Illinois state AG investigates alleged breast cancer charity scam "Boobies Rock"

With a name like "Boobies Rock!" you know it's a totally legit breast cancer fundraiser.

Last week, the Chicago Sun-Times first exposed allegations that "Boobies Rock!," a for-profit business that purports to fund-raise for “breast-cancer awareness” in Chicago and around the US, wasn't actually funneling funds to charities it claimed to benefit.

Now, the paper reports that the Illinois attorney general’s office has begun investigating the company.

At left, the president of Boobies Rock!, Adam Shyrock. I don't know what could possibly not be forthright about a breast cancer "awareness" effort run by a guy who looks this douchey, especially when the project, which is about an awful terrible disgusting disease that kills people, is called "Boobies Rock!" (the exclamation point, it should be noted, is part of the name).

But hey, I was diagnosed with cancer exactly one year ago, and "Boobies Rock!" expresses perfectly how I feel about breast cancer after 12 months of chemotherapy, breast amputation, mortal terror, reconstructive surgery, vomiting, panic attacks, brain damage, radiation, and other stuff too gross to list.

A sidebar that ran with the original Sun-Times report cautioned readers, "before giving to a charity, questions to consider":

• Are its finances well-managed?
• Does an independent board oversee the organization?
• What is the organization’s mission, and does it offer proof regarding how it suports that mission?

Oh hey guys, here's another one, for the shortest list of questions to ask ever:

Does it have a fucking stupid and insulting name like "Boobies Rock"?

Thumbnail at left: Jessica Thompson of Chicago, with one of the shirts she sold for Boobies Rock at sports events.

“I was assuming it’s a charity,” she told the paper.

Yep. You read the t-shirt correctly. "Nice Jugs."

(HT: @LizSzabo; photo: Andrew A. Nelles/Sun-Times Media)


  1. It’s great that they’re investigating possible charity scams like this. But not every scam is this obvious. Some have very legit-sounding names, so it’s important to look at the org’s background before donating or buying merch.  Not always possible, but important to try.

    1. How about just donating money to the places that are legit & ignoring bullshit places that sell merch to “raise funds” for a charity?

      I’ve never participated in a fun-run, bake-off, flea-market or yard-sale for any cause. If I wish to donate to something, I simply give the best charity I can find the money.

      1. I think you may have missed Griffin’s point entirely, which is that sometimes it is hard to tell whether a charity is legitimate or not. Also, plenty of legit charity’s do sell merchandise, are involved in fun-runs, bake-offs, flea markets and yard-sales. If these methods can raise money, why not use them? 

        1. I’ve found big gaping problems with small scale fundraisers, like what I call $0 dollars donated events/fundraisers or ones that throw a $5000 party and end up donating $1000 to the named cause. 

          The worst of them were always big ticket items like cancer and Africa. Though some were problematic even for things like a benefit for an individual severely injured or a small charity that only serves a specific demographic. 

          BTW it is never rude to ask any such event/organized fundraiser just what the breakdown is. The asking is not rude I mean, you should try to be civil or polite while asking.

          If you ask politely and are rebuffed ask someone else because not everyone is aware of the proper way to solicit money from strangers. If you are roundly rebuffed keep your money, warn others and if you feel it warranted drop a dime on them.

        2. no, it’s not hard to tell. Same rules as the rest of the interwebz, if you can’t verify it 6 different ways, it’s a scam.   even if you can, it’s probably a scam.  

        3. No I understand it perfectly. Yes, there are ways to validly entice donations with tchotkes & such, but in my experience most of these discussions hinge on social & peer pressure marketing tactics. Like this schmuck, the whole pretense of the crappy t-shirts he was selling was buying one “helps” others.  You know, it’s sickening.  Maybe it’s not just an American thing, but I seem to think stuff like this happens more in America than elsewhere.  People either want something or won’t give anything.  Nonsense.  

          1. I think it is that people want to buy something for themselves but ALSO get the praise from being generous and donating. It serves two ego satisfying purposes.

