| |
Main
Date: 21 Feb 2007 11:04:59
From:
Subject: Voodoo math from Pitts and Hibbard
|
According to the latest figures from Golf Digest, Tiger Woods earned
$90 million from all sources last year, while Phil Mickelson earned
$47 million. Pitts and Hibbard have gone out of their way to call
Phil a "saint" or an "angel," because he is paying about $25K a year
to help Conrad Dobler's kid go to college (meanwhile praising Bush for
cutting student loans to millions of truly underprivileged kids). If
they were st (LOL), they would have noted that Phil also has
pledged $100 for every birdie he makes, and $500 for every eagle, to
military charities. If he had done that for all of last year, it
would come to about $35K.
You don't have to be REAL st to know this, since the shy, modest,
humble Mickelson has a web page devoted to it on his website
http://www.philmickelson.com/links/charities.php
So that's about $60K for the year. Good for him. He is under no
obligation to give anything, and he deserves to be commended.
But it's not enough for Pitts to give Mickelson an attaboy, he has to
trash Tiger at the same time. He says 'I can only imagine how the
sycophants in the media and the star-struck hero-worshipers in this
group would be doing back flips if Tiger made such a generous
commitment from his own pocket. Never happen with Tiger.' That was in
his first post on the subject, not in response to anything.
So it was uncalled for, but maybe he's right. Tiger made a bit less
than twice as much as Phil, so he should be donating around $120K to
escape the wrath of Mr. Charity, Ken Pitts.
So what does Pitts say when it's pointed out to him that Tiger
actually donated his entire $1.35 million check from the Target
Challenge? Did he say 'Well, I stand corrected, good for Tiger'?
That's what he should have said, but not Our Boy. He said, Bah, he
probably got more than that from Target. Hibbard chimes in with 'a
million is pocket change to Tiger.' There are strong rumors that
Tiger also donated a hefty chunk of his Dubai appearance fee to
charity, but since he didn't put it on a web page like Phil, we don't
know. We do know that his foundation, which he has donated much more
than his Target winnings in cash alone, plus hundreds of hours of his
time in planning and appearances (he gets well over $100K for
corporate appearances, and is getting $25 million to plan a course in
Dubai), is helping thousands of kids with their educations, not just
one.
So heres the bottom line in Pitts-Hibbard voodoo math.
Donate $60K out of $48 million, and you're a saint or an angel.
Donate at least 20 times as much, and more likely 50 times as much,
out of $90 million, and you're niggardly.
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 14:57:56
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Voodoo math from Pitts and Hibbard
|
<a2mgoog@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1172084699.238895.319260@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> According to the latest figures from Golf Digest, Tiger Woods earned
> $90 million from all sources last year, while Phil Mickelson earned
> $47 million. Pitts and Hibbard have gone out of their way to call
> Phil a "saint" or an "angel," because he is paying about $25K a year
> to help Conrad Dobler's kid go to college (meanwhile praising Bush for
> cutting student loans to millions of truly underprivileged kids). If
> they were st (LOL), they would have noted that Phil also has
> pledged $100 for every birdie he makes, and $500 for every eagle, to
> military charities. If he had done that for all of last year, it
> would come to about $35K.
>
> You don't have to be REAL st to know this, since the shy, modest,
> humble Mickelson has a web page devoted to it on his website
> http://www.philmickelson.com/links/charities.php
>
> So that's about $60K for the year. Good for him. He is under no
> obligation to give anything, and he deserves to be commended.
>
> But it's not enough for Pitts to give Mickelson an attaboy, he has to
> trash Tiger at the same time. He says 'I can only imagine how the
> sycophants in the media and the star-struck hero-worshipers in this
> group would be doing back flips if Tiger made such a generous
> commitment from his own pocket. Never happen with Tiger.' That was in
> his first post on the subject, not in response to anything.
>
> So it was uncalled for, but maybe he's right. Tiger made a bit less
> than twice as much as Phil, so he should be donating around $120K to
> escape the wrath of Mr. Charity, Ken Pitts.
>
> So what does Pitts say when it's pointed out to him that Tiger
> actually donated his entire $1.35 million check from the Target
> Challenge? Did he say 'Well, I stand corrected, good for Tiger'?
