Register

  • Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Your PDGA 'tax' dollars at work (now hijack free)

Next thread:

How much money is the BOD spending on hors d'œuvres? Chicken fingers ain't cheap.
 
After looking at last year's budget I see the PDGA spend $32 grand on summits and other stuff like that. I can only conclude that $20,000 of that was spend on booze and hookers.
 
We should probably just pay for a tablespoon of peanut butter, a few vitamins, and tap water for each member. Everything else is just indulging.
 
Scoot_er said:
Also crazy that he feels it is a new low when 3 board members seemed to feel just like us.

Jeff and Suzette all in one day! WOW
Click to expand...


Why is my name here? This is my first post to this thread. Did I miss something?:confused:

I would vote with Rick, Dave and Juliana. While I always buy beer for the volunteers helping run my events, I don't think this is the same thing. I find I get more volunteers with free beer. It is inexpensive, it makes them happy and they want to volunteer again next year!

:insert beer drinking smiley here:

!
 
I am quite dismayed by the fact that a significant subset of commenters seem to equate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something with the amount of money it costs (i.e., the same action may be "right" if it costs x dollars, but would be "wrong" if it costs 5x dollars). This lack of conviction in defining moral absolutes is a significant symptom (or is it a cause?) of what ails society today.
 
Discette said:
I would vote with Rick, Dave and Juliana. While I always buy beer for the volunteers helping run my events, I don't think this is the same thing. I find I get more volunteers with free beer. It is inexpensive, it makes them happy and they want to volunteer again next year!
Click to expand...
I think you need to read a bit more carefully.
 
Vegan Ray said:
I am quite dismayed by the fact that a significant subset of commenters seem to equate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something with the amount of money it costs (i.e., the same action may be "right" if it costs x dollars, but would be "wrong" if it costs 5x dollars). This lack of conviction in defining moral absolutes is a significant symptom (or is it a cause?) of what ails society today.
Click to expand...
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
 
Vegan Ray said:
I am quite dismayed by the fact that a significant subset of commenters seem to equate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something with the amount of money it costs (i.e., the same action may be "right" if it costs x dollars, but would be "wrong" if it costs 5x dollars). This lack of conviction in defining moral absolutes is a significant symptom (or is it a cause?) of what ails society today.
Click to expand...

Can I call you Jesus? Because you're the only light I tend to see in this entire discussion at times. This was my argument several pages back.
 
Vegan Ray said:
I am quite dismayed by the fact that a significant subset of commenters seem to equate the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something with the amount of money it costs (i.e., the same action may be "right" if it costs x dollars, but would be "wrong" if it costs 5x dollars). This lack of conviction in defining moral absolutes is a significant symptom (or is it a cause?) of what ails society today.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't equate "right" or "wrong" with the cost, but rather with the intent. If they are having a glass of wine with dinner and that costs x I don't care that much. If they are trying to get wasted and rack up a 5x bar tab; that bothers me, not because of the cost, but because the intent.

Likewise if they were to spend 5x on a very nice glass of wine with their dinner, I don't care. If they spend x on a cheap 5th, thats not cool.

So for me: intent (which may have a strong correlation to cost) should define the "rightness" or "wrongness," not cost.
 
Vegan Ray said:
I think you need to read a bit more carefully.
Click to expand...


I have re-read and still don't understand.

A line from one of my favorite movies:

Sarris to Nesmith: "He doesn't understand. Explain as you would to a child."
 
SAxDrc said:
I wouldn't equate "right" or "wrong" with the cost, but rather with the intent. If they are having a glass of wine with dinner and that costs x I don't care that much. If they are trying to get wasted and rack up a 5x bar tab; that bothers me, not because of the cost, but because the intent.

Likewise if they were to spend 5x on a very nice glass of wine with their dinner, I don't care. If they spend x on a cheap 5th, thats not cool.

So for me: intent (which may have a strong correlation to cost) should define the "rightness" or "wrongness," not cost.
Click to expand...

So let me paraphrase this for everyone. "I only like it when you blatantly exploit me "A LITTLE". As long as you're making it obvious, and it's not too much. I'm fine with being exploited though, so go ahead, exploit away. Just don't think you're going to get away with it if you do it too much. I'll be watching and waiting to say, "GOTCHA"!"

Apparently by his own admission, as long as they're not spending a lot of money for a little, or a lot of booze. Only if it's a little money for.. Wait, what? So basically you're saying you can spend a **** ton for one glass, but don't think you're going to spend a little and get a lot, that **** isn't cool? What mathematics class did you go to?

Likewise if they were to spend 5x on a very nice glass of wine with their dinner, I don't care. If they spend x on a cheap 5th, thats not cool.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top