          2. Things like Poppies in the UK are one of the worst for me; give em a quid if you want to help, no one’s going to forget that it’s remembrance day, it’s in the name.

            If you just want to promote that you’re giving money to charity then I guess it works, otherwise you’re just reducing the value of your contribution.

        4. My simple guideline is to donate to people at intersections who are wearing a nurse’s outfit.  Not those phony-looking “scrubs” that medical professionals don’t really wear, but the nurse hat, long-sleeved white blouse, and long white skirt get-up that every legit nurse in every legit medical facility wears.

      2. I don’t care much for & avoid altogether the ones that use the big-ticket items like cancer or Africa, but those things you don’t participate in are also excellent tools for teaching young people about positive social activities like community organizing and stuff.

        I prefer the ones that have local local beneficiaries, like libraries.

        1. Exactly. I tend to keep my donations and volunteering in my local community, where I know the people both running the organization and the people/places/things receiving the proceeds. My main exception is Child’s Play, but that’s mostly an international front-end for donating purchases to specific hospitals.

          1. Yes, but some things *aren’t* local.

            Cancer research is a great example. How many cancer research organizations do you have in your local neighborhood? Cancer itself is very local, but chances are if you want to donate money that will go towards funding science, it’s not going to be local.

          2. I have a hard time not believing that if all the cancer charities just worked together they’d have gotten a lot further by now. It seems that by having umtimillion cancer charities they’re shooting themselves in the foot. Naturally hospices and direct-care related charities are the exception, but research related charities… I question more.

        2.  This. It’s one thing when it’s something like the local AA group having an auction in order to meet the rent on their meeting space, as one in my neighborhood did yesterday.

  2. Every time Adam Shyrock references one of his female employees (independent contractors?) in the linked articles, he calls them “girl”.  For a company that supposedly raises awareness and money to fight breast cancer, that would seem to be a clear red flag right there.

    Not that “Save 2nd Base” is ambiguous in any way.  Talk about objectifying.

  3. I thought I had seen the bottom of the barrel, but RULE #36.
    36. There will always be more fucked up shit than what you just saw.

  4. I agree that this type of approach seems incredibly misguided, and fortunately have not had to deal with getting breast cancer myself, so please take this comment in light of my condolences to your medical situation and how close to heart this must hit home after what you have survived.

    But for boingboing, which often writes about topics where women are harshly/unfairly judged by their looks and outdated stereotypes (which I agree with you on) this seems a bit out of character.

    No matter how wrong this may be why are you calling this person in question out on their looks at all and not solely just their actions?  Boingboing seems to be championing a higher road in my opinion based on what I’ve read before.  

    And a question…is calling someone ‘douchey’ perhaps slightly misogynistic?

    1. The guy refers to his female employees as nothing but “girl”, runs a “charity” called “Boobies Rock!” that peddles middle-school humor level T-shirts and is almost certainly a scam artist. I feel that remarking (correctly) that he looks douchey is well within the realm of propriety.

      1. I think the point isn’t that he doesn’t look douchey, but that we’re bigger than pointing it out.

        (Also douche is totally viable as a non-misogynistic turn of phrase, you get anal douches!)

    2. “Misandrist,” maybe, but not misogynistic.

      Let’s all shed a tear for the put-upon white male scammers, though, as if this entire operation didn’t start as a pick-up line that got out of control. Do you go for the whole “European-American” thing, too?

    3.  I’ll correct it: he doesn’t look like a douche, but probably he is a douche, since he is running a scam.

      1. No. The cap, the popped collar, the cigarette at a jaunty angle (WTF is someone running a CANCER charity doing smoking anyway?) are all key markers of the douchebag contingent. 

        1.  Awesome. I can see you in a Nehru Collar, in front of a glass-clad gallery of loud outfits douchebags were taken down in. High-art photographs overtyped ‘J. Clin. Douchebagism’ on the tables. “At the D2H center (pugilism visible through high windows) we capably turn the merely toxic into people treatable in the hipster community…”

          Me, I wonder what radiation is doing in there rocking with stuff too gross to list and brain damage.

