only if the BoD chooses to allow you to keep that right to vote, which they are not bound to do.

but you obfuscate:

"The point is that the best members, for the PDGA as a membership association, are those who join and renew because they support the good work, overall, of the PDGA."

assigning relative value to Members based on which services they prefer does not feel like a constructive approach to me. why value a Member who joins for ratings and to have a voice less than one who joins to endorse the policies of the elected leaders without question?

besides, voting is not the only way to have a voice.

Unworthy of a reasoned response. Proceed directly to new job as campaign manager for a Neocon presidential candidate or Ambassador to Belgium. :cool:

unworthy of reason??? i actually laid out a reason to support my position.

your dismissiveness is incredibly discouraging and insulting.

incredibly discouraging and insulting.



Sorry. I often feel that way about posts on DISCussion. I guess this is your turn.

Hot Tub breakin' bad.

likely he just got a new waterproof cell phone. if he decides to run for BOD again he should be able to make more than half the meetings now.

I was very sad to read in the latest issue of DGW that they are going to take a break from publishing the magazine. To me the magazine is one of the best features of my pdga membership. The decision not to renew the DGW contract is truly a shame and one that will be sharply felt by the rank and file pdga members.

Which issue? is the spring 2007 issue out yet? I thought I read the last one cover to cover and don't remember that bit of news....

The latest issue. I got it yesterday.

This will be a terrible thing in the effort to move toward a more professional organization. The other publications, while currently good, will need to pump it up a bit.
On the brighter side, Rothstein might be less grumpy for a while . . . . :D

The motions of the Board during the 2/7/07 meeting concerning the magazine:

Meeting Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2007-02-07BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf)

Some of us at the time mentioned here that the motions passed could signal the end of the magazine. IMO, this will be a loss for the sport at least initially. Hopefully the market will find reason to provide such a resource in the future.

67% of developmental players didn't renew...

Hmmm.

Maybe those development players decided they didn't like competitive events. The PDGA offers a very specialized product for a very specific audience. Maybe they shot worse than they thought. Maybe the play was too slow. There are a myriad of potential reasons why someone might not enjoy playing in tournaments.

Many years ago I joined NORBA to do a series of mountain bike races. Even though I love riding my mountain bike, I didn't renew the next year. It had absolutely nothing with the service I received from NORBA or a lack of respect for the organziation. I just didn't have the time or inclination to race my mountain bike.

-Dave

All I know is that I enjoy the mag very much and look at it as one of the primary reasons I renew every year. Maybe I'm in the minority (I doubt it) but the message board posters don't speak for all of the members.

The magazine is not being removed as a membership perk, it is being made into an optional item. The details are not yet worked out, but members will have the option to subscribe to an additional disc golf publication.

That sounds good!

Choice is nice. Options are nice. Variety is nice.

Change is scary.

Its also notable to anyone freaking out that the same minutes cited above also include the note that a RFP is being developed for an association magazine, so its not as if there will be no print mag at all.

Joe

Correct, but without the guaranteed subscription level, undertaking a full color magazine becomes a much riskier proposition that has a high probablility of financial loss. Without the 10,000 plus subscribers, the ad revenue gets affected and their isn't enough subscriptions to spread out the production costs. What businessman in their right mind would want to take this risk?

If 30% of our members opt out to save $10 to $20 on their membership, I think we will probably be looking at going back to a 'newsletter' type publication. While this may be fine for communicating basic information, it's not the selling tool for the 'non-throwing' public like a full color magazine.

Yes, I'm afraid that the actions of the BOD has indirectly resulted in the removal of the perk. I haven't gotten my magazine yet to see what everyone is referring to here, but I think most people can understand why the publisher would be considering hanging it up.

But the RFP will have to state that the subscription level is unknown as the members have the option to opt out whenever they renew. This makes it a lot harder to get serious replies, and a lot harder for a bidder to commit to an expensive option such as a full color magazine.

If the current issue (I'm tingling with anticipation here) is really the last one for 2007 aren't the members owed a partial refund for the three issues they apparently aren't going to be receiving?

