How do you feel about multi-millionaires passing out the hat?

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

WTF? I never said that. Complete BS.

You certainly implied it! You stated unequivocally that you suspected the dead man's wife "may be a scamster". Your words in your origiinal post. Now you excoriate Steven Spielberg for contributing - the implication being he is aiding a scamster. Don't try to deny it!

[Suckrates]

 

It looks like @unicorn is acting more like the American DOJ than a concerned, empathetic citizen,  suggesting claims about people without any proof and disparaging them without KNOWING them.....   That's SAD !    

I always say, "never look in anyone else's pockets".     Wouldnt it be a kick in Unicorns ass if the jvdb's WERE in dire financial straits ?    

And WHY is anyone trying to "force" behavior on someone else. Just dial out the noise, DO YOUR RESEARCH, then do what YOU want if you believe it to be the RIGHT thing ! 

It's a pretty concept, and basic human response.   

[Suckrates]

 

FYI ALERT:

For the skeptics among us, there are articles in both Parade and US magazines about how jvdb's close circle of friends HELPED him secure funding for the recent purchase of his 4.8 mil $  ranch in Texas......   Obviously his family had financial problems . 

It's a good thing to have friends with compassion !    But, there will ALWAYS be skeptics & haters.......👎

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, PeterRS said:

You certainly implied it! You stated unequivocally that you suspected the dead man's wife "may be a scamster". Your words in your origiinal post. Now you excoriate Steven Spielberg for contributing - the implication being he is aiding a scamster. Don't try to deny it!

Again misquoting me. I never said Spielberg thought JvdB's wife was a scamster. Quite to the contrary, what I said is that he may be a bit gullible (in fact, it's the complete opposite of what I said). Also, with a net worth of billions upon billions, $25,000 is a tiny drop in the bucket--akin to $10 for you or me. Maybe he wants to help out an old friend, with an amount that's a complete pitance to him, so he doesn't care if she really needs the money. (And, for the record, yes, I obviously do believe the widow may be a scamster, but that's an entirely different matter than the Spielberg misquote)

6 hours ago, Suckrates said:

...I always say, "never look in anyone else's pockets"....

Well, it certainly behooves one to take a breath and look into things when responding to a request for financial assistance. The original request of $250,000 for out-of-pocket expenses is obviously already suspect given that he had health insurance. Then changing the figures up and up is even more suspect. And now her take is approaching $3 million, and still accepting the $$. Do you honestly believe JvdB would have purchased the mansion in Texas if he knew his widow couldn't make the payments (he obviously knew his condition was terminal when the purchase was made)? I so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Even if it were true that he was so confused that he bought the mansion knowing his wife couldn't make the payments (highly doubtful), the obvious solution would be to downsize. It's intuitively obvious to even mentally challenged people that no one needs 36 acres/14.6 hectares of land, or multiple guest bungalows. And--obviously sell the Beverly Hills home. 

Unfortunately, there are too many people on this planet who will believe any smooth talker just because they want to believe what that person is saying. One only has to look at the re-election of Trump to understand that fact. Even 34 felony convictions won't convince them. The sad truth is that half of the world's population has an IQ under 100, and usually won't think rationally. 

6 hours ago, Suckrates said:

FYI ALERT:...

 

Oh, you said it with a 28-point font, in bold capital letters. I take it back--you must be right! 🤤

[Keithambrose]

6 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Again misquoting me. I never said Spielberg thought JvdB's wife was a scamster. Quite to the contrary, what I said is that he may be a bit gullible (in fact, it's the complete opposite of what I said). Also, with a net worth of billions upon billions, $25,000 is a tiny drop in the bucket--akin to $10 for you or me. Maybe he wants to help out an old friend, with an amount that's a complete pitance to him, so he doesn't care if she really needs the money. (And, for the record, yes, I obviously do believe the widow may be a scamster, but that's an entirely different matter than the Spielberg misquote)

Well, it certainly behooves one to take a breath and look into things when responding to a request for financial assistance. The original request of $250,000 for out-of-pocket expenses is obviously already suspect given that he had health insurance. Then changing the figures up and up is even more suspect. And now her take is approaching $3 million, and still accepting the $$. Do you honestly believe JvdB would have purchased the mansion in Texas if he knew his widow couldn't make the payments (he obviously knew his condition was terminal when the purchase was made)? I so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. Even if it were true that he was so confused that he bought the mansion knowing his wife couldn't make the payments (highly doubtful), the obvious solution would be to downsize. It's intuitively obvious to even mentally challenged people that no one needs 36 acres/14.6 hectares of land, or multiple guest bungalows. And--obviously sell the Beverly Hills home. 

