I no longer hold any respect for Terry Pratchett.
Mar 13, 2008 at 12:47 AM Thread Starter Post #1 of 69

Duggeh

Indeed
Joined
May 9, 2005
Posts
9,618
Likes
42
I've tidied this up from the rant I stuck on facebook (IE, made it family safe for the sensitive head-fi audience).

BBC NEWS | Health | Pratchett funds Alzheimer's study

Terry Pratchett. Terrible that he had to develop a brain disease of course, I wouldn't wish that on anyone...

So yes, tragic and all, millions of fans upset they'll get a few less books out of the chap before he either goes doo-dah or dies but today he dropped right out of my "nice chaps" group (I do enjoy Discworld books, they're easy to read and fun enough.) I usually keep one in the toilet, the loo is not a place I like to do anything in the way of difficult reading. Anyway he now belongs to the "selfish, self-interested, morally bankrupt, fools mascaraing as saints chaps" group. He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.

He has pledged half a million quid to Alzheimers research. Jolly good stuff Terry, nice of you to be so charitable about it all.

OH. WAIT.

You've just got the disease diagnosed, so really, you're a hollow, selfish man. Your charitable act is rotten on the inside. Pratchett is a selfish git.

Compare this half million in selfish donation money from Pratchett towards the disease which he finds out he has, to the £100 million that Jeremy Beadle raised during his shorter life for charities for illness. Beadle had withered hand syndrome, but his money went to leukaemia research.

When Beadle died, people made jokes. When Pratchett dies, I'll bet there'll be national mourning. It makes me feel a little sick in the back of my mouth.


Understand. Its not the money giving thats the problem. I'm happy to see millionaires giving their money to good causes, it helps do a lot more good than the pennies collected in the tubs on the end of bars, I just makes me furious that its donated in such a massively selfish way.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 2:55 AM Post #3 of 69

nick_charles

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
3,180
Likes
334
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Anyway he now belongs to the "selfish, self-interested, morally bankrupt, fools mascaraing as saints chaps" group. He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.


Does it really matter why he did it ? - it is not as if it is likely to actually help Pratchett much, he will be long dead before any "cure" is likely to emerge.

Would you prefer if the Stars who appeared in Live Aid in 1985 and raised so much moolah had thought, No I won't do it as it is a shallow attempt to cash in on human misery to boost my career and it would be hypocritical and stayed home ?

Quote:

Compare this half million in selfish donation money from Pratchett towards the disease which he finds out he has, to the £100 million that Jeremy Beadle raised during his shorter life for charities for illness. Beadle had withered hand syndrome, but his money went to leukaemia research.


That is great and I applaud him whole heartedly. I still think his TV shows were the most apalling form of shallow, embarassing and demeaning "entertainment" but what he did for good causes was fantastic. It is possible to hold conflicting ideas about people, perhaps they don't teach that at college any more
wink.gif
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 3:11 AM Post #4 of 69

vagarach

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Posts
1,562
Likes
12
Two birds with one stone? The payoff from research is knowledge and information, in an open, accessible form.

It would selfish only if he kept the resulting cure for himself. Yes, it wasn't the highest act of selflessness, but self preservation is rather intrinsic to who we are, one can't fully deride the efforts of someone trying to help their own situation, at no resulting detriment to others.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 4:03 AM Post #5 of 69

K2Grey

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 1, 2005
Posts
1,992
Likes
11
So if he didn't donate any money at all to anyone, you would have massively higher respect for him? Not sure what your indignation is about. As said before, he will probably be dead before any donation he makes results in any benefit to him, therefore it is irrelevant exactly what disease he donates to fund research for.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 5:42 AM Post #6 of 69

Tyson

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Posts
2,165
Likes
26
Duggeh, after you donate half a million quid to ANY charity then you can btch. Otherwise, ****.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 6:26 AM Post #7 of 69

dgbiker1

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Posts
835
Likes
11
Yes... I'm sorry he didn't donate that money to your HP collection.
I had a similar opinion about people donating to causes relating to them... when I was 12 years old. My father's response: "What have you done for anybody?"
Yes he might benefit from it (probably not, looks like he has one foot in the grave already), but so will many other people. Go explain to those people and their families why he shouldn't donate any money for the research.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 7:20 AM Post #8 of 69

blessingx

HeadFest '07 Graphic Designer
Supplier of fine logos! His visions of Head-Fi
Joined
Mar 27, 2003
Posts
13,179
Likes
25
Quote:

Originally Posted by Duggeh /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I've tidied this up from the rant I stuck on facebook (IE, made it family safe for the sensitive head-fi audience).

