September 24, 2002
4:35 PM   Subscribe

Farkers requested that this be spread to all communities on the web. It is absolutely Snopes approved.
posted by oflinkey (64 comments total)
 
oh good grief.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:47 PM on September 24, 2002


Please donate! He has to get better so Keanu doesn't play him in the next Superman movie.
posted by oissubke at 4:51 PM on September 24, 2002


Sheesh, I would do it for the donation but they want so much personal information. No thanks.
posted by rotifer at 4:59 PM on September 24, 2002


from snopes:
For the ultra-cynical, we point out that you can always lie to the computer; it won't know the difference.
posted by Fstop at 5:01 PM on September 24, 2002


Donkeyschlong: No, no, Superman. Not Charlie Brown.
posted by oflinkey at 5:06 PM on September 24, 2002


"For the ultra-cynical, we point out that you can always lie to the computer; it won't know the difference."

I know, I told it I was Jeff Streifling and it didn't bat an eye.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:07 PM on September 24, 2002


Oh yes! He's selflessly turned a sports injury into a successful campaign advocating for others all by himself!

Go Chris Go </Away>
posted by DBAPaul at 5:10 PM on September 24, 2002


I don't get it. Why does the anonymous donor give a hoot how many cards this guy gets??

Unless he gets to keep all the email addys for his spam operation?

And would all these cards crash Superman's computer?
posted by konolia at 5:12 PM on September 24, 2002


Sorry-that was a stupid post-I tried to delete it but I have a cold and I didn't move quickly enough.
posted by konolia at 5:13 PM on September 24, 2002


While i'm glad this seems legit, it is going to make future scams like this harder to identify (well, that Chris Reeves thing was real...)

Either way, i'm willing to send Superman a birthday card, even if i have to be ultra-cynical about the information i provide them.
posted by quin at 5:14 PM on September 24, 2002


little timmy was born without nostrils.
posted by quonsar at 5:26 PM on September 24, 2002


Isn't this how Craig Shergold got started?
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:33 PM on September 24, 2002


[quoth]
as far as i am concerned, all the cynics can go to hell.
[/unquoth]
posted by Catch at 5:49 PM on September 24, 2002


Rotifer: For god's sake people just put Joe Blow 123 Main Street if you are scared to death that the Reeves Foundation might send you something. Sheeesh.

Konolia: These are common type promotions, such as "for every Yoplait lid we receive, we donate $1" or "McDonalds will donate $.50 for each order of fries bought on X day to Jerry's Kids".

DBApaul: Yes, I'm sure the entire thing has been a ruse from the beginning so he can entire the public eye again, except this time in a wheelchair with a diaper. WTF does it matter HOW he is raising awareness (and money) as long as he is? Damn that crippled guy for trying to raise awareness and funds for other crippled people! Damn him! Jesus dude what are you on?

Where have you guys been that this seems so strange and foreign? Also please stop looking for the boogey man behind every door.

Happy Birthday Chris!
posted by Ynoxas at 5:54 PM on September 24, 2002


These are common type promotions, such as "for every Yoplait lid we receive, we donate $1" or "McDonalds will donate $.50 for each order of fries bought on X day to Jerry's Kids".

Those are different, those are basically saying "we will give x% of our sales to charity" McDonald's and Yoplait benefit monetarily from those promotions. There seems to be no benefit to the people doing this charity. They have, for some reason, chosen a format that usually does benefit the "donor" so, I think, it's not too strange that people question whether they are benefitting in some unseen way.
posted by rhyax at 6:18 PM on September 24, 2002


I'm not sure you need to question the benefit to the donor of choosing this method. It's more interesting and newsworthy than simply making a lump sum donation. It brings more publicity to the charity than silently cutting them a cheque. And charities need publicity too.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 6:27 PM on September 24, 2002


Or just leave the word "anonymous" in the address fields. If the donor can be anonymous so we too.
posted by stbalbach at 6:36 PM on September 24, 2002


This is all good and well. Let's not forget that this is a wealthy celebrity with the means to afford a five-figure wheelchair and all the health care that money can buy. Has anyone considered that the remedies that might result from the actions of this, or other fundraisers, will simply benefit those who are well endowed to begin with. Or am I naivete to think that billions in research will somehow "trickle down" to the poorest among us who have spinal injuries, and the like. Seems like the typical situation in which we ignore the most basic of needs of ordinary people while paying attention to high profile cases. Yeah, bad things happen to good people, but let's get the priorities straight.
posted by acridrabbit at 6:40 PM on September 24, 2002


The paranoia in this thread reminds me of those displayed by the stereotypical computer-geek, living-in-his-mother's-basement guy who inhabits popular television shows. You know, the ones everyone laughs at, even if they're occasionally right.