Unfortunately, there are too many people on this planet who will believe any smooth talker just because they want to believe what that person is saying. One only has to look at the re-election of Trump to understand that fact. Even 34 felony convictions won't convince them. The sad truth is that half of the world's population has an IQ under 100, and usually won't think rationally. 

Oh, you said it with a 28-point font, in bold capital letters. I take it back--you must be right! 🤤

" If so, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you."

 

Very good!

[Suckrates]

12 minutes ago, unicorn said:

Unfortunately, there are too many people on this planet who will believe any smooth talker just because they want to believe what that person is saying. One only has to look at the re-election of Trump to understand that fact. Even 34 felony convictions won't convince them. The sad truth is that half of the world's population has an IQ under 100, and usually won't think rationally. 

Oh, you said it with a 28-point font, in bold capital letters. I take it back--you must be right! 🤤

Did you do your due diligence before giving me affirmation ?    🤣  (and I am only using 20-pt here !)   

My God, did all the hustlers and gigolos you've been involved with SOUR your life's view ?    They really must have taken advantage of you for you to be so suspicious and bitter.....   SAD !   

NOT everyone is out to FUCK YOU.... Give it a rest already.... If you dont want to HELP people, just fucking DONT !!!

** And I also find it pretty disgusting that you want to be the arbitor of how people live their lives and care for their families.    ?You know nothing about the Van Der Beeks,  but you have already worked it out in YOUR mind what James should and should not have done for his families welfare...

That's really FUCKED UP, bro !    And you CLAIM to be a doctor?   What a poor representation of benevolence and humanity...   I pray for your patients. 

[unicorn]

30 minutes ago, Suckrates said:

Did you do your due diligence before giving me affirmation ?    🤣  (and I am only using 20-pt here !)   

My God, did all the hustlers and gigolos you've been involved with SOUR your life's view ?    They really must have taken advantage of you for you to be so suspicious and bitter.....   SAD !   

NOT everyone is out to FUCK YOU.... Give it a rest already.... If you dont want to HELP people, just fucking DONT !!!

** And I also find it pretty disgusting that you want to be the arbitor of how people live their lives and care for their families.    ?You know nothing about the Van Der Beeks,  but you have already worked it out in YOUR mind what James should and should not have done for his families welfare...

That's really FUCKED UP, bro !    And you CLAIM to be a doctor?   What a poor representation of benevolence and humanity...   I pray for your patients. 

Screaming makes you look totally rational and in your right mind, of course... 😉

[floridarob]

6 hours ago, unicorn said:

Screaming makes you look totally rational and in your right mind, of course... 😉

Not to mention with all the different fonts it looks like a ransom note using newspaper clippings 😄

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, floridarob said:

Not to mention with all the different fonts it looks like a ransom note using newspaper clippings 😄

Let's just say I'm a patron of Diversity and inclusion.....   There is no rule or law that states I must comment in a 14-pt.   Or am I just unaware that Trump has taken away my FREEDOM OF FONT ?     

And to @unicorn point, IF I were screaming it would look like THIS.... 

 

[Suckrates]

7 hours ago, unicorn said:

Screaming makes you look totally rational and in your right mind, of course... 😉

And dare I say what your insensitive and unsubstantiated  comments about jvdb and his family make YOU look & sound like ?  

I simply made a comment.   YOU heard screaming and choose to make it a "thing".....that's on YOU, man....   Seek help !   