    4. “And a question…is calling someone ‘douchey’ perhaps slightly misogynistic?”

      A douche is a harmful and unnecessary object. Perhaps you don’t know much about them?

      1. That’s been marketed to “help” women for just a small amount of money per person, when in fact it causes irritation, etc. instead.

        Normally I don’t use the word “douche” because it’s a gender-specific product, but I think you’ve hit the nail on the head….in this case, it’s exactly the right term.

        1. It’s not gender specific: NSFW:,mod=13&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    5.  I was wondering if anyone was going to step up and stand up for that most oppressed person of our time, the white hetero male.

    6. I think the response you’ve received is terrible. To be honest I’m a little disappointed.

      Appreciating that someone is a horrible human being, and that what they’ve done is terrible; whilst also not seeing the need to describe the persons appearance as ‘douchey’, is not ‘defending’ them. What a crock of shit.

  5. I’m still confused about “breast cancer awareness.” Who is being made aware of what about breast cancer at this point? It seems like multiple communication mediums are already saturated with breast cancer awareness campaigns. Isn’t it time to move past “awareness” and find something more productive to promote regarding breast cancer, like research or treatment?

    1. Absolutely. I’m reluctant to donate to any charity that has “awareness” as its goal. I prefer to donate to charities that fund treatment and/or research.

      1. If a charity that provides a service, product or research toward a particular end has a money raising arm that uses events and campaigns, is that not awareness? 

        Awareness exclusive orgs are often shit.

      2. I disagree completely.

        Awareness has a point. Here’s why:

        1.) Preventative medicine relies on it. Often the solution is already here. A number of serious threats to our health are treatable and early detection helps this. Research told us this and now, EVERYONE needs to know about it and we need to reinforce that message. Prevention is second nature to anyone in Australia who lived through the Skin Cancer campaigns.

        2.) Public perception needs to change and awareness is KEY. Chronic Depression awareness campaigns are trying to combat years of conditioning that real men don’t need/shouldn’t seek help.

        3.) Convincing people to come forward is important. Serious under-reporting harms the data quality which harms research. It harms funding of research.

        1. You are correct on all your points and the two examples rock. But I think in this discussion there should be some delineation about “Awareness” as it applies to so-called orgs like the subject of the articles, and Awareness as you describe, which could be called a PSA-style awareness. 

          These idiots, and many others, are simply going about saying “Cancer” and taking money. They have -no message- regarding what an individual can or should or could do, just want the money. 

          These idiots are prone to associative-only relationships with charity, medicine, prevention agencies and are more akin to PR, but bad PR. 

          When the message is diluted to a $20 bill being passed and your part is done, maybe wearing a stupid shirt, then this activity too prevents actual, useful awareness. 

          If you see it everywhere you see it nowhere I mean.

          And these idiots, the subject of the article, are not alone, not by a long shot.

          1. Aleknevicus is suggesting reluctance to support *any* awareness program.

            At the end of the day, merchandise and PR are tools that reinforce the message and like any other collaborative effort in this world, can be *potentially* used for evil.

            The method is perfectly innocent and important – evil, exploitative human beings is what you’re better off being against, not just the ones who may hang off the awareness movement. What this article shows us is that we have checks in place for these fraudsters. Also, that we should, as Aleknevicus suggests, tar all awareness programs with the same brush.

          2. I agree his stroke is broad but it is just a preference or reluctance of an individual, so maybe it discourages some who are open to the sort of thing/message profiled here, I mean people who are not thinking about that $20 or the t-shirt it got them. Or just not thinking. It won’t discourage otherwise IMO.

            At the end of the day I generally have a meal, spend time with kids and then look at a computer when everyone is asleep.

            PR diluted infinitely quickly becomes as useful as homeopathy.

             “tar all awareness programs with the same brush.”

            Or merely the same skepticism? Whether a PSA proper, a vapid scam like this or direct donating, skepticism in these matters is well warranted and beneficial to everyone. The real deal can usually sustain and benefit by it.

