God it's hit my house now. My wife and son have been nominated. I have no feelings about the actual thing but now I'm gonna have to stand there taking the bloody video and uploading it off a phone on to Facebook and I have no idea about Facebook or how to upload a bloody video to it.
Someone will probably nominate me but they can kiss my arse. I'll just donate.
I imagine many of those who dislike this challenge, say they would never do it because they aren't a 'sheep' etc, would never be the types to get nominated in the first place. Sad lonely folk who get upset when they see other people having fun. Deep down I bet many of these people wish they had friends in the firstplace to nominate them!
Harsh maybe, but I think it has elements of truth in it.
I don't think it's harsh, just that it shows a very immature level of understanding when it shows how different human beings are when it comes to what we find entertaining, when it comes to introverts and extroverts and a whole array of things that make one person love things like the ice bucket challenge while another person will loathe it.
I've never understood people who call those who enjoy different things, quieter things, "miserable" but that's just me.
"Although more than $94 million in donations have been raised through the viral “ice bucket” social media campaign, the actual amount going towards the non-profit ALS Association’s research is strikingly different.
According to the ALS Association’s own 2014 financial breakdown, only 27 percent of funds make their way to researching a cure for the disease. Despite its non-profit status, six figure salaries are bestowed upon the group’s top 11 executives."
Oh is this a fundraising activity? I just assumed it was one of those attention-seeking Facebook things.
Fundraising for a charity that only gives 27% of the money that is given to them goes into researching a cure. Like a lot of large charities. My advice is donate to local charities or give to charities that give the large majority of their money to actually tackling the problem they say they are trying to solve.
Fundraising for a charity that only gives 27% of the money that is given to them goes into researching a cure. Like a lot of large charities. My advice is donate to local charities or give to charities that give the large majority of their money to actually tackling the problem they say they are trying to solve.
I've seen a few FB 'friends' doing this challenge recently - but there has been no mention of fundraising. I think some people are just doing it for a 'laugh'. I have direct debits set up for the charities I support, so...
If everyone does it then there is something sinister always about it. All these trends promoted by the media and the pathetic cringe worthy laughing from the propaganda reporters I mean news reporters just sends shivers up my spine.
"Although more than $94 million in donations have been raised through the viral “ice bucket” social media campaign, the actual amount going towards the non-profit ALS Association’s research is strikingly different.
According to the ALS Association’s own 2014 financial breakdown, only 27 percent of funds make their way to researching a cure for the disease. Despite its non-profit status, six figure salaries are bestowed upon the group’s top 11 executives."
Best to donate to smaller charities. I also don't see why we have to donate money to big pharma to find a cure they would make loads of money from, all they care about is profit and most of the money does not even go to them it goes to management 6 figure salaries. It is rather sick.
"Although more than $94 million in donations have been raised through the viral “ice bucket” social media campaign, the actual amount going towards the non-profit ALS Association’s research is strikingly different.
According to the ALS Association’s own 2014 financial breakdown, only 27 percent of funds make their way to researching a cure for the disease. Despite its non-profit status, six figure salaries are bestowed upon the group’s top 11 executives."
That doesn't mean anything. In the past, they didn't HAVE that much money to give. They probably spent money supporting patients and families or caretakers, and on PR.
A significant portion to community services.
They ARE a small charity that happened to get lucky.
"Although more than $94 million in donations have been raised through the viral “ice bucket” social media campaign, the actual amount going towards the non-profit ALS Association’s research is strikingly different.
According to the ALS Association’s own 2014 financial breakdown, only 27 percent of funds make their way to researching a cure for the disease. Despite its non-profit status, six figure salaries are bestowed upon the group’s top 11 executives."
Do you have figures for the UK one - MNDA? Or The Scotish one. They may be better. And although only 27% goes on research, does other money go on things like operating a help line or web site? What percentage of overall revenue do the salaries account for?
If everyone does it then there is something sinister always about it. All these trends promoted by the media and the pathetic cringe worthy laughing from the propaganda reporters I mean news reporters just sends shivers up my spine.