Personally, I'll chance the occasional piece of spam (audible gasps, boos, and hisses from the jeering MeFi crowd) if I can help out with thirty seconds of my time. Thirty seconds!

Thanks for the link, regardless of the ill-advised jaunt I ended up making through cynic central.
posted by The God Complex at 6:48 PM on September 24, 2002


acidrabbit, last time I checked, he was trying to get a go-ahead for stem cell reasearch that, if successful, could be used to treat thousands upon thousands of disabled people around the world. Whether or not it's available to everyone is a question of your health-care system (I live in Canada, to be clear), not of his intent.
posted by The God Complex at 6:49 PM on September 24, 2002


That picture of him with his wife in the upper right hand corner is so Howdy Doody. I wonder if her lips move when he talks.

Could this be reminiscent of Jim Brady and how it takes a bullet to the brain to turn a perfectly good conservative into a gun control nut?
posted by paleocon at 6:59 PM on September 24, 2002


Yeah, and what's up with that March of Dimes bullshit, huh? Why make people get all sweaty for the money? Why not hit people up for checks? And all those breast cancer walks can't be legit, can they? After all, they have corporate sponsors. What's their motivation?

Some of you paranoid twits could fuck up a wet dream.
posted by Optamystic at 7:00 PM on September 24, 2002


acridrabbit writes: Seems like the typical situation in which we ignore the most basic of needs of ordinary people while paying attention to high profile cases. Yeah, bad things happen to good people, but let's get the priorities straight.

Hear hear! No way am I going to send a free anonymous e-mail to a celebrity so that spinal research can get an extra $1. Just post all the links you have that would allow me to send free anonymous e-mails to unknown people so that spinal research can get an extra $1.
posted by Joey Michaels at 7:02 PM on September 24, 2002


Some press releases from the CRPF website:

Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation Awards $257,500 to 27 Nonprofit Organizations (August 12, 2002)
The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation (CRPF) announced today that it has awarded $257,500 in Health Promotion grants as part of its Spring 2002 funding cycle of the Quality of Life program.

Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation Awards $363,212 to 50 Nonprofits (August 8, 2002)
The Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation (CRPF) announced today that it has awarded $363,212 in Quality of Life grants as part of its Spring 2002 funding cycle of the Quality of Life program.

Millions of Americans Impacted by Paralysis Gain Vital New Resource Center (March 4, 2002)
Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Resource Center Will Launch With $2 Million Federal Grant To Assist Americans Living With Paralysis


None of these grants and donations are specifically for the "well endowed," acridrabbit. I don't think you are naivete, just a little cynicalicious.
posted by whatnot at 7:06 PM on September 24, 2002


Jeez. It's not like it's asking for you to be paralyzed. I did it before I read all these nasty comments; it took one minute, and if it's not legit, then who the hell cares? If it turns out that it's bogus, then I for one will be proud to say I fell for a scam on the off-chance that I could do some good.
posted by hoborg at 7:06 PM on September 24, 2002


reasearch

WHAT
THE
FUCK
ME?

*sigh*small>
posted by The God Complex at 7:09 PM on September 24, 2002


And again. I'm going to go shoot myself in the head now.

/me.
posted by The God Complex at 7:09 PM on September 24, 2002


The God Complex - put the keyboard down, if you have a beer, drink it. Relax and stay calm everything will be allright.
posted by stbalbach at 7:12 PM on September 24, 2002


"That picture of him with his wife in the upper right hand corner is so Howdy Doody. I wonder if her lips move when he talks."

And it's funny how a week ago everyone was up in arms about a post that asked whether we could joke about Sept. 11, but no one seems concerned about making fun of a paralyzed man. Look, he's a guy, just like any of us, and there's lots to make fun of him for - hell, I think he was downright awful in Superman IV. But to make fun of him for his disability. Wow.
posted by risenc at 7:12 PM on September 24, 2002


I wonder if her lips move when he talks.

