USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Nice Planet 2012
- Thread starter Old Pio
- Start date
- Status
Re: Nice Planet 2012
1. The girl deserves the trip, but at the family's expense, not MAW's. That's what I meant.
2. The dad is probably using this as warfare, as far as we know. It does not mean his given reasons are any less legitimate. The intent of the reasons are the difference.
3. So, if she ends up 100% in remission, or by miracle, cured, you'll change your stance? Given your strong will, I highly doubt it.
1. The girl deserves the trip, but at the family's expense, not MAW's. That's what I meant.
2. The dad is probably using this as warfare, as far as we know. It does not mean his given reasons are any less legitimate. The intent of the reasons are the difference.
3. So, if she ends up 100% in remission, or by miracle, cured, you'll change your stance? Given your strong will, I highly doubt it.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
She meets Make-A-Wish's criteria for getting a wish granted, not yours. If you were paying for the trip, then you'd have a say in the matter and could deny her the trip based on your criteria that she has to be at death's door before she can go. But Make-A-Wish disagrees with you, and they were going to pay for the trip.
Certainly leukemia qualifies as a "life threatening" condition although it's not the death sentence I grew up with. Make-A-Wish granted her the trip based on her history. Her prognosis is irrelevant to that decision. If she winds up cancer free for the rest of her life, that too is irrelevant.
What possible business can this matter be for the father? His deep concern for the financial well being of Make-A-Wish is transparent crapola. And I'm amazed that all of you are saying, in effect, "yes, he's an a*shole, but he's making a valid point." What on earth makes you want to give this dipstick the benefit of the doubt? His point would be valid only if his money was involved. It's not.
She meets Make-A-Wish's criteria for getting a wish granted, not yours. If you were paying for the trip, then you'd have a say in the matter and could deny her the trip based on your criteria that she has to be at death's door before she can go. But Make-A-Wish disagrees with you, and they were going to pay for the trip.
Certainly leukemia qualifies as a "life threatening" condition although it's not the death sentence I grew up with. Make-A-Wish granted her the trip based on her history. Her prognosis is irrelevant to that decision. If she winds up cancer free for the rest of her life, that too is irrelevant.
What possible business can this matter be for the father? His deep concern for the financial well being of Make-A-Wish is transparent crapola. And I'm amazed that all of you are saying, in effect, "yes, he's an a*shole, but he's making a valid point." What on earth makes you want to give this dipstick the benefit of the doubt? His point would be valid only if his money was involved. It's not.
ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
I know it's off topic, buts it's amusing that you wrote this not long after you used the "another make-a-wish administrator" line for the second time.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Maybe, just maybe, we are all wrong and what he says is what he really feels? I doubt it, but maybe he is really being charitable. Both of our stances are our opinion. Why ridicule the other because of that? Either way, the reason he states (give the wish to a kid that is terminal) IS a valid point, him being a dbag or not. You may not agree with that point, and that's fine. Just don't ridicule others with a different opinion. I can see both sides of the story, I just choose to side with the one that you don't agree with. Let's leave it at that.
Maybe, just maybe, we are all wrong and what he says is what he really feels? I doubt it, but maybe he is really being charitable. Both of our stances are our opinion. Why ridicule the other because of that? Either way, the reason he states (give the wish to a kid that is terminal) IS a valid point, him being a dbag or not. You may not agree with that point, and that's fine. Just don't ridicule others with a different opinion. I can see both sides of the story, I just choose to side with the one that you don't agree with. Let's leave it at that.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Sometimes you have to repeat things for the slow students. Sometimes you have to repeat things for the slow students.
Sometimes you have to repeat things for the slow students. Sometimes you have to repeat things for the slow students.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
This is a matter for Make-A-Wish to decide, not us. And they have. As to daddy's "sincerity," anything's possible. But I'd bet the farm he's trying to punish his ex-wife by hurting his daughter. His point is valid only if his money is involved. It isn't. Or if there was evidence another, sicker child would have been denied a trip to pay for this little girl's trip. There isn't any. In any case, this guy doesn't impress me as an altruist.
The question of whether Make-A-Wish should restrict wish fullfilment only to those kids who are terminal is a separate matter from whether this particular child should get a trip. Make-A-Wish has decided what to do in this case based on their criteria. Yet you all are lined up defending this prik father, anxious to impose your standards on this charity.
This is a matter for Make-A-Wish to decide, not us. And they have. As to daddy's "sincerity," anything's possible. But I'd bet the farm he's trying to punish his ex-wife by hurting his daughter. His point is valid only if his money is involved. It isn't. Or if there was evidence another, sicker child would have been denied a trip to pay for this little girl's trip. There isn't any. In any case, this guy doesn't impress me as an altruist.
The question of whether Make-A-Wish should restrict wish fullfilment only to those kids who are terminal is a separate matter from whether this particular child should get a trip. Make-A-Wish has decided what to do in this case based on their criteria. Yet you all are lined up defending this prik father, anxious to impose your standards on this charity.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Close, but not really. If the MAW's requirements include the parents' signatures, then this case is closed (which it is). You say "follow their requirements." Well, they are.
