Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited August 22, 2017, 1:12 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

the whitaker rule--for all jackpot winners

Topic closed. 20 replies. Last post 11 years ago by justxploring.

Page 2 of 2
PrintE-mailLink
justxploring's avatar - villiarna
Wandering Aimlessly
United States
Member #25360
November 5, 2005
4461 Posts
Offline
Posted: January 28, 2007, 6:30 am - IP Logged

"FWIW, not all of Whittaker's troubles have been the direct result of drinking. I think his drinking problem is only a symptom of his a-hole problem."

KY Floyd, I am sure you are right about this.  My first boss out of college came from a wealthy family who helped build the corporation I worked for most of my life. He was given a very good job, but he drank himself to death - irreversible brain damage from alcohol.  Coming from a family of teetotalers, it was my first experience with an alcoholic, but he was a quiet drunk in a tailored suit, unlike Mr. Whittaker. Even with all his problems, he was able to manage his money or so it appeared.  Looking back, it's a miracle he didn't kill anyone driving drunk and he drank Johnny Walker.  He was such a nice person, but even the nicest people who have substance abuse problems forget about the lives they can destroy when it comes to feeding their addictions. Such a sad man.

    Avatar
    Coastal Georgia
    United States
    Member #2653
    October 30, 2003
    1866 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: January 28, 2007, 1:52 pm - IP Logged

    LOTTOMIKE, my vote is no. I don't want the government interfering if I have financial problems later in life.

     

                                   

                  

     

     

      rundown99's avatar - cigar

      United States
      Member #567
      August 14, 2002
      487 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: January 29, 2007, 11:10 am - IP Logged

      Of course, if you are ANONYMOUS, such problems wouldn't exist.....

      Smart lottery winners form trust to claim their winnings.  They send an attorney to the lottery headquarters to claim the prize in trust, so that ONLY the name of the trust is revealed.  And they tell NO ONE, especially relatives.

      If you ever win a lottery and you are single, the only person you should ever marry is someone who was truly in love with you BEFORE you won the jackpot!

        csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

        United States
        Member #15309
        May 13, 2005
        307 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: January 29, 2007, 11:37 am - IP Logged

        Invasion of privacy.  It would have to pass constitutional muster.

                 Sun Smiley             

          csfb's avatar - Lottery-001.jpg

          United States
          Member #15309
          May 13, 2005
          307 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: January 29, 2007, 11:39 am - IP Logged

          Consider this re: Whitaker and others who have experienced hitting a jackpot being a bad thing happeneing to them: 

          I recently heard about this concept - it's a Jewish one - and have seen such amazing true life examples of it that I pass it on for what it's worth.

          The illustration I heard went like this:

          If someone came and handed you a no-strings attached £1,000,000 today, you would be very pleased. The same tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, and so on.

          There would come a time however, when you couldn't accept any more money, if you were a normal human being. Something inside would force you to say something like: 'Hey look, I can't accept any more of this money for nothing. I've got to do something for you in exchange. What can I do?'

          The money you have been receiving for nothing is called the 'Bread of Shame'. Essentially, it is taking something for nothing - and the point is that such taking is damaging, if not ruinous, to your personality.

          There comes a time when un-earned gifts and receipts cause the recipient to turn and bite the hand that feeds it.

          It works at all levels in our lives. Children, for whom the parents do everything, and ask nothing in return, are generally obnoxious, ungrateful and unhappy.

          If say a brother and sister lodge a person who is in need of a place to stay, and demand no payment, either in cash or in kind, there will come a time when that person will bite the hand that feeds it. The kind of bite will vary with the personality of the biter, but bite they will.

          This is why the recipients of charity will, over a period of time, become soured and distorted personalities. The need to do something in return is a basic need of our psyche, and the inability to do something in return results in personality damage. You will find, for example, that if X has been receiving charity for some while, they actually become resentful if it stops, with such remarks as: He's /they've got plenty. Why aren't they sending the money/food/clothing/ whatever? Thanks and thankfulness go out the window.

          The widow is a glowing example of the exact opposite. She gave everything she had, in return for what the Lord had given her.

          It works, or seems to work that way in ecclesial life too. The ecclesia that does no preaching, for whatever reason, is almost literally eating the bread of shame. It is receiving grace and forgiveness and love from God in breaking bread, and gives nothing in return, in calling other people to the Truth. Those meetings are dull and depressing places to attend, whereas meetings who take the opposite attitude are generally warm and vibrant places. The bread of shame is distorting the ecclesial personality.

          The same with us as individuals. If we have received the grace of God, and do not a. do something for our brethren and sisters and b. the poor and c. preach the word in our own little ways, then we turn the Bread of Life into the bread of shame, and end up by distorting our spiritual personalities. And who wants that?

          http://www.thechristadelphians.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4672&st=0&p=129859&#entry129859

          Granted Jack did give millions to a coupe of churches, but maybe proper motivation, or something we don't really understand, comes into play.

          I agree.  No good deed goes unpunished.

                   Sun Smiley             

            justxploring's avatar - villiarna
            Wandering Aimlessly
            United States
            Member #25360
            November 5, 2005
            4461 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: January 29, 2007, 12:12 pm - IP Logged

            Of course, if you are ANONYMOUS, such problems wouldn't exist.....

            Rundown99, I agree that telling everyone about your millions is stupid, but how can anyone remain anonymous from the government? 

            I take that back (the remark about letting people know you're rich) because a lot of people have millions and we read about them all the time.  They're just careful about how they invest it and spend it and hire the right people to manage it.  Even billionaires who have their pictures plastered all over the news don't have the problems Whittaker has.  It's all comes down to what you do with your life after you have the money.  I am one person who completely disagrees with the general idea that winning money is that much different than working for it.  There are few things in life I'm very obstinate and unyielding about, and one of them is what I'd do if I won millions.  I hope I get to find out one of these days, because I promise I'll be one of the success stories.

            (csfb, I was typing when you just posted...Yes!!...I use that expression all the time.  I recently wrote something about it on another member's blog.  Claire Boothe Luce said that and she's so very right!)