    2. Even research funding makes me disillusioned. How many billions of dollars have been donated for research into treating cancer, AIDS, and all kinds of other things? Then when a drug company comes out with a new drug for something, they justify the high price they charge by saying how much it cost to research.

      1.  Really, no context of overall expense, no translation to researcher-hours? You deserve better pharma reps who spring for sensible price-out and treatment-compliant teas and dim sum (for awareness, there.) The people conducting 24-mile mud/obstacle endurance runs and stumping ‘lungs rock’ at the end (‘rock lung’ being a cancer-related thing that has died off) are definitely burying the Boobies concept.
          Spreading 5 22-minute awareness (prevention, detection, presentation) schticks over 4 bands could do something; the IRS are not blind to qualifying that.

      2. Thank goodness Jonas Salk and the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis did not get disillusioned.  The March of Dimes was an unqualified success.  Is such a success around the corner for other illness?

    3. This reminds me of a gag (or scam) I’ve been working on, where I will throw a charity fundraiser to *prevent* awareness of some problem or malady.  When people ask, “Awareness of what?” I could say “I can’t tell you, obviously.  But it’s something really bad, and if we raise enough money right now, you will never have to learn about it.”

      1. I still think the Salvation Army would get more donations if you could pay them to stop ringing the bells. You could do something like, a five dollar donation buys you 2 minutes of silence. If everyone pitches in, we can end poverty and whatever else they help with, in addition to ending the constant ringing in front of the stores! Win win!

        First world problem what?

        1. “I still think the Salvation Army would get more donations if you could pay them to stop ringing the bells. ”

          They would probably get more donations if they weren’t massively homophobic bigots.

    4. “Awareness-raising” charities generally exist to promote awareness of their brand, not the cause in question. They spend an inordinate amount on marketing themselves shamelessly. Never much on prevention, research, and lobbying. Unless you’re Komen, in which case Brinker spends money lobbying against Federal funds for womens’ health.

  6. Seems like it would be fairly difficult to regulate third-party charity groups or fundraisers, since I’m sure Doctors Without Borders would accept donations even if they were obtained via Oakland break-dancing marathon. Taking such a celebratory/lighthearted tone about the most dreadful aspect of the disease  – losing your breasts – is obviously ridiculous though, not to mention the objectification. Nothing wrong with calling it something like Stupid Cancer – – but “Fuck Cancer”, although it probably exists somewhere, is not an effective way to raise money for anything. Modern times are different and all, but companies dealing with public money should know that not everyone is a carefree 20-35 year-old male. (Follow-up plug for Stupid Cancer because I know a few college-aged individuals with various forms of the disease)

    1. Almost impossible to regulate the small stuff. A complaint is required and not a lot of people will do that.

      Although I agree about the objectification I must say about the light-hearted approach that it is often the best way. Dreary and gloom and serious are something the victim of X malady will have already. Making it a good time also is better for getting some money from people who might never ever consider parting with it directly. 

    2. I was at an (unrelated) event where people were sporting “F*CK CANCER” t-shirts a few months ago, and I just found it odd:  There were kids there, but, beyond all that, is the t-shirt supposed to be edgy?  Should you wear it places where people are traditionally pro-cancer to show what a rebel you are?

      1. Boobies Rock! themselves have “Cuck Fancer” t-shirts on their website. One of which appears to be a knock-off of the Coca-Cola trademark, if any felt like reporting that to Coke.

  7. Interestingly enough I was involved with a “Boobies Rock” cancer fundraiser about 10 years ago.  Not at all associated with this story, but it was the same catch phrase we used.  I used to be in the music scene, was involved with Lilith Fair from the start, and knew quite a few female rockers in the Vancouver scene, a fair number of whom who’d felt the effect of cancer.  A bunch of them put on a charity night at a local club and raised tens of thousands of dollars, that all went to the Canadian Cancer Society.  Lots of people in the industry donated tons of door prizes and services.