Also wouldn't it make more sense for the Association to go with an online or digitally delivered version of their propaganda publication? Look at actual publications like Time (http://www.time.com/time/) or The Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/) You can practically get the whole periodical online. Playboy actually offers you a digital version of the subscription now in lieu of the traditional hardcopy. Considering the over representation of computer geeks in the Association vs. the general population this club should absolutely go in that direction vs. some half rate magazine. What percentage of members have an active email account? There's your delivery option. Cheaper than postage.

I think we should go with a subscription internet magazine and get out of the paper magazine thing entirely. We should be planting trees not chopping them down.

What I don't understand is that half of the magazine is Ads, so why doesn't the magazine support itself? Is the ad space free? If the magazine can't support itself then we shouldn't "help" it out by financing it. That just sounds like we're padding someone's pocket.

And there is nothing wrong with padding someone's pocket.

We have this wierd expectation in our DG culture that everything should be provided by volunteers and no one should be able to make a living off of this sport.

The argument for subsidizing the magazine with captive subscribers would be that the value of the magazine to promoters of our sport when dealing with sponsors, and the value of the magazine to the organization in selling memberships, outweighs the opportunity cost of losing those potential members who don't join because the dues are too high because of the cost of the mandatory subscription to the magazine.

Whether the argument is valid is another thing. I think the argument probably is valid at a membership rate of $30 or $40 but loses validity when the membership rate is $50 or $75.

And there is nothing wrong with padding someone's pocket.

We have this wierd expectation in our DG culture that everything should be provided by volunteers and no one should be able to make a living off of this sport.


I believe people should be able to make a living off disc golf, in whatever capacity that is, LEGITIMATELY. But I don't think the PDGA should subsudize anyone because that creates conflicts of interest. Since many of our top pro's can't make a living off disc golf, why should the people who make the magazine about them make a living of that magazine? If you want to subsidize anything, put them money directly back into tournaments.

And there is nothing wrong with padding someone's pocket.

We have this wierd expectation in our DG culture that everything should be provided by volunteers and no one should be able to make a living off of this sport.



I agree with the second statement, but the problem with the first statement is that the members have been forced to "pad" DGWN's pocket. The market is artificial.

If DGWN was run inhouse by the organization, I don't think there would be a problem.

I agree with the second statement, but the problem with the first statement is that the members have been forced to "pad" DGWN's pocket. The market is artificial.




precisely what i was about to post.

I agree with the second statement, but the problem with the first statement is that the members have been forced to "pad" DGWN's pocket. The market is artificial .

You mean the same artificial market in Tourney running when a TD " sells " plastic " to its AM players as " prizes " . ???

If the current issue (I'm tingling with anticipation here) is really the last one for 2007 aren't the members owed a partial refund for the three issues they apparently aren't going to be receiving?



Starts 2008.

I agree with the second statement, but the problem with the first statement is that the members have been forced to "pad" DGWN's pocket. The market is artificial.



You mean the same artificial market in Tourney running when a TD " sells " plastic " to its AM players as " prizes " . ???



Big difference. The players can choose to play or not play.

We were "stuck" with DGWN.

artificial market is artificial market . IMPO
I am not saying either one is right or wrong or if they are both right or wrong , just pointing out the same same .

If DGWN was run inhouse by the organization, I don't think there would be a problem.


Except for money, staff, time, and logistics. Oh yeah, and money.


Rothstein has not gotten rich from subscription money or the PDGA subsidy.
Plus, he gave breaks to MANY of the advertisers, and kept the little boat afloat with his own money at times.

Change can definitely be good, but floundering experimentation with disc golf's main publication will not produce favorable results.
The PDGA will lose some members.
The other publications will try to reach the high bar DGW(N) has set, then get deflated when they realize a small market has been split down the middle and that there isn't enough revenue to continue giving members a subscription choice.
By then, we will have already disconnected DGW(N)'s feeding tube and will be watching it slowly die. By 2009, we will be regretting this decision just like we did with SportsLoop.

The other publications will try to reach the high bar DGW(N) has set, then get deflated when they realize a small market has been split down the middle and that there isn't enough revenue to continue giving members a subscription choice.




that's a matter of opinion.

if the bar were really set high, why would there be a movement to make it optional?

all print publications are coming up with creative ways to integrate with digital distribution to stay alive. it's going to be even harder for something like DGWN to stay relevant with such a small audience.

exactly. people need to understand that Theo has wanted to make DGWN optional for years... this is not the result of some rebel newbie on the BoD.

