Well Done Pterry... !

"feanor1999" <feanor1999.DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:db1a2666-c654-4059-be01-56a9dc1cacd3@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Ayup All...
>
> Back again...
>
> I Just saw the segment on BBC1 main News about Pterry's fantastic half-
> a-million quid donation to Altzheimer's Disease research, and i want
> to say, GOOD ON 'YER Boy !
> Thank you from all of us that don't yet suffer, but may get something
> life changing, or saving [1] out of something discovered due to work
> funded by
> your generosity.
>
> Not many rich people able to make those kind of donations do so AND
> COME OUT AND SPEAK PUBLICLY about the issues surrounding these
> 'forgotten' underfunded diseases or conditions.
>
> Thankyou.
>
> Stu.
>
> [1] I suffered with cancer 21 years ago, when 21, and i'm afraid that
> i'm spoken for.... 33 years or so to go....


I wonder if, had he not been suffering from this affliction himself, he
would have made the donation?

Trev
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

Patrician wrote:
>
>
> "feanor1999" <feanor1999.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
<snip compliment to Pterry for donation funding Alzheimer research>
>
> I wonder if, had he not been suffering from this affliction himself, he
> would have made the donation?

That sounds rather cynical, Trev. Possibly not. Alzheimer has been
called as a forgotten disease for reasons other than irony or plays on
words. Some causes need reminders for funds to be raised, and he's had a
rather nasty reminder. How much have you donated lately? Was that
totally unprompted?

TTFN,

Reinier.
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

"Patrician" <ghj290 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote, in alt.books.pratchett:

>I wonder if, had he not been suffering from this affliction himself, he
>would have made the donation?

Possibly not. And almost certainly not publicly!

I imagine, though that he is perfectly aware that it's far from
certain that he personally will get much benefit of it. He gave his
million dollars anyway.

Baba Yaga
--
Never, ever do something /for/ them if they want to do something
themselves, like handing you a cup of tea; however awkward and
terrible, you don't do it for them.
- Helen Bamber
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

In article <iqukt3tohhms09pf7ej9tq3vml8eu76tjt DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
Baba Yaga <babayaga att phonecoop dott coop> wrote:
>"Patrician" <ghj290 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote, in alt.books.pratchett:
>
>>I wonder if, had he not been suffering from this affliction himself, he
>>would have made the donation?
>
>Possibly not. And almost certainly not publicly!
>
>I imagine, though that he is perfectly aware that it's far from
>certain that he personally will get much benefit of it. He gave his
>million dollars anyway.

He said as much in the interview.

=Tamar

>Baba Yaga
>--
>Never, ever do something /for/ them if they want to do something
>themselves, like handing you a cup of tea; however awkward and
>terrible, you don't do it for them.
> - Helen Bamber
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

"Patrician" <ghj290.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

[ BTW, your Lines: header is broken. ]

> "feanor1999" <feanor1999.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
> > I Just saw the segment on BBC1 main News about Pterry's fantastic half-
> > a-million quid donation to Altzheimer's Disease research, and i want
> > to say, GOOD ON 'YER Boy !
>
> I wonder if, had he not been suffering from this affliction himself, he
> would have made the donation?

If he hadn't suffered from it himself, he probably wouldn't even have
been aware of how underfunded Alzheimer's research is. I certainly
wasn't.

Richard
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

There's a campaign going around now to match his donation. If half a
million fans give a quid each (or a quarter of a million give two quid,
or... you do the maths), we'll have doubled the amount given.

It is, of course, called Match It For Pratchett

http://www.matchitforpratchett.org/

Let's see how quickly we can double it!

Darth Tigger
(Totally in awe of how brilliant fans can be - this all sprang up
literally overnight!)