    So yeah, “Boobies Rock” can be a legitimate name, so maybe we shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.

     $0.02  (CDN)

    1. Context does matter, of course. It’s a little different when it’s Boobies Rock, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Dudebro Industries.

  8. Let’s face it. Their target market just like the I (heart) Boobies people is teenagers that use them as a way to display words they’d otherwise not be able to say or get away with. Students in the 5th – 8th grade are wearing them so I started asking them what they bracelets are for. If they even manage to get the “awareness” word out, then I ask them to give me two facts or pieces of awareness about breast cancer. So far, I haven’t had a single one that can.

  9. Ironically in a false effort to “raise awareness”, he actually does so.  Articles like that in the Chicago Sun-Times do provide peripheral awareness to breast cancer.

    1. I would submit that the chilling effect scams exposed have on donations to legitimate agencies balance out the donations side of it, and that when exposed there is an inherent message that the problem being exploited by the scammers could be perceived as over-hyped or inflated, hence the attraction of scammers.

      Reading about this sort of thing isn’t likely to make a person think of how the problem relates to them.

    2. “Ironically in a false effort to “raise awareness”, he actually does so.”

      I think we all know cancer exists, thanks. He’s doing nobody any favors by the confidence operation.

  10. I note that they will *also* get in trouble with the Kool-Aid company over that “Jugs’ t-shirt.  This is the company that has, for example, pointed out in court that Jim Jones bumped all those people off with a “fruit-flavoured drink” and that there is no evidence that it was, in fact, a Kook-Aid brand product.

  11. I’d refute the notion that tasteless names = scam charity. I used to date a woman whose father was a member of a fairly famous motorcycle club with a lot of celebrity members (no, not that one it’s “The Uglies MC”) and they held, or were associated with a breast cancer fund raising run that had been called “Save them titties”.

    They sold a lot of t-shirts and raised and donated a lot of money with next to no overhead but because of the crass name of the event it was basically impossible to get any publicity assistance from any major foundation. They still gave the money and AFAIK the run happened more than once (early-mid 90’s).

    Bikers often just don’t get why the shit they find amusing is not appreciated by those outside of their own culture; but they were sincere.

      1.  Ok, fair enough but I was around the planning and setup and there was nobody getting a salary or other administrative money and say the hand-wringing about going out of pocket for t-shirts and stamps (again early/mid 90’s and most of the people in the club were older-types who didn’t even have AOL or Prodigy). I also recall the amount of the donation being around 5-7k which was a good lump for what was not a huge event. No permanent foundation was established, it was done pretty much ad-hoc and involved primarily regional bike enthusiast.

        I wonder if you ask the same question when it’s a kid raising money for charity via a lemonade stand or is it because bikers are suspect?

        1. “I wonder if you ask the same question when it’s a kid raising money for charity via a lemonade stand or is it because bikers are suspect?”

          Because you’re using it as an anecdotal example of “not a scam”.

    1. The comparable charity for men would be called Help Them Nutless Wonders. I’m sure that would be massively appreciated by men with testicular cancer.

      1. I’m not sure how “Save them titties” and “Help them nutless wonders” are at all alike, unless by “titties” they mean, “breastless wonders”.

      2.  Having been around these guys I feel they would have gone in more for obvious euphemisms, puns, or a heavy-handed acronym like “B.A.L.L.s” (bikers against lymphatic lumps) “N.U.T.S.” (Never Underestimate Testicular Sanctity).

        But, as Shane points out, it’s a bit of a false equivalency since the “STT” ride was about prevention.

        Maybe a more apt comparison would be a hypothetical ride for prostate exams “F.L.A.G.” (Fingers Like Ass Gaps. ok, not great but I seriously sat here way too long to try and come up with something).

        Pick up an older copy of Easy Rider magazine (I don’t know if it still exists or if it is still as gross as it was when I used to read it as a kid, dad was a biker) and look at the jokes and comics. Bike culture is very in to gross-out and shock humor, and cartoon veiny dicks.

