To: TWICK who wrote (6291 ) 3/18/2001 4:09:19 PM From: Don Pueblo Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 8925 She is saying that. You appear to be confusing two different definitions of the word. do·na·tion n. 1. The act of giving to a fund or cause. 2. A gift or grant; a contribution. Teresa is using definition #2, you are using definition #1. **** Here's my point: there are a multitude of people out there that charge money for stock advice of one kind or another. I break them down into two categories. A. Those that are interested in collecting money from people who are too lazy or too busy or too stupid to learn how to make their own decisions. Some of the people that pay for this kind of "help" have been known to blame the person they paid for a bad call. Since they have no intention of learning, it's much easier to pay someone else to make mistakes, because when they lose money, it's "not my fault". B. Those that are interested in helping people learn how to make their own decisions. Both provide a service, both have a right to be paid for the service they provide. One is a leech, one is honorable. You can decide for yourself which is which, but it is unfair to assume that everybody that charges money for advice regarding stocks or the stock market is a unscrupulous leech that is cheating his or her clients. Some are, but some are not. I'm not. I don't think Teresa is either. If you want to bitch about Teresa taking "donations" for a legitimate service that she provides, that's your right, but you might be better served in grumbling about someone who is actually ripping people off for screwy advice based on either no explanations of how the call was made, or ultra-complex "interpretations" of charts peppered with misunderstandings of basic chart theory and lots of "maybe", "might", "could", and "should" rhetoric . Check out the definitions of "Advisor" and "Advisory Service" in this glossary:funphone.com