I don't think it's harsh, just that it shows a very immature level of understanding when it shows how different human beings are when it comes to what we find entertaining, when it comes to introverts and extroverts and a whole array of things that make one person love things like the ice bucket challenge while another person will loathe it.
I've never understood people who call those who enjoy different things, quieter things, "miserable" but that's just me.
I enjoy quieter things too, nothing miserable about it. I wouldn't judge and call people who enjoy such things to be sheep, chavs, shallow, attention seekers, halfwits etc.. Just some of the names I have seen used.
In no way am I saying anyone who hates this challenge is lonely or miserable. Just like you can't understand why some people think quieter people are miserable, I can't understand the judgement and name calling of people who enjoy such extrovert challenges.
"Although more than $94 million in donations have been raised through the viral “ice bucket” social media campaign, the actual amount going towards the non-profit ALS Association’s research is strikingly different.
According to the ALS Association’s own 2014 financial breakdown, only 27 percent of funds make their way to researching a cure for the disease. Despite its non-profit status, six figure salaries are bestowed upon the group’s top 11 executives."
Nothing unusual in that. If a charity isn't professionally run it won't raise enough to even cover its costs.
Quite a few years ago I was involved in the recruitment of a not-quite-top person for a big charity (outside the top 11). They had to offer a six-figure sum to attract someone out of a pharma, and even then they'd be taking a c40k drop. GBP of course, not USD.
Just like you can't understand why some people think quieter people are miserable, I can't understand the judgement and name calling of people who enjoy such extrovert challenges.
That's fair enough, but I think those who do get slagged off do tend to be people that are obviously attention seeking and obnoxious...people like that aren't usually too hard to spot, just like people who are meanie old killjoys for no reason can be obvious too.
Do you have figures for the UK one - MNDA? Or The Scotish one. They may be better. And although only 27% goes on research, does other money go on things like operating a help line or web site? What percentage of overall revenue do the salaries account for?
The majority of MND Scotland's funds goes on care services.
I don't mind other people doing it, but personally I don't like the peer-pressuring aspect to it.
When I give to charity I like to do it on my own terms. With this I feel that my choice in the matter has been taken away. And if I say no to the challenge I'll get a barrage of negative comments because of it. Luckily I haven't been nominated yet, though I have asked two people who were going to nominate me not to do so, and explained my reasons why I didn't want them to.
I don't feel this way because I hate charity or don't care about people with Motor Neurone Disease. The huge amount of money that's been raised is a brilliant thing, and I don't begrudge that for one second. I just don't think that the ends necessarily justify the means. I don't think it's just a bit of harmless fun as many people like to portray it as. There's an uncomfortable feeling of emotional blackmail to it all which makes me heavily reluctant to cough up. Charity, for me, is about volunteering my time and/or money for a cause I feel is worthy. With this, it's not about actively choosing to donate, it's about peer-pressuring friends and acquaintances into doing it, thereby removing personal choice from the matter. Personally, I don't like that as a means of raising money for a charity.
As I said, I don't mind other people doing it. And the fact that millions have been raised for a worthy cause in such a short space of time is absolutely fantastic. Moreover, I'm not a lazy sod who doesn't do his bit at all (I volunteer in a charity shop a few days a week and regularly donate to a number of local charities). I just feel that this method of donating conflicts with my personal beliefs and ethics. I hate peer-pressure and emotional blackmail with a passion. And I felt exactly the same way about NekNominate and the No Make-Up Selfie thing too, so I've got to be consistent I guess. That's my two cents anyway.
Comments
Someone will probably nominate me but they can kiss my arse. I'll just donate.
Agreed.
We're no fun cretins though, remember.
I don't think it's harsh, just that it shows a very immature level of understanding when it shows how different human beings are when it comes to what we find entertaining, when it comes to introverts and extroverts and a whole array of things that make one person love things like the ice bucket challenge while another person will loathe it.
I've never understood people who call those who enjoy different things, quieter things, "miserable" but that's just me.
"Although more than $94 million in donations have been raised through the viral “ice bucket” social media campaign, the actual amount going towards the non-profit ALS Association’s research is strikingly different.