 

[daydreamer]

The following link says that James Van Der Beek purchased the home where his family currently lives only one month before he died, and that the family is out of funds, and are struggling financially:

https://ew.com/james-van-der-beek-friend-mehcad-brooks-slams-critics-family-gofundme-11907522

 

 

 

[PeterRS]

On 2/12/2026 at 3:36 PM, unicorn said:

Yet his GoFundMe page has amassed well over a million dollars, and climbing. I suspect the wife may be a scamster.

Did you not write that? Of course you did.

On 2/16/2026 at 8:45 AM, PeterRS said:

It was reported today that Steven Spielberg has donated US$25,000 to the GoFundMe site. I hardly think he would throw around his cash unless he believed it was for a needy cause.

I wrote that in reponse to your coment about suspecting the wife may be a scamster. Taking the two comments together, you are definitely implying that Spielberg donated to a scamster! 

[floridarob]

7 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

you are definitely implying that Spielberg donated to a scamster! 

Because he's Spielberg, he can't be scammed?

Bernie Madoff got a lot of people, no?

[unicorn]

17 hours ago, daydreamer said:

The following link says that James Van Der Beek purchased the home where his family currently lives only one month before he died, and that the family is out of funds, and are struggling financially:

https://ew.com/james-van-der-beek-friend-mehcad-brooks-slams-critics-family-gofundme-11907522

Not quite. What the article says is that his friends state the family is out of funds and are struggling financially. However, do you really believe that he would purchase this expensive a home if it were the case that they were struggling financially?? That makes zero sense--completely irrational. And if it were true, the obvious solution would be to downsize to a home without 36 acres of land and 3 guest bungalows. 

[unicorn]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

...Taking the two comments together, you are definitely implying that Spielberg donated to a scamster! 

Close--I'm definitely implying Spielberg donated to a likely scamster. But I did not, as you said, imply that Spielberg did so knowingly. That could be the case. For example, he may have donated to the family simply because he's a family friend, and the money is such a pittance to him. Another possibility is that he did it for the good publicity. However, it's also possible that he was scammed himself (unknowingly, by definition). None of us have any idea what was going on in Spielberg's head when he made the donation (nor is it possible to know what was going on in his head). I follow only facts.

[daydreamer]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

Not quite. What the article says is that his friends state the family is out of funds and are struggling financially. 

Well, the article also has the following quote from the deceased actor:

The late actor previously opened up about receiving "almost nothing" from Dawson's Creek residuals, which helps explain why his family is currently struggling financially in the wake of his death.

"There was no residual money," Van Der Beek told TODAY.com in 2012. "I was 20. It was a bad contract. I saw almost nothing from that."

[Suckrates]

5 hours ago, unicorn said:

Close--I'm definitely implying Spielberg donated to a likely scamster. But I did not, as you said, imply that Spielberg did so knowingly. That could be the case. For example, he may have donated to the family simply because he's a family friend, and the money is such a pittance to him. Another possibility is that he did it for the good publicity. However, it's also possible that he was scammed himself (unknowingly, by definition). None of us have any idea what was going on in Spielberg's head when he made the donation (nor is it possible to know what was going on in his head). I follow only facts.

 

But WHAT do YOU care ?   I dont understand your extreme obsession with this ?     Doctor need HELP, maybe ?  

You do YOU, babe,   but let others do as they choose as well...   Everyone still has free will, the last time I checked. 

Suspicion and paranoia arent good looks for you.   

BTW, the GFM page is currently OVER 2.6 million......   Its encouraging to know that there are still some good, trusting people out there to HELP !   There are those that help, and then there are those that just "make useless Noise".....

[daydreamer]

On 2/14/2026 at 5:46 PM, unicorn said:

On 2/14/2026 at 5:46 PM, unicorn said:

Well, it feels good to send money to a shyster instead of the needy, please be my guest. After all, why stop to think before doing? As for me, I feel good when I'm actually doing some good on this planet--not by stuffing the pockets of a rich widow.

 

I am a bit confused as to why you ask others for their opinions, and then try to convince others that your opinion is right, and they are wrong.

You titled this thread to include the words - "how do you feel about".  It appears that there is some insecurity on your part when the opinions of other posters are not respected.