On 2008-03-13 19:41:08 +0000, feanor1999 <feanor1999.DeleteThis@aol.com> said:

> Ayup All...
>
> Back again...
>
> I Just saw the segment on BBC1 main News about Pterry's fantastic half-
> a-million quid donation to Altzheimer's Disease research, and i want
> to say, GOOD ON 'YER Boy !
> Thank you from all of us that don't yet suffer, but may get something
> life changing, or saving [1] out of something discovered due to work
> funded by
> your generosity.
>
> Not many rich people able to make those kind of donations do so AND
> COME OUT AND SPEAK PUBLICLY about the issues surrounding these
> 'forgotten' underfunded diseases or conditions.
>
> Thankyou.
>
> Stu.
>
> [1] I suffered with cancer 21 years ago, when 21, and i'm afraid that
> i'm spoken for.... 33 years or so to go....
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

"Aleks A.-Lessmann" <XaXlXeXkXsX.TakeThisOut@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:tf2st3dkd1tc6r31jh7oo35tkbn7nsd3f1@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:41:08 -0700 (PDT), feanor1999 wrote:
>>'forgotten' underfunded diseases or conditions.
>
> I've read twice in this thread that Alzheimer research is underfunded.
> Where do you get that image?
>
> My image, from reading New Scientist, is that Alzheimer research is well
> funded, as the remedy or remedies for it will sell very well. There's a
> big cash in fro companies investing in it.
>
> The world is growing older, and different kinds of dementia are becoming
> more usual because of it. Old people in western countries tend to have
> money at the side for whatever, or their families will spend the money.
>
> And almost no week passes by without news of another tidbit scientist
> have found out about this disease or other from of elder dementia.
>
> Of course, "underfunded" is in the eye of the beholder...

I believe that the comparison is with cancer research, compared to which it
is under funded.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

Aleks A.-Lessmann wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:30:25 -0000, William Black wrote:
>> "Aleks A.-Lessmann" <XaXlXeXkXsX.DeleteThis@lessmann-consulting.com> wrote in message
>>> Of course, "underfunded" is in the eye of the beholder...
>> I believe that the comparison is with cancer research, compared to which it
>> is under funded.
>
> Ah, an "eye of the beholder thing" then.

Given that the given comparison is objective (how many funds[1] are
available to each cause) then I would argue it is not.


What /is/ arguable is whether a direct comparison is merited. e.g. For
a given efficacy of cancer prevention/cure can the same efficacy of
prevention/cure be gained for a different amount of funding? Included
within the assessment of this question might be the consideration of
whether there are orders of magnitude less sufferers of one condition
than the other and thus making it less 'important' to cure (ignoring
individual rights). Or relate it to the relative financial burdens the
two groups impact upon society if that concerns you.

Though it seems (from figures) that sufferers of each condition occupy a
non-inconsequential and not too dissimilar proportion of the population.
And one might even argue (/if/ this criteria is important to you) that
an incurable cancer patient can end up being less financially draining
upon a system than their opposite number.

Really, though, "underfunding" should be measured by how much work has
/not/ been undertaken into a field due to lack of resources, a trickier
value to calculate. But a double EotB dismissal under either assessment
would seem to be rather hasty in the absence of any decent differences
of scale that might invalidate the statement.


[1] "How many funds...?" / "How much funds...?" Depends, I suppose,
whether you treat it as an arbitrary number of quantised donations or a
fluid amount of "funds" mass. But it seems to agree best as "many"
given it meshes better with the word "funds". "How much funding?" is
probably the better way of putting it, but the issue intrigued me so
much that I could not blithely make such a change without commenting in
passing. Sorry, it's a bit AFPish, this diversion, and I really don't
want to spark off[2] an -[I]- thread on ABP.

[2] I'm currently treating the situation that /might/ affect PTerry's
book-writing capabilities /at some future point of time/ to be -[R]-,
but admit that it's sailing closer to the wind than I would like.
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... ! 

On 2008-03-20, Len Oil <lenoil.RemoveThis@lenoil.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Though it seems (from figures) that sufferers of each condition occupy a
> non-inconsequential and not too dissimilar proportion of the population.
> And one might even argue (/if/ this criteria is important to you) that
> an incurable cancer patient can end up being less financially draining
> upon a system than their opposite number.

Cancer effects young people a lot more, so you'd have to factor in the
loss of earnings or loss of value of them not surviving. It's one of
those factors in medical prioritisation, and perhaps also the "You've
got a whole life to live ahead of you", that could make you want to put
off getting old for a while.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard.Corfield.RemoveThis@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
 >> Stay informed about: Well Done Pterry... !