wasn't targeting you with my initial comment; it was just a statement of my own opinion in general.

    I have no problem with cynics. I'm just not one of them.
     
    #43
  44. ohplease

    ohplease Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,172
    Again wrong. It "could." It "may." But on balance it doesn't.

    You can't have it both ways. People can't BOTH be slaves to advertising, suckered into emulating the stars (low riding pants, promiscuous sexuality, boring baseline bashing - or any other of your various windmills) - and yet ALSO not be. Especially when considered on BALANCE. The effect and influence of others' actions, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN CRAZY RANTS, is nowhere near neutral.

    Again, tone deafness to how actual people think and behave, from our very own Deuce Quixote.

    Which is truly sad because he's so fond of this business of how "common folk" would feel. On this thread, most people - or the "common folk" - or "everybody" - disagrees wholeheartedly with his idiocy. For example:

    Sophistry, vulgarity, general appearance - take your pick - shame, shame, shame on you.
     
    #44
  45. ma2t

    ma2t Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    142
    Okay -- I wasn't the origin of the 1% guess.

    So how many people who have posted comments about this topic have given 0.3% of their yearly income? For someone making 50K, that's $150.
    What if everyone in the world gave 0.3%?
     
    #45
  46. davey25

    davey25 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Messages:
    5,059
    Location:
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Deuce, reading this post I have to ask you about the so-called "so generous" move by drunk-driving Michael Phelps at the Olympics this year. I always thought his move to give up his spot in the relay final was all about self-promotion. What is the loss for him? He gets a gold medal anyway, you hardly get much glory swimming a leg in an easy winning relay. Instead he got extra camera coverage, gushing by all announcers and reporters on swimming and sport in general, he got to potray himself as some sort of selfless, generous, wholesome good man which is baloney.
     
    #46
  47. Rickson

    Rickson G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    USA
    If you got a $50 parking ticket, you'd think that was a lot of money to shell out, wouldn't you? I don't care how small a percentage 10 thousand is to Maria's income, that's still a good chunk of change.
     
    #47
  48. bismark

    bismark Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    303
    Cynics also love to drop names when they communicate. Name dropping helps cover their deep insecurity. This is especially common when they try to justify their decisions or getting their agendas across. In Deuce's case, he would hide behind endless sayings and quotes by other people!

    (PS - I'm no shrink or psychiatrist. Just came across a behavioral science article about cynicism, and our Deuce fits the bill so perfectly. Having a bit of fun here.)
     
    #48
  49. Truedge

    Truedge New User

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Messages:
    50
    I remember Maria pulling a page out of Serena's book the other day with her loss to Dementieva.. (She rated herself a 2/10)...
     
    #49
  50. bismark

    bismark Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Messages:
    303
    Cynics also love to drop names when they communicate. Name dropping helps cover their deep insecurity. This is especially common when they try to justify their decisions or getting their agendas across. In Deuce's case, he would hide behind endless sayings and quotes by other people!

    (PS - I'm no shrink or psychiatrist. Just came across a behavioral science article about cynicism, and our Deuce fits the bill so perfectly. Having a bit of fun here.)
     
    #50

Share This Page