This entire thread is turning argumentative, and there is no correct answer, only personal perspectives.  

Please, let's allow the man to rest in peace, without rehashing any perceived errors or misjudgments in the handling of his finances, or the welfare of his surviving family members.

[PeterRS]

18 hours ago, unicorn said:

Not quite. What the article says is that his friends state the family is out of funds and are struggling financially. However, do you really believe that he would purchase this expensive a home if it were the case that they were struggling financially?? That makes zero sense--completely irrational. And if it were true, the obvious solution would be to downsize to a home without 36 acres of land and 3 guest bungalows. 

This is your reaction to most things that you do not agree with. We had an entire thread about the Japanese farmer who would not sell his land for the expansion of Narita airport. To you, that also made "zero sense" - and of course you believe you are correct, but you are wrong. That man is an individual who had his own reasons and made his own decision. The fact that a majority of Japanese agreed with him meant nothing to you. 

In the Circumcision thread, you went on and on about how "the science definitely states that benefits far exceed the (very minimal) risks." And that is pure B/S. The science in the USA where circumcision is regarded almost like a God-given necessity has been proven by the medical experts in a large number of other countries to be wrong, which is why the majority of male children in the world are uncircumcised.  

You have zero idea of the actor's financial affairs nor of his reasons for not buying a smaller house with less land. He had his own reasons which were no doubt perfectly valid. You make up beliefs of your own and put them forward as facts.

[unicorn]

11 hours ago, daydreamer said:

I am a bit confused as to why you ask others for their opinions, and then try to convince others that your opinion is right, and they are wrong...

I was surprised that this came up as controversial. I thought this was all fairly obvious, and we'd chuckle together over the situation. The first couple of posts agreed. In order for the wife NOT to be a scamster, ALL of the following must be true:

(1) AI is way, way off on JvdB's net worth. While unlikely, this is the most plausible in this list to be true, since none of us have access to his financial records (nor do anyone but his wife, accountant, and financial advisor).

(2) Despite having medical insurance, he was out $250,000 in medical expenses. My mother had dementia and required constant care for over a year, and the sum was nowhere near that (although she had long-term care insurance, so even that amount, which was far under $250,000, was covered). If she'd had a spouse, the costs would have been far less. 

(3) This amount magically changed to $1.2 million, then $1.5 million. Oh, and she's now collected $2.7 million and still going. 

(4) Knowing of his impending death, JvdB purchased a massive estate, knowing full-well that his soon-to-be widow would be unable to pay for it, AND the bank gave him the mortgage despite a supposed inability to repay? Preposterous!

Even if all of those statements were true, and I can't imagine it to be the case, they could simply move to a less expensive place. 

This silly argument reminds me of the musical Book of Mormon, with the song stating that facts are irrelevant. What's important is belief.

If you feel your charity $$ are best spent helping a widow live a lavish lifestyle on a massive property, go ahead. If any of you are Muslim, it's Ramadan, and time to give your required Zakat. May I suggest Helping Hand for Relief and Development? I found them by accident since they were one of the charities rated 100% by Charity Navigator, and sent them some money. As it turns out, they're a Muslim charity, so I make my donations to them during Ramadan (as a bit of a joke to me).

https://www.charitynavigator.org/ein/311628040

"Helping Hand for Relief and Development is a global humanitarian relief and development organization responding to human sufferings in emergency and disastrous situations anywhere all over the world regardless race, gender, ethnicity, class, location, religion, color, cultural diversity and social background; with special focus on countries where the massive population is living below the poverty line. In addition to our emergency relief efforts in natural or man made disaster areas, we also work on long term relief and development programs like livelihood, economic empowerment, orphan and widows support program and skill development program."

So would you rather go with the actual research Charity Navigator used to determine the effectiveness of the charity money? Or the unlikely musings of a widow from her giant mansion?

[unicorn]

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

This is your reaction to most things that you do not agree with. We had an entire thread about the Japanese farmer who would not sell his land for the expansion of Narita airport. To you, that also made "zero sense" - and of course you believe you are correct, but you are wrong. That man is an individual who had his own reasons and made his own decision. The fact that a majority of Japanese agreed with him meant nothing to you. 