Paleocon, you're an unbelievable prick. Please stay away from the Midwest MeFi events. You're one of the few people here I never want to meet.

Now, moving on to more something more constructive (I hope), this is a brilliant fund-raising idea because it brings hundreds of thousands of new people -- potential donors every one -- to the Reeves site. Notice the big, happy "donate" button. See the opportunities to sign up for e-mails, so they can"stay in touch" with you. Now imagine a wealthy donor: I can just cut a $1 million check to the Reeves foundation. Or, I can do it in such a way that 1 million people must come to the site. Say 1% of them eventually give $50. Wow. Now we got $1.5 million. Cool...
posted by spotmeter at 7:15 PM on September 24, 2002


welp. this thread pretty much explains why i continue to get moronic forwards about shit like this from, well, morons.
posted by quonsar at 7:52 PM on September 24, 2002


email harvest. Let the ignorant saps get taken.
posted by Jeremy at 7:56 PM on September 24, 2002


Some of the comments in this thread are rather disheartening. I thought that Mefi would have a positive reaction to this. Ultimately it's something - a small thing - I can do to help. Why the hell not? As The God Complex said above, I'll gladly risk one more spam if this turns out to be legitimate.
posted by aclevername at 8:00 PM on September 24, 2002


I am amazed at the cynicism on display here. Holy fucking shit! You give your name and the garbage hotmail account all of you have for just this type of thing and MAYBE help a brother out. Considering we just had a thread linking how upset Reeve is with government funding being cut I thought there would be more sympathy here. What a bunch of losers you are, characterizing others as morons and ignorant saps for doing the eensy weensy littlest thing for charity. I'm outta here.
posted by McBain at 8:02 PM on September 24, 2002


You soapboxing cynics makes me sick. I'm usually the one making "gimp jokes", and you all make me want to wretch.

I have a sick sense of humour, but even I'm willing to take a chance that this is legit.

I hope you all wake-up paralyzed, with no one to wipe your ass when you have to take a shit. Do the world a favour, and end yourselves.

Oh, and save the oh-so witty and verbose replies, I'm through with this thread -- your words will fall on blind eyes. I've seen all I need to see.
posted by Dark Messiah at 8:11 PM on September 24, 2002


Email harvest or not, I think it's inexcusable how jaded and mean people have been acting in this thread. I saw the link when it was first posted, and shrugged, thinking to myself "man, this is going to be ugly". This got so much more ugly than I ever thought possible. Jeez, people, it's not like this is asking for money to go to Christopher Reeve himself, it's for research into spinal injuries.

quonsar, why don't you and acidrabbit and Paleocon and Jeremy go read some Ayn Rand together, and leave people who still contain the capacity for empathy alone? You can still feel superior and jaded and cynical, just do it away from me. None of you are 'naivete', you're just jerks.
posted by GriffX at 8:16 PM on September 24, 2002


I think spotmeter's got it nailed. It's a consciousness and money raising deal. Chris Reeves has the money to get the extreme treatments, and the will to persist in the pursuit of regaining function, through what must be endless, tedious and experimental sessions of therapy. The wonder of the human spirit constantly amazes. And what is found out working on him, I am sure will help others as well. I wish him well. But yeah, I hate when sites want all that personal info. There must be some freeware ap out there that generates random b.s. into the forms at a touch of the button. Or at least there should be.
posted by gametone at 8:17 PM on September 24, 2002


First name: George W.
Last name: Bush
Address 1 : Oval Office
Address 2: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
City : Washington
State : District of Columbia
Zip: 20050
email : president@whitehouse.gov

Message: For all you do, this one's for you.

10 Addresses : vice_president@whitehouse.gov, John_McCain@McCain.senate.gov, senator_lugar@lugar.senate.gov, senatorlott@lott.senate.gov, arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov, senator_thompson@thompson.senate.gov, Phil_Gramm@gramm.senate.gov, senator_warner@exchange.senate.gov, senator_allen@exchange.senate.gov, webmail@clinton-iq.senate.gov

posted by crunchland at 8:20 PM on September 24, 2002


oh hell griffx, who has time for ayn rand when there's photoshop?
posted by quonsar at 8:27 PM on September 24, 2002


Thanks crunchland, great idea. I tried anonymous@anonymous.com and was told that I had already sent a card. We know our politicians don't read their e-mails anyway, another spam or two shouldn't bother them.
posted by gametone at 8:29 PM on September 24, 2002


I figured, if nothing else, Ol' Dubya will have done one good thing while in office.
posted by crunchland at 8:32 PM on September 24, 2002


"I tried anonymous@anonymous.com and was told that I had already sent a card."