According to the ALS Association’s own 2014 financial breakdown, only 27 percent of funds make their way to researching a cure for the disease. Despite its non-profit status, six figure salaries are bestowed upon the group’s top 11 executives."
Fundraising for a charity that only gives 27% of the money that is given to them goes into researching a cure. Like a lot of large charities. My advice is donate to local charities or give to charities that give the large majority of their money to actually tackling the problem they say they are trying to solve.
I've seen a few FB 'friends' doing this challenge recently - but there has been no mention of fundraising. I think some people are just doing it for a 'laugh'. I have direct debits set up for the charities I support, so...
Yep. I heard about this before.:(
Best to donate to smaller charities. I also don't see why we have to donate money to big pharma to find a cure they would make loads of money from, all they care about is profit and most of the money does not even go to them it goes to management 6 figure salaries. It is rather sick.
That doesn't mean anything. In the past, they didn't HAVE that much money to give. They probably spent money supporting patients and families or caretakers, and on PR.
A significant portion to community services.
They ARE a small charity that happened to get lucky.
Do you have figures for the UK one - MNDA? Or The Scotish one. They may be better. And although only 27% goes on research, does other money go on things like operating a help line or web site? What percentage of overall revenue do the salaries account for?
That's what a bucket of ice would do too.
I enjoy quieter things too, nothing miserable about it. I wouldn't judge and call people who enjoy such things to be sheep, chavs, shallow, attention seekers, halfwits etc.. Just some of the names I have seen used.
In no way am I saying anyone who hates this challenge is lonely or miserable. Just like you can't understand why some people think quieter people are miserable, I can't understand the judgement and name calling of people who enjoy such extrovert challenges.
Nothing unusual in that. If a charity isn't professionally run it won't raise enough to even cover its costs.
Quite a few years ago I was involved in the recruitment of a not-quite-top person for a big charity (outside the top 11). They had to offer a six-figure sum to attract someone out of a pharma, and even then they'd be taking a c40k drop. GBP of course, not USD.
That's fair enough, but I think those who do get slagged off do tend to be people that are obviously attention seeking and obnoxious...people like that aren't usually too hard to spot, just like people who are meanie old killjoys for no reason can be obvious too.
A thimble isn't a bucket.
The majority of MND Scotland's funds goes on care services.
http://www.mndscotland.org.uk/about/income-and-expenditure/
Nor is a wheelie bin or a bath or any other container, but they are all being used.
Then those aren't doing it right either.
When I give to charity I like to do it on my own terms. With this I feel that my choice in the matter has been taken away. And if I say no to the challenge I'll get a barrage of negative comments because of it. Luckily I haven't been nominated yet, though I have asked two people who were going to nominate me not to do so, and explained my reasons why I didn't want them to.
I don't feel this way because I hate charity or don't care about people with Motor Neurone Disease. The huge amount of money that's been raised is a brilliant thing, and I don't begrudge that for one second. I just don't think that the ends necessarily justify the means. I don't think it's just a bit of harmless fun as many people like to portray it as. There's an uncomfortable feeling of emotional blackmail to it all which makes me heavily reluctant to cough up. Charity, for me, is about volunteering my time and/or money for a cause I feel is worthy. With this, it's not about actively choosing to donate, it's about peer-pressuring friends and acquaintances into doing it, thereby removing personal choice from the matter. Personally, I don't like that as a means of raising money for a charity.
As I said, I don't mind other people doing it. And the fact that millions have been raised for a worthy cause in such a short space of time is absolutely fantastic. Moreover, I'm not a lazy sod who doesn't do his bit at all (I volunteer in a charity shop a few days a week and regularly donate to a number of local charities). I just feel that this method of donating conflicts with my personal beliefs and ethics. I hate peer-pressure and emotional blackmail with a passion. And I felt exactly the same way about NekNominate and the No Make-Up Selfie thing too, so I've got to be consistent I guess. That's my two cents anyway.
Oh bugger it, I better go ask for my money back.
I didn't actually do mine with a bucket or indeed any water.
It involves and people try and make their own challenge better and funnier than the one they were nominated on.