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)

It's so hard to hear you guys blathering on about this from atop your high horses. Or are they soapboxes? Either way, set a budget, follow it, and be done with it. I know, I know, it's about the PRINCIPAL of the matter... :rolleyes:

Ray, there are no moral absolutes and you know that. Moral absolutes are for people that like to look down on others so they can feel special and self important while wagging thier finger and looking stern.

$100-150 (that's literally 2 people's dues) a year is not an issue even worth starting a thread over, let alone the time I spend reading it or the massive amount of time you guys have spent on this issue.
 
zenbot said:
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Click to expand...
The only way to get my newsletter (I actually prefer to call it a 'manifesto') is to sign up for the Association of Genuinely Despicable People (of which I am the chairman of the Board of Directors). Membership includes:
• mathematically-bankrupt message board post rating service
• $10 discount to all AGDP events (a $0 value)
• my glossy, beautifully illustrated manifesto 4x per year (actually a poorly-edited, ad-ridden compendium of unsolicited contributions from semi-literate genuinely despicable people across the globe)
• most importantly, the warm sense of self-fulfillment you will feel knowing you are subsidizing the cause of genuinely despicable people everywhere, not to mention the personal chemical dependencies of the members of our Board of Directors

Only $75 for a year; act NOW (as I need beer money for this weekend).
 
/Dave at next meeting;

"seeing that the majority of members and/or Internet posters don't mind picking up the alcohol tab, I was hoping they could front me some smoke so I can get the ball rolling on "what's a pro discgolfer" ";)
 
again, how is it explotation when it seems that most of the members see no issue with it? It seems that most have been made aware of the issue through the various DG websites and genuinley don't care, but the vocal minority are shouting from their soapboxes (or was is a high horse? I can never remember) about the INJUSTICES!!!! *shakes fist angrily*
 
Discette said:
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."
Click to expand...

Dave, Juliana, & Rick voted AGAINST financially subsidizing the consumption of intoxication liquors by BoD members at summits. The other 4 voted to allow such shenanigans. Your professed love for free beer hootenannies (and your proven predilection for rah-rahing whatever the PDGA decides, in its infinite wisdom, to do) seems to put you more in the camp of the majority.
 
skinner21 said:
again, how is it explotation when it seems that most of the members see no issue with it? It seems that most have been made aware of the issue through the various DG websites and genuinley don't care, but the vocal minority are shouting from their soapboxes (or was is a high horse? I can never remember) about the INJUSTICES!!!! *shakes fist angrily*
Click to expand...

If it's such a waste of time, why are you joining in to voice your opinion to show we're morally wrong? Aren't you climbing on your own high horse for trying to some how achieve some higher ground than ours for looking down upon us for standing up for what is clearly a bad decision? This is clearly off topic, but you've so throughly decided it's the proper way to address the situation.
 
You're right, I misspoke, there are some moral absolutes, like murder, rape, etc.

So, in your mind this is one of those instances of a moral absolute?
 
Vegan Ray said:
Man that was fast work polling 13284 members. Great job! (Or are you just possibly talking out of your ass?)
Click to expand...

oh, it's very possible I'm talking out of my ass, but after reading through this thread and a few others, it seems that there are very few people that find this to be a big deal.
 
Lithicon said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that I don't think cost should define what is morally acceptable.

If they are drinking responsibly (no matter the cost) I have no moral issues with spending member funds on it

If they are getting drunk (no matter the cost) I don't think they should spend member funds on it.
 
The people on this site that are actual PDGA members of the 40k members active or not aren't quite the voice of the majority by any means.
 
SAxDrc said:
I'm saying that I don't think cost should define what is morally acceptable.

If they are drinking responsibly (no matter the cost) I have no moral issues with spending member funds on it

If they are getting drunk (no matter the cost) I don't think they should spend member funds on it.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're so morally backwards I can't grasp your concept. You're saying that regardless of the amount, as long as they're not drunk in the end, it's perfectly acceptable to spend HOW EVER MUCH MONEY IS DEEMED NEEDED? Where on this planet did you come from? How is that morally right?

So a $100 shot for four people doing multiple shots(trust me it's out there), vs someone spending $5 per mix drink some how doesn't even enter the equation, just so long as they don't end up drunk in the end. Well Jesus Christ, pop the Crystal boys, we've got a real winner right here. Do you realize there are $1000 bottles of champaign out there? I wanna roll with you if you're going to pony op the cash no matter the cost.
 
Last edited:
skinner21 said:
You're right, I misspoke, there are some moral absolutes, like murder, rape, etc.

So, in your mind this is one of those instances of a moral absolute?
Click to expand...

I didn't realize moral absolutism only applied to things that are against the law.
 
Lithicon said:
If it's such a waste of time, why are you joining in to voice your opinion to show we're morally wrong? Aren't you climbing on your own high horse for trying to some how achieve some higher ground than ours for looking down upon us for standing up for what is clearly a bad decision? This is clearly off topic, but you've so throughly decided it's the proper way to address the situation.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how to respond to this. My point is that speaking in absolutes will get you nowhere. When asked earlier how much money we are talking with this you guys got all indignant "it doesn't matter! we're being ripped off!". But it does matter. If the members choose to allow an absurdly small (think .001%) portion of the budget to a perk for the board members then so be it. From what I am reading, that is the way the people are going.

This is not black and white, no matter how bad you 2 want it to be.
 
"you are not allowed to be angry at someone spending your money on booze for themselves" - some people in this thread that I don't really get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Top