That means crunchland was the first to try the "president@whitehouse.gov" address? Thatta way, crunchland! You rock! I mean, uh, you rock, Dubya!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:34 PM on September 24, 2002


Let's not forget that this is a wealthy celebrity with the means to afford a five-figure wheelchair and all the health care that money can buy.

Is he really a wealthy celebrity? Or has his wealth been sucked dry by the medical costs?

I rather suspect the latter.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:37 PM on September 24, 2002


It may be legit, it may be well intended, but why take a sheep in wolf's clothing approach?

Just the fact that someone had to check it out on snopes speaks volumes. "No, guys, this one is legit, tell everyone you know" is the same ruse every ripoff con artist uses - why intentionally choose a mechanism that imitates a well-known type of fraud? Why add to the noise?

I don't dispute the cause itself or the value of the cause, just the methodology. For this or any other charity I choose to contribute to, I'd much rather dig in my own pocket and send a few bucks via PayPal or snail mail.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:46 PM on September 24, 2002


Well. Sorry for disturbing everyone's wa.
posted by oflinkey at 8:48 PM on September 24, 2002


to hell with it, waste someone else's dime (dollar) and use one of your 85 hotmail accounts and an alias. worst case, some research scientists get free coffee.
posted by skatz at 9:03 PM on September 24, 2002


oflinkey, just to clarify, my comment was not aimed at you or the cause, but at the methodology of the fundraising. As you see by this thread, you've raised consciousness and inspired a lot of people to take action.

I'm not sure there are any topics that can be broached in Mefi without some opposing views surfacing. Maybe kitties, I dunno.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:14 PM on September 24, 2002


Thanks for posting the link, oflinkey. It's an easy, virtually effort-free way to do something good, which doesn't happen all that often.

The fact that the site checks for duplicate e-mail addresses makes me think that that might be the purpose of asking for your address, rather than an e-mail harvesting scheme. But, as others have said, if you're still paranoid, just use your damn backup spam-harvesting account. That's what yahoo.com and hotmail.com addresses are for.
posted by UKnowForKids at 9:17 PM on September 24, 2002


for the record, in case it's not clear to anyone: it looks very much like you don't even need to have a junk email account to spoof this.

all it does is check whether the email address you give it has already been used.

whether some secondary vetting takes place before the donation is actually made is not totally clear, but certainly nothing more is done by the web form.
posted by juv3nal at 9:22 PM on September 24, 2002


I think people need to calm down, on both sides. If some people want to send a card and probably get a dollar donated that's fine. If other people don't, that is also fine. People have different values, some people value their privacy more than $1 to a reputable charity. Other people value helping others above much else. Others weigh the cost of privacy with the benefit of helping. For others, the moral cost of making up a false identity may enter into it. People are different, there is no reason to resort to name-calling.

If getting the most money is the goal for this charity then perhaps a format more designed for the different views its patrons may bring would work better, and create less tension.
posted by rhyax at 9:27 PM on September 24, 2002


What I want to know is, why is there all this rabid, righteous anti-humor ranting? Sure, off color jokes about handicapped folks are tasteless, but they're funny, goddammit.

And god forbid people be cynical about a presumably-well-meaning but nonetheless really-poorly-packaged meme capitalizing on the fame and tragedy of a major celebrity. Remember Nazis? Those guys, with the killing and the Hitler and all? Yeah. Cynicism starts to look like not such a big fucking deal, suddenly.
posted by cortex at 9:33 PM on September 24, 2002


People have different values, some people value their privacy more than $1 to a reputable charity. Other people value helping others above much else.

Yes, very true. But I have a problem when the people who value their privacy more start getting all holier than thou towards the people who don't really give a shit and are willing to send junk hotmail address for a good cause. Is the name calling really necessary? I just thought that was pretty much a shining example of assholery.
posted by McBain at 9:41 PM on September 24, 2002


^
was that intentional?

oops, someone slipped one in there....
posted by imaswinger at 9:46 PM on September 24, 2002


What I want to know is, why is there all this rabid, righteous anti-humor ranting? Sure, off color jokes about handicapped folks are tasteless, but they're funny, goddammit.