> That's what he should have said, but not Our Boy. He said, Bah, he
> probably got more than that from Target. Hibbard chimes in with 'a
> million is pocket change to Tiger.' There are strong rumors that
> Tiger also donated a hefty chunk of his Dubai appearance fee to
> charity, but since he didn't put it on a web page like Phil, we don't
> know. We do know that his foundation, which he has donated much more
> than his Target winnings in cash alone, plus hundreds of hours of his
> time in planning and appearances (he gets well over $100K for
> corporate appearances, and is getting $25 million to plan a course in
> Dubai), is helping thousands of kids with their educations, not just
> one.
>
> So heres the bottom line in Pitts-Hibbard voodoo math.
>
> Donate $60K out of $48 million, and you're a saint or an angel.
>
> Donate at least 20 times as much, and more likely 50 times as much,
> out of $90 million, and you're niggardly.
>
I never made any statement about PM except to say that for TW, $1MM is chump
change, that I don't like TW, and that silent giving is better than the
alternative.
I share no adulation for PM either, especially with his imprudent play.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 13:23:35
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Voodoo math from Pitts and Hibbard
|
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:57:56 -0500, "George Hibbard"
<gh@perfectimpact.com > wrote:
>I never made any statement about PM except to say that for TW, $1MM is chump
>change, that I don't like TW, and that silent giving is better than the
>alternative.
I question whether silent giving is better - and I note that we have
absolutely no idea how much silent antonymous giving anybody does.
It's silly to compare what we don't hear about one golfer with what we
don't hear about another golfer.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2007 11:16:58
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Voodoo math from Pitts and Hibbard
|
On Feb 21, 1:04 pm, a2mg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> According to the latest figures from Golf Digest, Tiger Woods earned
> $90 million from all sources last year, while Phil Mickelson earned
> $47 million. Pitts and Hibbard have gone out of their way to call
> Phil a "saint" or an "angel," because he is paying about $25K a year
> to help Conrad Dobler's kid go to college (meanwhile praising Bush for
> cutting student loans to millions of truly underprivileged kids). If
> they were st (LOL), they would have noted that Phil also has
> pledged $100 for every birdie he makes, and $500 for every eagle, to
> military charities. If he had done that for all of last year, it
> would come to about $35K.
>
> You don't have to be REAL st to know this, since the shy, modest,
> humble Mickelson has a web page devoted to it on his websitehttp://www.philmickelson.com/links/charities.php
>
> So that's about $60K for the year. Good for him. He is under no
> obligation to give anything, and he deserves to be commended.
>
> But it's not enough for Pitts to give Mickelson an attaboy, he has to
> trash Tiger at the same time. He says 'I can only imagine how the
> sycophants in the media and the star-struck hero-worshipers in this
> group would be doing back flips if Tiger made such a generous
> commitment from his own pocket. Never happen with Tiger.' That was in
> his first post on the subject, not in response to anything.
>
> So it was uncalled for, but maybe he's right. Tiger made a bit less
> than twice as much as Phil, so he should be donating around $120K to
> escape the wrath of Mr. Charity, Ken Pitts.
>
> So what does Pitts say when it's pointed out to him that Tiger
> actually donated his entire $1.35 million check from the Target
> Challenge? Did he say 'Well, I stand corrected, good for Tiger'?
> That's what he should have said, but not Our Boy. He said, Bah, he
> probably got more than that from Target. Hibbard chimes in with 'a
> million is pocket change to Tiger.' There are strong rumors that
> Tiger also donated a hefty chunk of his Dubai appearance fee to
> charity, but since he didn't put it on a web page like Phil, we don't
> know. We do know that his foundation, which he has donated much more
> than his Target winnings in cash alone, plus hundreds of hours of his
> time in planning and appearances (he gets well over $100K for
> corporate appearances, and is getting $25 million to plan a course in
> Dubai), is helping thousands of kids with their educations, not just
> one.
>
> So heres the bottom line in Pitts-Hibbard voodoo math.
>
> Donate $60K out of $48 million, and you're a saint or an angel.
>
> Donate at least 20 times as much, and more likely 50 times as much,
> out of $90 million, and you're niggardly.
Multi, is that you w/ a different nym? Whatever; well said, well
written. Though I tend to suspect Ken's post was yet another of his
trolls targeted at Tiger worshippers (ie - multi and manco), and
Hibbard's response was...well, I don't know much about George, but I
think "uninformed" is a gentle way of putting it.
|
|