The other publications have indeed filled similar nitches and have appealed to a PORTION of the membership audience. They are fun, quality publications.
However, they do not have the glossy paper, the high-resolution images, the fairly reliable distribution/mailing system, and the invaluable aspect of an experienced publisher.

If a non-artificial market will support a publication with "glossy paper, the high-resolution images, the fairly reliable distribution/mailing system, and the invaluable aspect of an experienced publisher", then it will thrive. If not, then it wasn't meant to be (and shouldn't have been propped up by an artificial market). Kudos to the BOD for a bold decision to move away from the "old boys' club".

The other publications have indeed filled similar nitches and have appealed to a PORTION of the membership audience. They are fun, quality publications.
However, they do not have the glossy paper, the high-resolution images, the fairly reliable distribution/mailing system, and the invaluable aspect of an experienced publisher.

or the pricetag that comes with glossy paper and four-color hi-res images.

And there is nothing wrong with padding some one's pocket.

We have this weird expectation in our DG culture that everything should be provided by volunteers and no one should be able to make a living off of this sport.



I agree with the second statement, but the problem with the first statement is that the members have been forced to "pad" DGWN's pocket. The market is artificial.

If DGWN was run inhouse by the organization, I don't think there would be a problem.



Members have not been forced to do anything. They chose to be members in the first place, so ultimately no forcing going on. I think people are opting out of renewing due to the costs.....and lots of the costs are tied to the cost of the mag which many do not really value at the price they are paying.

The PDGA made the mag a part of the membership bundle and chose to outsource that part of the bundle. I see no difference in the mag being a profit center for the PDGA or for the producer of it.

I think this will work out well: the economics of this will work things out to where the membership will get what they want (on average across the board) and therefore membership should grow.

How much real, tangible benefit is the magazine, anyhow? Lots of people say that it gives the sport much more of a feeling of legitimacy. But to whom? If you say "to advertisers who want to sponsor us", you are wrong, because they will quickly peel back the covers and see the market size that is really there - they will see the actual (small) numbers that are behind this whole discussion.

All a magazine will do is give advertisers a good first impression....which will likely backfire on us once they do their analysis on what sort of ROI they will get.

Since many of our top pro's can't make a living off disc golf, why should the people who make the magazine about them make a living of that magazine? If you want to subsidize anything, put them money directly back into tournaments.


I don't know how to tell you this, but that has been the financial model for disc golf for 25 years. The key to the pros being able to live off the sport is to put money into the growth of the sport and the growth of related non-disc-manufacture disc golf related business.

When we continue to plow every dollar into the payout, the same 2 or 3 guys get all the money. Oops, wait. That's the "10 years ago model".

When we continue to plow every dollar into the payout, the same 10 or 15 guys get all the money. It doesn't leave any money left to grow the sport so that guys number 4 through 15 aren't merely trying to "stay on tour until their bankroll runs out" by eating ramen and sleeping on floors.

The fact of the matter right now is that there isn't enough entry fee money to sustain any decent number "real pros", ie those that make a reasonable living off playing disc golf. We need more than just plowing entry fees and membership fees into the payout to change that.

The fact of the matter right now is that there isn't enough entry fee money to sustain any decent number "real pros", ie those that make a reasonable living off playing disc golf. We need more than just plowing entry fees and membership fees into the payout to change that.



a hotel that i stayed at recently for a DG tourney also had lots of guys staying there with bass boats for a nearby fishing tournament. i had gathered from an earlier conversation with one of the fisherman that it was some sort of regional qualifier for some sort of sanctioning body that facilitates competitive fishing.

later that evening, i was having dinner with a "top pro" and mentioned the comparison of the fisherman to the pdga. he chuckled and said, "yeah, but at least they can probably win some money!". i replied, "sure, but they are also spending 10x as much as us".

i think this point is lost on most discers. we pay $13 for plastic and most would sooner go diving into scummy water to retrieve it than to let it go. every time i make a hotel reservation for a tourney i have mutliple discers inquire for floor availability (don't take it personally when i say no). we're on this thread debating if our one "glossy" magazine would stay afloat with out subsidized subscriptions. we don't pay greens fees (typically) and have to angle with public parks to get and keep our courses in the ground.

the simple fact is, until there is money in the sport there won't be money in the sport. i don't see that happening for a while and that's probably a good thing for average joe disc golfer. until disc golf isn't largely a "playground sport", it'll be a wild goose chase trying to get to the point where players can truely be pro's.