They are? I don't know; maybe to you. Maybe to some people. But lots of people - myself included - don't find them that funny. And that's cool; we'll split the difference and chalk it up to breeding, or high school, or something. But good communities are built on basic levels of empathy - just because you think something is funny, if you know it's going to hurt someone, you shouldn't say it. That doesn't mean you can't think it's funny. You just need to keep it to yourself. Because really, what's the point, other than making people feel bad, getting a frisson from doing something controversial, and generally lowering the quality of life for everyone else?
posted by risenc at 10:17 PM on September 24, 2002


In other news: Reeve blasts Bush and Catholics over their opposition to stem cell research. The man is fighting the good fight, I hope this works out well for his charity.
posted by skallas at 10:38 PM on September 24, 2002


The point is that, at a certain point, you need to either (1) accept and tolerate and abide humor that you don't find funny, or (2) accept the complete and utter rejection of humor. I know you said "that's cool, we'll split the difference," but you also said, "you just need to keep it to yourself." Having, eating.

Concievably, Christopher Reeves could find the Howdy Doody comment hilarious, neh? Laughter, medicine, all that. That whole duality, empathy/absurdity, is the key to humor, and is why we need humor. "We'll look back on this an laugh," they say, and they say it for a reason.

For the record, I do agree with you in general; the notion of not willfully hurting others, even with so benign a weapon as a tasteless joke, is a good one. But the righteous anti-humor stance many people have taken in this thread has emphasized, IMHO, the need for a counter-argument. (Arguably, one considerably more eloquent than mine.)
posted by cortex at 10:40 PM on September 24, 2002


Paleocon, you're an unbelievable prick. Please stay away from the Midwest MeFi events. You're one of the few people here I never want to meet.

spotmeter, you're no bed of roses.
posted by donkeyschlong at 1:51 AM on September 25, 2002


Hotmail is good for one thing at least.. Aside from that, I've never really cared who has my personal info. I'm odd like that.

I've been visiting the Hunger Site for a while now, verified here for all the untrustworthy ones out there :)

I also tend to donate to charity via the £2-£5 a month type thing - odd how that seems easier than paying a lump sum of £24-£60, isn't it?
posted by Mossy at 3:56 AM on September 25, 2002


What a trainwreck.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:23 AM on September 25, 2002


I wonder if www.savechristopherreeve.com has been taken?
posted by bondcliff at 6:24 AM on September 25, 2002


rhyax: I agree completely. If you decide to do it, fine. If not, also fine.
I can't speak for a lot of people, but I particularly resent the implication by Jeremy that I am an "ignorant sap". This sort of namecalling is what this thread has blossomed into. It's okay to post your opinion on whether or not this whole concept is valid; go ahead and flame the idea, but start calling people who are trying to do something nice (and admittedly easy) ignorant saps is, to be blunt, trolling.
The original post was to see if we would help someone. It wasn't to see which of your fellow MeFi-ers were saps or tightwad skeptics. I also don't really care if my name gets put on a list somewhere. I throw out enough mail as it is...
posted by hoborg at 9:08 AM on September 25, 2002


Dear Joey,

Thank you so much for taking the time to send an electronic card for my 50th birthday! Your support means the world because it demonstrates your concern for me and millions of other people affected by spinal cord injury and other disabling conditions.

As you read, an anonymous donor has pledged to donate $1 to the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation (CRPF) for every card sent, and this will significantly impact our cutting-edge spinal cord research and quality of life programs. I hope that you will stay informed about our progress and help spread the word about CRPF.

With warmth and gratitude,

Christopher Reeve
(dictated, not signed)

posted by Joey Michaels at 11:06 AM on September 25, 2002


I think people need to calm down, on both sides.
all of the cynics look quite calm to me. i haven't read a single post by an upset cynic. where are you seeing the cynical view expressed by anybody other than a calm cynic? hello! ranting cynics! are you there?
posted by quonsar at 11:39 AM on September 25, 2002


they're exploding on the inside.
posted by crunchland at 11:46 AM on September 25, 2002


« Older Keanu = Krypotonite?   |   Gore: Saddam must go Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments