> That's an awful lot of money you spend on something as frivolous as 
> entertainment.  Seems to me that money would be better spent by donating 
> it (let's assume you bundle the first two lowest-cost services and spend 
> only about $55 before taxes per month) - that's $660/year you could be 
> donating to cancer research.  Better yet, why don't you go into the field 
> so you can actually do some of the research as well as donating your 
> frivolously spent money to that research?

Funny you mention that. Last Thursday I was at a meeting organized by 
the Netherlands Heart Foundation. The meeting consisted mostly of 
researchers working in cardiology and from those mostly the ones that 
were now or recently paid by the NHF. At the beginning of the meeting 
the chairman had a talk and during that talk he asked who was donating 
money. Only a minority of hands were shown. He them proceeded to scold 
those who didn't that they would gladly take the money from the 
foundation but not support it. I was rather taken aback by that. I am 
now working for more than 20 years in research in cardiology, I was only 
paid a few years by the NHF and have contributed to numerous other NHF 
projects. Why would giving €10 or €100 each year (which we do, but that 
is not the point) suddenly elevate my status from parasite to Samaritan?

Someone was at least ad rem enough to mention that for every euro he 
donates only a part will be spend on research because of overhead (like 
the chairman, but he was wise enough not to mention that). It is thus 
better to pour your money directly into your research.

Sorry to bother you, I am just still slightly angry.

Post a reply to this message