Members have not been forced to do anything. They chose to be members in the first place, so ultimately no forcing going on.



Not always the case.

If a non-artificial market will support a publication with "glossy paper, the high-resolution images, the fairly reliable distribution/mailing system, and the invaluable aspect of an experienced publisher", then it will thrive. If not, then it wasn't meant to be (and shouldn't have been propped up by an artificial market). Kudos to the BOD for a bold decision to move away from the "old boys' club".



Keep in mind that many organizations support a magazine via 'artificial market' due to the benefits they feel the resource provides. The approach that was taken is not unusual by any means.

As for the 'old boys' club' label, having long term relationships that are beneficial to all parties involved is encouraged in most management practices. You don't throw it out just because the arrangement was started years ago, and just because the relationship is old doesn't necessarily imply that the relationship isn't still beneficial to all parties. Labeling it as such seems to state that there were underhanded dealings and that the relationship is no longer beneficial. Is that what you are intending to imply?

Keep in mind that many organizations support a magazine via 'artificial market' due to the benefits they feel the resource provides. The approach that was taken is not unusual by any means.



good point. i get a good kick out of the propaganda laden "rifleman" mag that the NRA sends me.

And there is nothing wrong with padding someone's pocket.

We have this wierd expectation in our DG culture that everything should be provided by volunteers and no one should be able to make a living off of this sport.


I believe people should be able to make a living off disc golf, in whatever capacity that is, LEGITIMATELY. But I don't think the PDGA should subsudize anyone because that creates conflicts of interest. Since many of our top pro's can't make a living off disc golf, why should the people who make the magazine about them make a living of that magazine? If you want to subsidize anything, put them money directly back into tournaments.



Why should the peope who make golf discs make a living if the pros throwing them don''t? Why should Bite Shoes expect to make a profit if the Pros wearing them don't? Sorry, I don't see the correlation.

Is (or now 'was') the arrangement with the magazine a purchased service or a 'subsidy'? I'd argue that is was a purchased service, with a guaranteed subscription rate helping to keep every individual's burden of the cost at an affordable level. If it is felt that the service provided doesn't offer the value expected, then you move on. But is anyone really receiving a subsidy? A service was expected in return for the fees paid.

Why should the peope who make golf discs make a living if the pros throwing them don''t? Why should Bite Shoes expect to make a profit if the Pros wearing them don't? Sorry, I don't see the correlation.




this is exactly what i'm talking about. there will never be significant money for the "pros" until more disc companies, and more shoe companies, and more widget companies see that there is money to be made by marketing to the disc golf community. that has clearly not been proven yet. could you HONESTLY make a case otherwise?

face it-- corporate interest will have to precede big sponsorship dollars. until there is money to be chased (which there is very little of right now), why chase it? i'm not conniving enough to try to convince people that there actually is money in disc golf-- there isn't and it'll likely never be.

so many disc golfers seem to feel that our sport is entitled to big money for pros and tv deals. money doesn't grow on trees and we've got a long way to go before we can honestly pitch big corporate sponsorship on a large scale.

so many disc golfers seem to feel that our sport is entitled to big money for pros and tv deals. money doesn't grow on trees and we've got a long way to go before we can honestly pitch big corporate sponsorship on a large scale.


Which is why we need to really boost the PROfessional image.
A PROfessional mag (yes, the glossy, full color stuff) helps validate this.

What would the average player want more? Perhaps a newspaper-type mag with more fun than substance.
What would interest the corporate PR person or investor? Probably the glossy mag with pictures that jump out at you. Like it or not, that is exactly what attracts investors: collared shirts, big crowds, and brighty, shiny pictures.

so many disc golfers seem to feel that our sport is entitled to big money for pros and tv deals. money doesn't grow on trees and we've got a long way to go before we can honestly pitch big corporate sponsorship on a large scale.