I'm not defending the father's supposed reasoning behind his statements. I'm just supporting his statement, which I think is a just one. His methods may be wrong, but his madness is correct.
Close, but not really. If the MAW's requirements include the parents' signatures, then this case is closed (which it is). You say "follow their requirements." Well, they are.
I'm not defending the father's supposed reasoning behind his statements. I'm just supporting his statement, which I think is a just one. His methods may be wrong, but his madness is correct.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Oh, come on, signing a permission slip for her to go on the trip, as our parents had to do for our field trips, is hardly germane here. The criteria by which a wish is fulfilled are unrelated to the legalities of taking a minor child on an out of state trip. The fact that this father is a putz who won't sign, hardly justifies or explains your desire to force Make-A-Wish do things your way.
Close, but not really. If the MAW's requirements include the parents' signatures, then this case is closed (which it is). You say "follow their requirements." Well, they are.
I'm not defending the father's supposed reasoning behind his statements. I'm just supporting his statement, which I think is a just one. His methods may be wrong, but his madness is correct.
Oh, come on, signing a permission slip for her to go on the trip, as our parents had to do for our field trips, is hardly germane here. The criteria by which a wish is fulfilled are unrelated to the legalities of taking a minor child on an out of state trip. The fact that this father is a putz who won't sign, hardly justifies or explains your desire to force Make-A-Wish do things your way.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Hm. Forcing them. I am hardly forcing them to do anything. If I wrote a letter, made a phone call, or even *gasp* visited in person, I'd be told, "Thank you for your concern. We'll take it into account." I'm just asking to look at it neutrally. And don't ridicule those who don't see it your way, in this particular instance.
You know I have no personal or general beef with you. And with this issue, I still don't. I'm just asking for you to understand the opposing side's view. You may still disagree, but at least respect the others' opinions.
Hm. Forcing them. I am hardly forcing them to do anything. If I wrote a letter, made a phone call, or even *gasp* visited in person, I'd be told, "Thank you for your concern. We'll take it into account." I'm just asking to look at it neutrally. And don't ridicule those who don't see it your way, in this particular instance.
You know I have no personal or general beef with you. And with this issue, I still don't. I'm just asking for you to understand the opposing side's view. You may still disagree, but at least respect the others' opinions.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Yet somehow you're not prepared to respect the opinion of Make-A-Wish as to who qualifies for wish fulfillment. You mean to suggest you don't care if Make-A-Wish alters its criteria? And wouldn't force them to stop fulfilling wishes for kids who aren't terminal if you could? Then what are we arguing about?
Hm. Forcing them. I am hardly forcing them to do anything. If I wrote a letter, made a phone call, or even *gasp* visited in person, I'd be told, "Thank you for your concern. We'll take it into account." I'm just asking to look at it neutrally. And don't ridicule those who don't see it your way, in this particular instance.
You know I have no personal or general beef with you. And with this issue, I still don't. I'm just asking for you to understand the opposing side's view. You may still disagree, but at least respect the others' opinions.
Yet somehow you're not prepared to respect the opinion of Make-A-Wish as to who qualifies for wish fulfillment. You mean to suggest you don't care if Make-A-Wish alters its criteria? And wouldn't force them to stop fulfilling wishes for kids who aren't terminal if you could? Then what are we arguing about?
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
1. You said, "follow MAW's requirements."
2. MAW requires parental sigs.
3. One parent didn't sign off.
4. You cry foul.
5. See #2.
1. You said, "follow MAW's requirements."
2. MAW requires parental sigs.
3. One parent didn't sign off.
4. You cry foul.
5. See #2.
Beer Pong Horn
soldier of fortune
Re: Nice Planet 2012
I feel creepy for saying this, but I agree with Old Pio.
-The "one more wish to a dying kid"? MAW just got donations covering her wish and ten more, because of this case's negative publicity. Now the father can go back and sign without fear of costing someone else a wish. If he's feeling guilty (as he should, almost certainly) he should advocate for donations as well, and her mother and grandmother will undoubtedly do the same.
-If she HAD gone in the first place, and continues getting better (hopefully!), she'd be a long-lasting advocate for MAW, and bring in more than enough donations to cover her trip. If she had taken the trip and takes a turn for the worse (hopefully not!) she and her family would still be advocates and poster children for why the foundation exists.
-Even if the fund wasn't replenished one cent after her wish, it still fulfilled its purpose: giving children with life-threatening diseases a reason to have joy in their lives. Maybe that even means giving them just a bit more willpower to overcome illness - I don't think anyone can deny that Make-A-Wish would love for all of its recipients to have that outcome.
-Finally, even if we take him at his word that he feels a wish should be reserved for someone dying, I question how a father could knowingly deny joy to his daughter after she'd been through hell. Even if he felt dirty "denying a wish to someone else" (and that's a crap reason, since donations and grants can cover the shortfall) his feelings are irrelevant, because his love for her should trump his reluctance at taking someone else's money to help her.