In the Circumcision thread, you went on and on about how "the science definitely states that benefits far exceed the (very minimal) risks." And that is pure B/S. The science in the USA where circumcision is regarded almost like a God-given necessity has been proven by the medical experts in a large number of other countries to be wrong, which is why the majority of male children in the world are uncircumcised.  

You have zero idea of the actor's financial affairs nor of his reasons for not buying a smaller house with less land. He had his own reasons which were no doubt perfectly valid. You make up beliefs of your own and put them forward as facts.

These are perfect examples of your obsessively sticking to your "beliefs," in complete disregard to actual facts. I gave your references to sources which showed that only a small minority (about 5%) of Japanese agreed with the farmer's decision, yet you still deny it--without showing any evidence to the contrary, disputing my reference, of course. To you, if you believe it, it's a fact, regardless of what surveys at the time showed. All of the other arguments used to support the farmer's decision were also proven to be factually wrong:

(1) It was alleged that I couldn't understand the reluctance of the farmer to sell the property because the US is only 250 years old, and this land has been held in the family for centuries. I then gave references proving that the land was given to those farmers towards the end of the US administration of Japan, in the early 1950s. That farmer would, in fact be born around the time his family received that land.

(2) Proponents said that his stubbornness was something unique to Japanese culture--which I couldn't possibly understand. I disproved this with dozens of examples of similar hard-headed landowners from around the globe who tried to hold out for a better payout and later regretted it. In fact, I gave references that stubbornness and self-centered attitudes are actually antithetical to Japanese culture. Of course, there's also the fact that almost all of the other farmers sold their land to support the theory that stubbornness is not a traditional Japanese value (not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Japanese culture). 

The most glaring and unequivocal example of your refusal to look at facts is the circumcision example, however. Parents are free to make their own choices, of course. They usually base their decisions on the father's status. However, the science is indisputable, as shown by the references I provided. The medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This is NOT a matter of opinion. It's a proven fact. Of course, as always, you provided no evidence to counter the scientific findings. Merely stating that the majority of parents choose not to circumcise their boys is not scientific evidence of anything. Like Trump and RFK, Jr., you simply assert that belief is more important than fact. 

[Keithambrose]

1 hour ago, unicorn said:

These are perfect examples of your obsessively sticking to your "beliefs," in complete disregard to actual facts. I gave your references to sources which showed that only a small minority (about 5%) of Japanese agreed with the farmer's decision, yet you still deny it--without showing any evidence to the contrary, disputing my reference, of course. To you, if you believe it, it's a fact, regardless of what surveys at the time showed. All of the other arguments used to support the farmer's decision were also proven to be factually wrong:

(1) It was alleged that I couldn't understand the reluctance of the farmer to sell the property because the US is only 250 years old, and this land has been held in the family for centuries. I then gave references proving that the land was given to those farmers towards the end of the US administration of Japan, in the early 1950s. That farmer would, in fact be born around the time his family received that land.

(2) Proponents said that his stubbornness was something unique to Japanese culture--which I couldn't possibly understand. I disproved this with dozens of examples of similar hard-headed landowners from around the globe who tried to hold out for a better payout and later regretted it. In fact, I gave references that stubbornness and self-centered attitudes are actually antithetical to Japanese culture. Of course, there's also the fact that almost all of the other farmers sold their land to support the theory that stubbornness is not a traditional Japanese value (not a surprise to anyone who knows anything about Japanese culture). 

The most glaring and unequivocal example of your refusal to look at facts is the circumcision example, however. Parents are free to make their own choices, of course. They usually base their decisions on the father's status. However, the science is indisputable, as shown by the references I provided. The medical benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. This is NOT a matter of opinion. It's a proven fact. Of course, as always, you provided no evidence to counter the scientific findings. Merely stating that the majority of parents choose not to circumcise their boys is not scientific evidence of anything. Like Trump and RFK, Jr., you simply assert that belief is more important than fact. 

This is getting SO boring!