Which is why we need to really boost the PROfessional image.
A PROfessional mag (yes, the glossy, full color stuff) helps validate this.

What would the average player want more? Perhaps a newspaper-type mag with more fun than substance.
What would interest the corporate PR person or investor? Probably the glossy mag with pictures that jump out at you. Like it or not, that is exactly what attracts investors: collared shirts, big crowds, and brighty, shiny pictures.



i don't think we're reading the same magazine. the one i get has tie-dye shirts, filthy baseball hats, ganja references, homemade ads, and half-rate yoga instruction. not that any of that isn't entertaining, i just haven't been in a rush to get it in front of prospective sponsors. i'd like to see this PROfessional mag that you speak of. it might be useful.

I agree with the second statement, but the problem with the first statement is that the members have been forced to "pad" DGWN's pocket. The market is artificial .

You mean the same artificial market in Tourney running when a TD " sells " plastic " to its AM players as " prizes " . ???

I agree with the first statement immediately preceeding the second statement made by the first party in response to the initial parties first statement.

Just in case y'all (language consequence of a week in KY and TN) haven't been over there yet, Rick's made some major changes in the website. (http://www.dgwn.com) It's now a fledgling real news site.

Just to repeat some useful statistical comparisons:

My employer association publishes a quarterly journal with a color cover and around 72 non-glossy black and white inside pages. Our budget is $124,000 annually, not counting substantial staff and volunteer time, for service to a little more than 5,000 members and subscribers.

The PDGA is contracting with Disc Golf World to produce a glossy, colorful magazine with many more pages, to service 12,000+ members.

and your point is... ???

and your point is... ???



He's double dipping now trying to cover for The Apologist.

Members have not been forced to do anything. They chose to be members in the first place, so ultimately no forcing going on.



Not always the case.



You're right, just last week the PDGA thug squad stopped by my house and told me next year I had to up as an Eagle member or they'd break my knees.


I fooled them though. I pointed out that there is a whole group of local players that play daily at Moffitt who don't belong to the PDGA, but regularly play for fun and in league, that they should go force to sign up. Off they went to Moffitt but when they got there the players had moved to Oak Meadow, so they headed that way. Last I heard they were down at Brooks and still lookin'.

BTW - those non-pdga players, they seem to be having a blast and they include some guys who are sick good. Funny that.

and your point is... ???



He has two of them, one on each horn. :D

Actually, he's giving factual information. Then posters can read it, think about it, and draw conclusions. For example, he could have simply said... "The PDGA is ripping us off sending money to DGWN without getting a good return." Instead, he showed what a typical glossy mag costs to produce so that we could compare that to what we pay for DGWN and decide if it is a good value.

but thats a comparison to another organization on just one narrow metric. remember you blasting me unmercifully for making comparisons to LIKE organizations? well, i do.

you assert that Calhoun's organization is typical. is it? on what grounds do you make that assertion? for all we know it might be one of the most bloated and inefficient organizations in the history of organizations. or it might be lean and mean. point is, we dont know, and therefore this single comparison is worse than meaningless because it suggests a correlation that does not (indeed, can not) exist

Calhoun didnt even tell us how the PDGA compares to his organization. all we know is they have a $124K total budget for a mag to 5000 members and subscribers. what percent is that of their total budget? does that number include postage and fuilfillment? does the DGWN "other membership benefits" number include postage and fulfillment?

they have a $124K total budget for a mag to 5000 members and subscribers. what percent is that of their total budget? does that number include postage and fuilfillment? does the DGWN "other membership benefits" number include postage and fulfillment?


Our overall budget for FY07-08 will be about $4M. The figures I supplied include postage and fulfillment.

