[jacquesm]

The decision to sign up for an obligation of $4000 was yours, not your neighbors. He gave you $10, which is $10 more than he was obliged to give you.

Just like in any MLM scheme your ability to 'work' the people close to you is what allowed you to sign up for the program in the first place. It is almost as though you felt that your neighbor was obliged to give you a certain amount based on your perception of your relationship, his station in life and his ability to give in combination with helping you, but in fact you misdirected him by asking him to give (indirectly) to a charity.

Chances are that if you had asked him for a contribution to you instead of to a charity that you would have ended up with more than the $10, and how you would have spent that money would have been up to you.

I don't think you can draw the conclusion that he didn't care for you, you simply don't get to call how other people spend their money, and you aren't entitled to a say in that.

The best thing you can say to someone when they give you free money is 'thank you'. To go on a public forum and berate them for giving too little is really not the nicest response.

Suggestion: talk it over with your parent's neighbor and see what his side of the story is, rather than complaining about him to strangers. It is possible that you will come away with another 'life changing experience', one that teaches you about yourself and your relationships with other people.

[dkersten]

Agreed. A common thing here is sponsored parachute jumps for charity. I flat out refuse to give any money to them regardless of how much I can afford it or how well I know the person. I'd much rather donate directluy to the charity where ill know that they get it all instead of a large portion subsidizing someone's parachute jump. I feel is dishonest saying you're doing it for charity yet pay for it out of the sponsorship money. On the other hand if someone I know were to ask me for money to do a parachute jump, Id happily give it to them if I have it. I just feel like Im being tricked otherwise.

[Vivtek]

Jacques, it sounds like wallflower already knows all that. The issue is the emotional impact it had (which is in the past), not that wallflower still resents the neighbor.

And that money is weird, on an emotional level. Which it is.

(Not that anything you said here is wrong.)

[jacquesm]

He wrote:

> "let me explain the complete context of why $10 was not a generous donation:"

and

> "I thought I had a good relationship with him".

Which I took to mean he still sees it very much that way today.

The whole idea that somehow your friendship status should translate into an obligation to write a check for a minimum of 'x' for a charity that you pick is very strange to me.

As if you can put a price on friendship that way, and as if the 'interesting conversations about life' suddenly were not good or worthless by the act of giving an amount that was deemed too low.