        1. You can’t make a direct equivalence because men and women have widely different experiences with sexual objectification and thus perceive it differently.

          1.  You’re not wrong but approaching the bikers with even basic feminist rhetoric without first understanding that they honestly don’t know they’re being offensive is/would have been counterproductive IMHO. I don’t know if that’s what you would do/have done but my point is that their motives were decent while their approach would easily be construed by anyone (meaning most everyone not a biker or closely associated with biker culture) as massively creepy.

            I’m in somewhat of a rare position as someone who was raised by two divorced parents, one a hairy right-wing leather-clad biker from the deep South with many of the associated stereotypical behaviors of all of those adjectives and a Reformed Jew Atheist feminist mother from the Pacific Northwest, again with basically all of the associated stereotypes inherent.

            I speak redneck and Yiddish (well I can swear in Yiddish anyhow) and like a blintz with my pigs feet. I’ve seen and, at least as a kid and young adult, practiced a lot of the hypocrisies of both polar extremes without realizing that they were even in conflict.

            These bikies (Australian term for bikers which I love) sincerely care about the health of the people they are raising funds for and just as sincerely are ignorant of how their phrasing may be hurtful or threatening to the same group they want to assist (oh I’m sure there are just as many genuine misogynists in bikie culture as there is in any other including progressive leftist culture). Knowing the former to be true and using that to inform how you go about changing the latter seems, to me at least, the only way to begin to change minds and cultures.

            I feel like this is probably true of every different culture group.

    1. I’ve never heard of a man having his butt removed due to prostate cancer, or for any other reason. But I know a few who can no longer rise to the occasion.

  12. Although I’m not proud of doing so little investigating prior to working for them (only twice, I’d like to add), it turned out to be a good thing in the end because I went to the media and that spurred these stories and investigations.

    The author can imply that I’m stupid for assuming this was a legit charity despite the name, but the truth is, many, many people are assuming the same. Even since these stories broke, Boobies Rock! has been out selling t-shirts and reporting back on their Facebook pages in New York state, Southern Illinois, and North Texas. Just two nights ago they posted a photo of a man who had written them a $100 check in Buffalo. A friend of mine texted me today saying he saw them selling to tailgaters  at a Chicago Bears game parking lot. They have no plans to stop.

    I’m grateful for this article and hoping it spurs even more media coverage. Still, casting me to look like an idiot doesn’t help that end because there are many women who worked (or still work) for this company. They’re already discouraged from going to media by the company, who threatens to sue very easily and sent me multiple emails and an official cease and desist letter from their lawyer when I first began looking into this.

    1. You’re saying Xeni’s post makes you look like an idiot? I don’t think so. I read the part about you sympathetically, as an example of one among many who were duped by The Douche. 

      Still, didn’t the idiotic merch, like the shirt you’re holding in that photo, at least make you think twice?

      1. She does look young.  Most of us made at least a few really naive assumptions when we were young.  I know I have cringe-worthy memories pretty regularly when I think about my 20’s.

        1. I am 31. The other two women who worked with me that weekend are mid-30s. It is the nature of promotional modeling that you don’t know too much about the event you’re going to work until you’re actually there. Yes, many things made me think twice that day. 

          I had agreed to work twice for them in one weekend. After the first day, I should’ve bailed on the second because I had many suspicions after the first day.

      2.  I also didn’t feel anything come across from that section that is negative towards you, Jessica.  Just perhaps regret.  And considering the number of bone headed things I have done in retrospect I can both empathize and sympathize.

        Jessica, for what it’s worth, yer cool with the Internet :)

    2. Thank you very much for saying something. A lot of folks who get scammed never have the courage to stand up and say something because of the ridicule they may face, or the embarrassment they feel and that just enables the scam to continue. I hope you are proud of yourself, what you did takes real courage.

      1. “A lot of folks who get scammed never have the courage to stand up and say something because of the ridicule they may face, or the embarrassment they feel.”