I expect that current board member Pat Brenner, who voted "aye" on the PDGA/DGW relationship changes, would already know what the pertinent numbers are for DGW and the PDGA, and what they include. Surely that was part of what must have been a months-long research and discussion effort leading up to this major change?

but thats a comparison to another organization on just one narrow metric. remember you blasting me unmercifully for making comparisons to LIKE organizations? well, i do.

you assert that Calhoun's organization is typical. is it? on what grounds do you make that assertion? for all we know it might be one of the most bloated and inefficient organizations in the history of organizations. or it might be lean and mean. point is, we dont know, and therefore this single comparison is worse than meaningless because it suggests a correlation that does not (indeed, can not) exist

Calhoun didnt even tell us how the PDGA compares to his organization. all we know is they have a $124K total budget for a mag to 5000 members and subscribers. what percent is that of their total budget? does that number include postage and fuilfillment? does the DGWN "other membership benefits" number include postage and fulfillment?



hmmmm? I wasn't comparing organizations, I was comparing the cost of producing a magazine. It might be that producing that magazine in one place is significantly different than in another, but I doubt it. On the other hand, the PDGA didn't put the publishing costs up for bid, maybe they get ripped off? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

BTW - comparing one narrow metric is what made this O.K. Now, if I'd said, "look, Terry's guys produce their mag for 154,000 and the PDGA produces theirs for 180,000, obviously Terry's guys are a much better run organization," well, I'd have been a donkey. That is, comparing two organizations using limited information that has little overall meaning is, IMO, a bad comparison. But that isn't what I did. Whew!

i absolutely know what the mag costs us... i have the numbers on the screen in front of me. i do not know what the DGWN published, cuz i dont have the mag in front of me - i do know the PDGA permits only a very high-level rollup view.

if you want to compare the two orgs, where would you prefer to start:

1. the PDGA spends about 25% less per member for DGWN than Terry's employer does for that magazine

or

2. as a percent of total budget, the PDGA spends 6 times more on DGWN than Terry's employer spends on its magazine

both are true, but the ambiquity renders the comparison useless. hence my original question.... whats your point?

i absolutely know what the mag costs us... i have the numbers on the screen in front of me. i do not know what the DGWN published, cuz i dont have the mag in front of me - i do know the PDGA permits only a very high-level rollup view.

if you want to compare the two orgs, where would you prefer to start:

1. the PDGA spends about 25% less per member for DGWN than Terry's employer does for that magazine

or

2. as a percent of total budget, the PDGA spends 6 times more on DGWN than Terry's employer spends on its magazine

both are true, but the ambiquity renders the comparison useless. hence my original question.... whats your point?



Since our budgets in comparison mean nothing, and since the cost per member would only have meaning if the two organizations had the same number of members, the only real comparison is total cost. That is, we aren't out of the ballpark in terms of the cost of such a mag or we are.

There is no ambiguity. "Ambiguity" is a smoke screen. And "not getting the point" seems disingenuous.

We're talking about (a) a black and white, non-glossy publication to 5,000 people that is smaller in content but that costs more in absolute and relative terms than (b) a colorful, glossy publication that has more content, to 12,000 people.

Sounds like the organization getting color, glossy, and more content to more than twice as many people is pretty clearly not getting ripped off.

"Don't fix it if it ain't broke," comes to mind.

who the heck said anything about anyone ripping anyone off? that has never been mentioned. spin your own words not mine.

You must have missed a few of the posts on this and other threads.

I don't believe anyone thinks they are getting ripped off. But since we "aren't allowed" to see the numbers, how are we to know. You quoted the numbers for your publication, but we aren't even allowed to see the numbers to compare.

keep it up and we will not even have a mag.

Keep what up? All I want to know is how much it costs us! I didn't realize that asking that would lead to demise of DGWN. Why is this such a touchy subject? Terry even went to the trouble of posting a similar situation for "comparison", except we have nothing to compare it to because we aren't allowed to know the numbers.

Keep what up? All I want to know is how much it costs us! I didn't realize that asking that would lead to demise of DGWN. Why is this such a touchy subject? Terry even went to the trouble of posting a similar situation for "comparison", except we have nothing to compare it to because we aren't allowed to know the numbers.



Asking will not lead to the demise of the magazine.

Not including the subscription as a benefit to all members and allowing an opt-out, might change the financial dynamics to the point where DGWN might decide not to publish or where it would have to increase what it charges the PDGA for those who opt in. We'll see.

I asked Rick Rothstein by email and he says that DGWN charges the PDGA $3.35 for each issue delivered by mail to members within the US. My employer's journal - smaller, black and white, non-glossy has an equivalent cost of between $5-$6. So I think the PDGA was getting a good deal.

