| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 64559 | 2005-12-19 10:41:00 | Times Person of the Year: Bill Gates | imarubberducky (7230) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 413977 | 2005-12-19 10:41:00 | The richest man in the world, Bill Gates, and his wife, Melinda, were named Time magazine’s “Persons of the Year” along with Irish rocker Bono for being “Good Samaritans” who made a difference in different ways. Interesting to note that George Bush and Hitler have also been given the title "Person of the Year' by the Times. On a more serious note, does anybody see a problem with someone incredibly rich, being so greatly rewarded for giving away a small percentage of their money, when some people spend their whole life, and in cases lose their life, working towards makings the world better for others, and are barely acknowledged. Then again, is it a reward to be given the same title as Hitler? Source: www.msnbc.msn.com |
imarubberducky (7230) | ||
| 413978 | 2005-12-19 11:28:00 | I have a feeling he's given quite a percentage of his wealth away. Leaning towards 40%. Can't remember the source so the credibility it diminished. However when you think about it, most of his wealth will come from shares (i.e 51% of microsoft or whatever it is) which he can't give to the poor anyway if he wants to keep strategic control of microsoft. I say, good on him, he has done a lot of work, more so than many other wealthy people would. As for Hitler, one cannot deny that Hitler was a great man and changed the face of the world. I wouldn't say keeping the same title would be a bad thing. |
DangerousDave (697) | ||
| 413979 | 2005-12-19 18:18:00 | In the past decade he has given away more than 7.1 billion dollars to charity. Seven point one BILLION dollars. That's not small change in anyones language - I think he deserves all the accolades he can get. As for the Hitler comment, may I draw your attention to the following: Person of the Year is an annual issue of U.S. newsmagazine TIME that features a profile ostensibly on the man, woman, couple, group, idea, place, or machine that "for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year." I wouldn't doubt that this would be for better - considering all three persons this year are involved in charity work. |
pixeldust (6619) | ||
| 413980 | 2005-12-19 19:14:00 | I have a feeling he's given quite a percentage of his wealth away. Leaning towards 40%. Can't remember the source so the credibility it diminished. However when you think about it, most of his wealth will come from shares (i.e 51% of microsoft or whatever it is) which he can't give to the poor anyway if he wants to keep strategic control of microsoft.. At the price M$ charges for their products here in NZ he will soon make up the money he gave in donations. |
paulw (1826) | ||
| 413981 | 2005-12-19 19:22:00 | I have no problems with Bill and Melinda Gates being named as Persons of The Year. Because they are wealthy, does not detract from the difference/s they have made. I do agree that many people make huge contributions and sacrifices, often without acknowledgement. Most would still do the same, with or without being acknowledged. They are just that sort of person. Very little media attention is focussed their way, which doesn't say much for the media as a whole. Have a happy Christmas, everyone. Cheers, Marnie |
Marnie (4574) | ||
| 413982 | 2005-12-19 20:17:00 | Ahh good on him for giving his riches away... | hamstar (4) | ||
| 413983 | 2005-12-19 20:44:00 | Uh....He has made no sacrifice, He has so much money that a donation of that size doesn't even register. I know local people that put more time, effort and sacrifice into doing good then Bill ever could, They go without so that others can benifit. Give them the person of the year award instead.... Having said that, Im a fan of naturel selection, Leave em to their own devices, sink or swim. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 413984 | 2005-12-20 06:47:00 | FWIW... On "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" (Prime TV), the million dollar question was "Who was NOT Time magazine's "Man of the Year" (sexist "Man" relevant to the allotted era). The answer was Mao Tse Tung (leader of China). While he was hugely influencial in China, he did not have a large impact on the world, as did Stalin, Hitler and Ayatollah Komeni - the other choices. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 413985 | 2005-12-20 18:44:00 | Uh....He has made no sacrifice, He has so much money that a donation of that size doesn't even register. I know local people that put more time, effort and sacrifice into doing good then Bill ever could, They go without so that others can benifit. Many multi-billionaires give nothing to charity, and no one says that he HAS to give a large portion of his fortune away. But he does. That money could be reinvested elsewhere to help him increase his personal wealth, but he chooses to give it to the needy. I'd hardly say that isn't a sacrifice. |
pixeldust (6619) | ||
| 413986 | 2005-12-20 21:14:00 | Tall poppy syndrome? | user (1404) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||