BBC NEWS | Health | Pratchett funds Alzheimer's study

Terry Pratchett. Terrible that he had to develop a brain disease of course, I wouldn't wish that on anyone...

So yes, tragic and all, millions of fans upset they'll get a few less books out of the chap before he either goes doo-dah or dies but today he dropped right out of my "nice chaps" group (I do enjoy Discworld books, they're easy to read and fun enough.) I usually keep one in the toilet, the loo is not a place I like to do anything in the way of difficult reading. Anyway he now belongs to the "selfish, self-interested, morally bankrupt, fools mascaraing as saints chaps" group. He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.

He has pledged half a million quid to Alzheimers research. Jolly good stuff Terry, nice of you to be so charitable about it all.

OH. WAIT.

You've just got the disease diagnosed, so really, you're a hollow, selfish man. Your charitable act is rotten on the inside. Pratchett is a selfish git.

Compare this half million in selfish donation money from Pratchett towards the disease which he finds out he has, to the £100 million that Jeremy Beadle raised during his shorter life for charities for illness. Beadle had withered hand syndrome, but his money went to leukaemia research.

When Beadle died, people made jokes. When Pratchett dies, I'll bet there'll be national mourning. It makes me feel a little sick in the back of my mouth.

Understand. Its not the money giving thats the problem. I'm happy to see millionaires giving their money to good causes, it helps do a lot more good than the pennies collected in the tubs on the end of bars, I just makes me furious that its donated in such a massively selfish way.



I just want to quote the post, before it's edited, 'cause I think it's very funny.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 7:41 AM Post #9 of 69

jdimitri

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
2,468
Likes
11
"It is a shock to find out that funding for Alzheimer's research is just 3% of that to find cancer cures."

Try to understand.. he can obviously relate better to something he is experiencing

People who were abused as a child donate money to stop child abuse, people who has experienced or at least saw poverty with their own eyes tend to donate to that.. etc etc

Quote:

He joins Christopher Reeve, Bob Geldof, Bono et al.


Um.. what have you done for the world?

Ps. when you break your leg and it'd cost $5k to fix, would you rather donate that money to cancer or *insert your favourite disease here*?
And in this case, you're actually helping yourself and yourself only
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 8:46 AM Post #10 of 69

saint.panda

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Posts
4,317
Likes
37
Location
Berlin
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Duggeh, after you donate half a million quid to ANY charity then you can btch. Otherwise, ****.


x2
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 9:48 AM Post #13 of 69

setmenu

Strongly opposes a DBT-free chair forum.
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
2,093
Likes
21
Well the positive element is the post does help bring to our attention the relative lack of funding this evil disease seems to get.

But on the other hand that I would be err, somewhat embarrassed to have posted the rest.



.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 10:08 AM Post #14 of 69

stewtheking

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
May 6, 2005
Posts
2,671
Likes
27
Selfish? Maybe.

BUT, he's got a currently incurable brain disease which will begin (or has already begun) to rob him of his most important faculty, his brain. So, he donates $1000000 to research to try and save himself. Yeah? So what? It's not as if his money can only and will only help himself? It's not as if he's paying for a big truckload of medicine for himself, that will take it away from anybody else with the disease.

What you are clearly finding the most objectionable is that he came out in public to show how much of a "generous soul" he was for making the donation. However, in the article itself, he makes more than 1 reference to the fact that it may well be directly helping himself, he hasn't tried to hide it. If he can use his fame to generate more research funding for Alzheimer's (which, as it's not one that gets much public press and attention is sorely under-funded, like many areas of research) then that's clearly a good thing.

The simple (and inconvenient) truth is that because Alzheimer's is usually a disease of the old. This means that any expensive drug that a drug company develops is only going to be used for a short amount of time. It therefore doesn't make economic sense to plough huge amounts of money into the research. If I'd found out that I had Alzheimers, I'd probably try and give some money to people trying to fight the thing that was killing me, and if I could do more by drawing attention to it, I bloody well would.
 
Mar 13, 2008 at 10:46 AM Post #15 of 69

goldenratiophi

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Posts
2,342
Likes
15
Hmmm, and you've donated the worth of your audio rigs to research a more worthy disease than Alzheimer's that helps absolutely no one you know or love?

Terry Pratchett probably won't see a cure while he's alive. It's probably hard to understand Alzheimer's or any major disease until you have it. Now that he does, he decided to donate and raise awareness. If somehow a cure is developed during his lifetime due to his donation would that be selfish? It would help thousands of other people just as much as it would help him.

Selfishness would have been putting 500k more down on his own personal treatment. It would only help himself and wouldn't raise any awareness. But you would have never heard about it, so Terry Pratchett would have been more respectable, right?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top