I get asked all the time if disc golf has a magazine that can be picked up at the local Barnes & Noble, Borders, etc.
I always answer with what the DGWN offers and that they could subscribe (some have!).
Could a disc golf mag survive on the shelves? I hope they try, there are an amazing amount of niche publications out there.
I just saw a magazine called, "Rabbits" whose feature article this time was, "The Secret Lives of Rabbits". /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Hefner already tapped that market pretty well... :o

Those are Bunnies Chuck, Bunnies.

Oh yeah, your subscription is due for that publication as well ;)

Those are Bunnies Chuck, Bunnies.

Oh yeah, your subscription is due for that publication as well ;)


Nah, he's in Hef's Eagle Club.

cheese and whine' offered here...

join something...complain about it...get so far into your own self important little world...ask if you should stay?

simple answer...NO...go away...

go join the local "bingo club" and proceed to complain and find any fault (in your mind), and start a message board JUST FOR YOU...so u can be special...tell them how your $ is not buying good enough ping-pong balls and that the cards are just not what u would expect for the dues...oh my, what a rough life!

...I would pay more membership to have you NOT be around...that would be a huge check on the PRO side...on the CON side though, there would be some other organization you would join, and bit(h about...

...$50 $75 $100...what????......please....this is nothing for the return in service...

want to debate what u get...go ahead...BUT you really have no choice, YOU JOINED...

so pure about disc golf...cool with me...go play - have fun and enjoy the wonderful sport...courses and players are everywhere...but DO NOT join, I REPEAT - JOIN, (no one dragged anyone into the PDGA)...and then proceed to spend more time typing about how much u hate what YOU JOINED, than playing the sport that the organization (that YOU JOINED)...is moving forward like no other in the world.

like most people who complain over and over...they do not feel they are getting a 100%, and the reality is they themselves are not 100%...holds true...do a survey, or make another grand thread, that is where your efforts in the sport are...here on this board...PLEASE make some more threads, please, so us unintelligent unedumicated' people who are being brain-washed can see the light...PLEASE

i will build the wooden cross...you bring your own nails, and you can be the all knowing savior u desire...i will gladly hammer them in...just bring some tape for your mouth, I do not want to hear you complaining that the cross i built is not up to your standards...

...i have read some of the chapters and volumes of "chirps" from this self proclaimed sage...and if any of it could get past the fact that YOU JOINED...maybe, maybe some of it would not have flies hovering all over it...

intelligent debate, that HELPS improve the organization is wonderful...but NOT empty complaints about something the person does not have the ability to understand on a larger scale...

Should I.......should I......I....I....I......

self-centered????????

U should not.....no debate...

By your own rants and raves.....complaning and crying....u are not happy here....so go away...we ALL want YOU to be happy....of course....EVERYONE is concerned about YOUR fight for disc golf justice....YOU are important...we know...PLEASE, so we ALL know YOU are happy...do not put yourself through another minute of this torture called the PDGA...set yourself FREE...we ALL want you to be FREE of this terrible place...YOU are our main worry...save yourself....

or...slice up the humble pie....disregard every word you have ever typed...turn on yourself...have to never complain again...

because you would be JOINING JOINING JOINING...willingly, of free will....again...with your new membership, if you so choose, all your work is voided...do not do it, you speak the truth...when the PDGA crumbles...echos of your sage words will be heard all over the disc golf world...do not give that up....PLEASE

Chains

Hmmm, good luck with all of that.

i didnt understand it, but it sounded like an attack on someone

Ok, ok! Send me 2 bottles of vIaGra.

here is all i know about the PDGA
i pay my membership....get a mag every once in a while(and if i shoot well in a tournament i get my name in it)
the PDGA has alot of tournaments that i can play in
now i'm sure that there is alot of other stuff that goes on behind closed doors...but without the PDGA where would this sport be? it is a fast growing sport
i don't care to know all that goes on within the PDGA,who spends what and who gets whats,if a cared that much i would be running for a seat on the board
i think the PDGA is doing a good job as far as i can see...but like i said i don't know that much about it
keep up the good work