Again, what exactly is the rule that says he should have an aversion to keeping the money?[By the way, the proper word is "averse" unless you are for some reason trying to say he does no harm to keeping the fortune etc..]<quoted text>
I see that Mr. Reynolds is not adverse to keeping the fortune his family made selling cigarettes. Not only that, but he has created a new niche for himself reliant upon smoking: he charges 10,000 per lecture for the anti-smoker cause and he has created a "non-profit" business to protect himself from taxes.
It would, I submit, be noteworthy if he did NOT keep the money (though he seems to have used it to create the organization mentioned), but is NOT noteworthy that he elected to keep and utilize it.
You have a pretty twisted set of standards there, Bubbastein.