        There are many women who have worked for this company who I believe are too scared or embarrassed to come forward. I, thankfully, only worked for them at two events. There are women who worked for them for six months or more, truly believing in what they were doing. There are women still working for them, literally right now. 

    3. I don’t think it makes you out like that, and doubt it was intended such because reading the articles it is fairly apparent that you are a part of the whistle-blowing.

      It’s hard to read stuff about yourself, personally I think your proximity to acerbic statements in BB’s summary post would make me twinge too, but the statements stand without relating to you, so probably aren’t about you.

      snipped from the 1st article:

      “Jessica Thompson, who answered a Craigslist ad seeking promotional models, sold T-shirts and other Boobies Rock items at the Oct. 20 Notre Dame game and at the Oct. 22 Bears game. She says her trainer told her to roam the parking lots with Boobies Rock merchandise, seeking “donations.”

      “She explicitly told us it was not selling and to not use the word ‘sell,’ ” Thompson says.

      Instead, she says she was told, “It’s a ‘breast-cancer awareness promotion.’ “
      Thompson says people were told that if they donated a certain amount, they would receive a “prize” like a T-shirt or bracelet.

      “I was assuming it was a charity,” she says.

      Thompson says she saw her trainer bag up the cash — about $3,000 for each game.”

      This would cause me to consider the very likely possibility that the money you were collecting for a for-profit was off the books at that for-profit. There is no other reason to attempt to represent the sales income as donations for a third party than to avoid it being income for the for-profit, and your position as their direct agent is the proverbial weak-link. It is important, just as it was stressed to you, that you even more than the marks think it is for charity.

      Glad the AG is on it, but the IRS should be too, for straight up tax evasion.

      1. Thanks. She actually clarified on twitter. I had misinterpreted her intent w/ the placement of my photo/quote and that could’ve been entirely due to over-sensitivity because I regret not doing more research initially.

        I agree regarding the IRS. Maybe that investigation is something we will see in the near future?

  13. I can’t believe I’m correcting the guy’s name, but hey, if you’re going to put a (potential) scumbag’s name out there, it’s Adam Shryock.  I remember that because, as an SIU-C alum, I remember minor fun being had at the expense of freshmen looking for Shryock Hall: “Hey, could you tell me where Shyrock is?”  “Nope, never heard of it.”

    This guy is definitely a douche, and the shirts are definitely the tackiest things ever, but I gotta tell you, if advertising that you give to related charities will land you in trouble with the Illinois AG, and with me being an Illinoisan looking to start a business, there’s no way in hell I would donate to charities.  Let Lisa Madigan donate her salary.

    1. “if advertising that you give to related charities will land you in trouble with the Illinois AG, and with me being an Illinoisan looking to start a business, there’s no way in hell I would donate to charities.”

      If your intention was to scam charities, then good. I hope your business fails.

    2. If you advertise that you will give to charities and you don’t donate to them, then yes, I sure as heck hope you get in trouble with the AG.

    3. He is right about the name, however. I checked the Sun-Times article and sure enough, it’s Shryock, not Shyrock.  Missed that the first time reading, so I spelled it wrong in a previous post too.

  14. I would like to a point out that even the “Legit” fundraisers like all the Pink Ribbon Sponsors are a marketing ploy.

    Watch the doco: Pink Ribbons Inc.

    Also most of these groups just use the money to pay for more “Screening” like Mobile Mammograms Trucks to go into the poor neighborhoods, which is just more Radiation to expose that breast tissue and cause more cancer.



    Profit all around except for the victims.


      There are pure research and health related charities, it’s not just Komen.

  15. Saw Boobies Rock girls at the KC Chiefs game 12/2. Model girls wearing tight tshirts getting tons of attention.

    I could detect the exploitation, yet happy to be getting so much attention debate, going on in their confused brains. Now I know!

    1. That means you are a customer. If you feel concerned about what you saw, you can contact your state’s Attorney General. 

      You can also review them on Yelp and, if you bought something, fill out a Better Business Bureau report.

Comments are closed.