[quote name=\'jybt\' post=\'202778\' date=\'Dec 3 2008, 10:13 AM\']That's what she had said, and if she knows what the taxes are, she would know how much she needed...[/quote] This is interesting. You mention her interview with some of the contributors of Game Show News Net. I happened to be present, and got to ask her a few questions. She seemed very nice, and her cause was noble and just. And maybe you're right, that she needed a few thousand dollars more to get to the point where she could donate $100,000 of after tax winnings (and I'm not even sure she had to calculate after-taxes.)
She still closed the little case and said "NOT ENOUGH! NO DEAL!"
What I don't understand is that you seem to be stuck on two things. The first is abdicating all responsibility of the contestants to size up their situation and make a choice based on that. I don't understand that at all. If you have a "goal" of $250,000 and $235,000 comes up on the board, you still can choose to bail if you want, you don't have to soldier on. The other is that you seem to see the game as existing in a vacuum where players always have to play the game exactly as you see it in 20/20 hindsight, otherwise they're greedy or cowardly, depending on the outcome.
The problem is that you seem to be approaching the show as a math problem or thought exercise, and you sound like a complete fool when you do so. (Not that it's going to stop you or cause you to rethink your process, I'm just throwing that out there.)
I am very curious to see if you're actually going to respond with something that makes sense, or if you're just going to stay in your fantasyland.