I feel creepy for saying this, but I agree with Old Pio.
-The "one more wish to a dying kid"? MAW just got donations covering her wish and ten more, because of this case's negative publicity. Now the father can go back and sign without fear of costing someone else a wish. If he's feeling guilty (as he should, almost certainly) he should advocate for donations as well, and her mother and grandmother will undoubtedly do the same.
-If she HAD gone in the first place, and continues getting better (hopefully!), she'd be a long-lasting advocate for MAW, and bring in more than enough donations to cover her trip. If she had taken the trip and takes a turn for the worse (hopefully not!) she and her family would still be advocates and poster children for why the foundation exists.
-Even if the fund wasn't replenished one cent after her wish, it still fulfilled its purpose: giving children with life-threatening diseases a reason to have joy in their lives. Maybe that even means giving them just a bit more willpower to overcome illness - I don't think anyone can deny that Make-A-Wish would love for all of its recipients to have that outcome.
-Finally, even if we take him at his word that he feels a wish should be reserved for someone dying, I question how a father could knowingly deny joy to his daughter after she'd been through hell. Even if he felt dirty "denying a wish to someone else" (and that's a crap reason, since donations and grants can cover the shortfall) his feelings are irrelevant, because his love for her should trump his reluctance at taking someone else's money to help her.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Make-A-Wish isn't responsible for the law, just for the criteria they apply to the awarding of wishes. Go ahead, if it makes you feel better, and equate this selfish oafish father with the good work of the foundation. That doesn't make it so.
Just for the record, I haven't used the word "requirements," I've used the word "criteria." There's undoubtedly a legal requirement that a charity planning to take a minor child out of state on a trip must get parental permission before they go. And that certain details of the trip be explained to the parents. That's not the same as the criteria by which the trip was awarded. A decision which is entirely up to the charity.
Make-A-Wish isn't responsible for the law, just for the criteria they apply to the awarding of wishes. Go ahead, if it makes you feel better, and equate this selfish oafish father with the good work of the foundation. That doesn't make it so.
Just for the record, I haven't used the word "requirements," I've used the word "criteria." There's undoubtedly a legal requirement that a charity planning to take a minor child out of state on a trip must get parental permission before they go. And that certain details of the trip be explained to the parents. That's not the same as the criteria by which the trip was awarded. A decision which is entirely up to the charity.
Last edited:
Re: Nice Planet 2012
Your last point is especially profound. Given what the little girl has been through, what parent would deny her the trip? Under any circumstances? For any reason? Especially since her parents don't seem to have the means to pay for the trip themselves.
Your last point is especially profound. Given what the little girl has been through, what parent would deny her the trip? Under any circumstances? For any reason? Especially since her parents don't seem to have the means to pay for the trip themselves.
Re: Nice Planet 2012
What's really scary is the photo in the article is the "after" shot. She's definitely got a face for radio. Short wave radio. Radio like the old WWII movies with the guy cranking the handles of the generator between his legs.
What's really scary is the photo in the article is the "after" shot. She's definitely got a face for radio. Short wave radio. Radio like the old WWII movies with the guy cranking the handles of the generator between his legs.
Last edited:
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Nice Planet 2012
It occurred to me this morning what my principal objection is to those who evidently think they know better how Make-A-Wish should manage its affairs. The foundation claims to have granted over 220,000 wishes, BTW, and it stands to reason during that time they've considered the question of "life threatening" versus "terminal." This little girl can't be the first and surely won't be the last provided a trip who isn't "terminal."
What's wrong is those agreeing with the little girl's father are advocating changing the rules in the middle of the game. Applying retroactively a new policy for the awarding of trips. After the little girl and her mom had been informed, presumably in person, by the nice people from Make-A-Wish. That's not only not fair, it's wrong. If Make-A-Wish at some point wants to make a change, they should do so going forward. But once they've told a child that she's going to Disney World, how can anyone justify taking it back? Especially her father.
It occurred to me this morning what my principal objection is to those who evidently think they know better how Make-A-Wish should manage its affairs. The foundation claims to have granted over 220,000 wishes, BTW, and it stands to reason during that time they've considered the question of "life threatening" versus "terminal." This little girl can't be the first and surely won't be the last provided a trip who isn't "terminal."
What's wrong is those agreeing with the little girl's father are advocating changing the rules in the middle of the game. Applying retroactively a new policy for the awarding of trips. After the little girl and her mom had been informed, presumably in person, by the nice people from Make-A-Wish. That's not only not fair, it's wrong. If Make-A-Wish at some point wants to make a change, they should do so going forward. But once they've told a child that she's going to Disney World, how can anyone justify taking it back? Especially her father.
Last edited:
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Nice Planet 2012
So, the Bill of Rights must have had a footnote in the section that guarantees due process to citizens of the United States. Gotcha. I'll be more observant next time.
So, the Bill of Rights must have had a footnote in the section that guarantees due process to citizens of the United States. Gotcha. I'll be more observant next time.
- Status