A slew of good Samaritans: Bad triggers good
In a world where bad news often overshadows the good, the recent story of Elderton's Shawn Blystone is one that, as one of his neighbors suggested, restores our faith in humanity.
Here is a brief recap in case you missed the story: Mr. Blystone is a 28-year-old man with a disability that makes him unable to drive a car. So, to get around town — to the grocery store or post office — he uses an adult-sized tricycle. The bad news came when this vital item in this young man's life was stolen after he parked it on his porch.
The overwhelmingly good news came the day after the theft was reported in the Leader Times. A Kittanning High School graduate — now a businessman in Pittsburgh — read the story and bought Blystone a new bike. Then an anonymous woman in the Elderton area read the story and also bought him a new bike. Others started a fund to buy him a new bike.
The number of phone calls to the Leader Times and borough offices from people wanting to help could easily have led to Blystone having bikes numbering in the double digits. It was a stunning response from communities near and far.
Blystone didn't end up with a dozen bikes. He didn't even end up needing the bikes purchased by the first two good Samaritans. Turns out the bike that was stolen was returned. It is uncertain whether the orders placed for the new bikes can be canceled, or if the tricycles will be delivered and given to others who need them.
Whatever the case, the good news just keeps pedaling along. And it all started with the theft of a tricycle.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.