Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Just saw this thread. How ridiculous. I recommend everyone who is able, whether you find this as offensive as I do, or whether you're one of the ones who somehow thinks it's acceptable, go find a REAL charity to donate to right now if you haven't already this year. Like this one http://www.crowdrise.com/pinkjamsunder4 ... nmendelson

I'm a nice old guy who could use a vintage RIC. I promise to love it and become emotionally attached. Send any extra money my way too!!!

My 2¢:

Although my story (see viewtopic.php?f=1&t=389730) is different - I sold the guitar, not had it stolen; it was only gone eight years, not seventeen; it was still in the United States, although it was a difficult transaction; etc etc etc., I still could relate to the story and had empathy when I first read about it.

I can also relate because I paid way too much for the guitar to get it back - especially considering its condition - and as mentioned above had to jump through some hoops to make the deal work out.

I was very lucky to have some extra pocket change at the time - I had just sold a 370/12 RM for a big profit - so it all worked out. But had that not been the case, I would have done one of these two things:

1. Found the money (credit card, etc.) and took the plunge;
2. Passed on it.

In both my case and in the one being discussed, option 1 was chosen.

It was an OPTION. A choice. It's a GUITAR. In both cases, highly sentimental, and in both cases, it worked out well. But it's a GUITAR, not, as hypothetically mentioned before, an unexpected medical emergency.

So yeah, I too feel a little strange about the very existence of this thread.

There is one thing I do not understand:

All articles and vids show the guitar already back in his hands. Could somebody explain that to me?
If he is not able to pay for: how did he get it back already?!

My advice: Buy or organise a portable amp, create a big poster of that story and play in a pedestrian area with that stuff as long as the desired money is in the pocket. Beside this ridiculous first forum post this is a very nice story, surely a wallet opener. It should not take a long time to raise the money.

Hotzenplotz wrote:There is one thing I do not understand:

All articles and vids show the guitar already back in his hands. Could somebody explain that to me?
If he is not able to pay for: how did he get it back already?!

My advice: Buy or organise a portable amp, create a big poster of that story and play in a pedestrian area with that stuff as long as the desired money is in the pocket. Beside this ridiculous first forum post this is a very nice story, surely a wallet opener. It should not take a long time to raise the money.

They have already bought the guitar...they're just trying to recoup their loss, it seems.

Hotzenplotz wrote:There is one thing I do not understand:

All articles and vids show the guitar already back in his hands. Could somebody explain that to me?
If he is not able to pay for: how did he get it back already?!

From the OC Register link above:

"With shipping and other costs, the total bill to Welch would be $5,210.74.
There was just one problem. Welch and Audrey are retired, living on a fixed income of less than $40,000.
Ricky, after all these years, might be too expensive to buy back.

Welch and Audrey visited Bank of America and explained their situation. They were able to work out a cash advance at 0 percent interest for 21 months, a deal that included a 4 percent credit card charge plus other fees."

deaconblues wrote:...they're just trying to recoup their loss, it seems.

How was it a loss? They chose to buy the guitar.

In the interest of due diligence, I explored some other charities to give a sliver of my hard-earned pie.

Here's what I found out:
-- Red Cross: their CEO's salary is $651,957. PLUS expenses...
--United Way: $375,000 plus expenses.
--Unicef: a mere $1.2 million. Plus ALL expenses, including a Rolls Royce.

Given these options, I'm still leaning towards Wally and his Ricken-camebacker.
It would also be nice to bring the J. Dog across the G-note finish line ...

Film at 11.

OMG!!! Thank You all for clarification!

If I want to express what I feel and think about that behaviour now, I had to nuke all forum rules. - Not worth it.

rickyfricky wrote:In the interest of due diligence, I explored some other charities to give a sliver of my hard-earned pie.
Here's what I found out:
-- Red Cross: their CEO's salary is $651,957. PLUS expenses...
--United Way: $375,000 plus expenses.
--Unicef: a mere $1.2 million. Plus ALL expenses, including a Rolls Royce.

It seems the real solution for anyone in economic need is to get a big-dog job at one of these so-called charities, where the Rolls Royce, etc. is included with the deal ......

8mileshigher wrote:

rickyfricky wrote:In the interest of due diligence, I explored some other charities to give a sliver of my hard-earned pie.
Here's what I found out:
-- Red Cross: their CEO's salary is $651,957. PLUS expenses...
--United Way: $375,000 plus expenses.
--Unicef: a mere $1.2 million. Plus ALL expenses, including a Rolls Royce.

It seems the real solution for anyone in economic need is to get a big-dog job at one of these so-called charities, where the Rolls Royce, etc. is included with the deal ......

Spread love & misinformation.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/charities.asp

8mileshigher wrote:

rickyfricky wrote:In the interest of due diligence, I explored some other charities to give a sliver of my hard-earned pie.
Here's what I found out:
-- Red Cross: their CEO's salary is $651,957. PLUS expenses...
--United Way: $375,000 plus expenses.
--Unicef: a mere $1.2 million. Plus ALL expenses, including a Rolls Royce.

It seems the real solution for anyone in economic need is to get a big-dog job at one of these so-called charities, where the Rolls Royce, etc. is included with the deal ......

Without getting too political on this, effective charities need to function like a corporation. These top-level executives are often hired from profitable corporations specifically because their leadership ability can lead that organization to generating more income than they pay the executive. In that respect, it's an investment for the greater benefit of the organization, despite the fact that the executive makes a sizable income from it.

It would be impossible for any large nonprofit organization to run at 100% efficiency, factoring in overhead costs (including salaries).

collin wrote:effective charities need to function like a corporation. These top-level executives are often hired from profitable corporations specifically because their leadership ability can lead that organization to generating more income than they pay the executive. In that respect, it's an investment for the greater benefit of the organization, despite the fact that the executive makes a sizable income from it.

It would be impossible for any large nonprofit organization to run at 100% efficiency, factoring in overhead costs (including salaries).

Ed Zachary. Well put, Collin.

'bout that 100% efficiency...

I gave $10.....because I could and because some things are worth more than money.

Just throwing this out there....but if anybody has a few spare bucks and wants to donate to a cause that really matters, I am participating in a "Movember" initiative running through November to benefit research and awareness of men's cancer and other underserved men's health issues.

Here's a link if anybody is interested, every bit counts! : http://us.movember.com/mospace/7008521