|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 9:07 PM
Post #1 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
n/t
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Sep 28, 2003, 9:24 PM
Post #2 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
I figured this might come up...didn't think it would take only a few hours.
Since I do all the Advertising on the site, I guess you can say I get to pick and choose. And quite honestly, we have had 1-one-uno company other than a climbing related comapny ever contact us about advertising. And YES, we declined them, because we want to keep it Climbing/Outdoor oriented. Some have streached it much more than others. Compare GearExpress to Vinny the Climbing Pug. One is a great resource to climbers, the other is a pet/family member climbing and loving it, so they use revenues to help find homes and help unwanted pets. Both use climbing to help support their case.
As far as a religious influence coming from me as the Advertising Guy and "forcing" them on you, the site user. None what soever. I did not know this group existed until 3 days ago when they contacted me about climbing.
DK...as far as a Utah based influence going on with the site direction. I would say NO, there are a few too many of us who are not from there, and are scattered around the world (literally). I have never been there (Utah)...and take offense that you are insinuating things about me, RUSSMAN, the only person who does the advertising. I am from the Pacific Northwest, a long way form Utah. Sorry to burst your bubble.
The Russman
|
|
|
|
|
flamer
Sep 28, 2003, 9:29 PM
Post #3 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 2955
|
I was defiantly disturbed to see this ad as well. And Although I understand the need for this site to fund itself, I do not like it. If this site has ANY kind of Religious connection I want to know about it.
Climbers for christ?? Keep your weak mind cults to yourself...The rest of us live in the real world.
josh
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Sep 28, 2003, 9:30 PM
Post #4 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
Actually since I didn't bring up the question of "who" are advertisiers are, or that we need more of them, I will make another comment about them.
If you (all site users) want to see differnt advertisers, and you know the owners and have a relationship with them, contact me, contact them, lets get things rolling for them on our site. If any users starts to help facilitate a new advertiser that I don't have to go out and seek. I will give you my commision that I get for gianing the new advertiser. I think that is more than fair.
Bottom line, you (any user) don't like who we have as advertisers, help gain new ones with names of comanies, owners, contacts, emails. Help me, Help you. If you just want to complain and not help, (as I have heard in the past) than I guess you have to put up with the advertisers that I seek and that contact me.
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 10:17 PM
Post #5 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
n/t
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 28, 2003, 10:22 PM
Post #6 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
drkodos,
There is no Constitutional provision providing for the separation of "church and site." Hahahaha.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Sep 28, 2003, 10:30 PM
Post #8 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
I appreciate your reply. Mostly it was your last sentance:
In reply to: That the person starting this site is from Utah bodes more on my mind with every passing moment....
To me, I read, that any Utah (read Mormon) relationship that Trevor has have or has is rubbing off on all the Site Owners/Admins in our mindset. Would it make a difference if Trevor was from Cali, or would we chalk it up to the "Extreme Right Wing" Cali reps...or any other state. Seems you are labeling Utah and its many thousands of inhabitants as having a bad influence on our community here.
As far as any other "Religious Climbing Orgs" running ads on here. I suppose it is a question to raise amung the Admins. I am not sure where it will go in that discussion, but I can make the post. I have a feeling that it will come back down to, Private site=Pick and Choose for revenues.
I won't make the "family site" anaogly, casue I can see it coming that athiests have kids as well as Jews, Buddists et al. they are a family, why are we impressing "christian" views on them. I will make the post and try to follow up.
Once again, I challenge our site users to help me gian advertising you want, I will give you the 20% commision fee that I normally get, and I will do teh leg work. But you will need to the initial contacts and make sure they sign up to get the fee.
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 10:30 PM
Post #9 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
n/t
|
|
|
|
|
andy_lemon
Sep 28, 2003, 10:46 PM
Post #10 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 3335
|
In reply to: I guess you can say I get to pick and choose.
Russ may say he gets to pick and choose who is advertising on this site but the truth is we don't have that many people interested in advertsing online. If russ were to turn down a "Satin is for sending" advertisment there would be another thread intitled "rc.com says our money isn't good enough". Case in point, the site needs money and this is how they get it.
Just be glad there are no pop-ups.
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 10:48 PM
Post #11 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: ...that leaves the site with only one other way of getting a little bit of money...*ahem* clickrighthere. Perhaps you could funnel a little our way and your name can show up on the page? :) Word - Matt
as follow up to my past post, I clicked the link above, and found a list of contributors which was registered and indexed by amount donated. This is the type of "publicity" some of us would like to avoid.
It seems to me it only allows some to get away with pointing the finger and making the claim: "See what I've done, now go away."
I humbly suggest doing away with a public affirmation of who donated what. I find it the ugliest part of the money scene.
After working with the Mohonk Preserve in raising funds, I learned that most people won't donate unless they see their names or some other tangible results. Despite this reality, I think it better to remove personal identification from the process. It only serves to possibly make those not at the top of the list feel inadequate, underpriviledged, and unimportant.
Think about it while your pitching the deal.....
|
|
|
|
|
supe
Sep 28, 2003, 10:50 PM
Post #12 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2003
Posts: 50
|
Is there something particularly bad with living in utah, and being a mormon? And if so, has this once fantastic site turned into a religous bashing forum? I should hope not. I say let whoever advertise on the site as long as they are advertising climbing or other outdoor activities, regardless of their religous feelings.
Please grow up and stop biasing against religions. I am a mormon with good jewish, catholic, baptist, lutheran, etc friends. I have no secret agendas, nor do my friends. Maybe you do, Hate filling the world... and we all know that we could use more of that... :(
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 28, 2003, 10:50 PM
Post #13 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: In reply to: I guess you can say I get to pick and choose. Russ may say he gets to pick and choose who is advertising on this site but the truth is we don't have that many people interested in advertsing online. If russ were to turn down a "Satin is for sending" advertisment there would be another thread intitled "rc.com says our money isn't good enough". Case in point, the site needs money and this is how they get it. Just be glad there are no pop-ups.
How many people really object to satin though?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
russman
Sep 28, 2003, 10:59 PM
Post #14 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2000
Posts: 2848
|
Supe
I just reread my post and it did sound like I too as bashing Utah. I apologize. That was not my intent, but only to didtance my location from Utah and that any influence that Trevor/Utah (as implied) might have been made. I hopr u will accept my apology
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Sep 28, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #15 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
In reply to: I am a mormon with good jewish, catholic, baptist, lutheran, etc friends.
How lucky for them that they have you for a friend!! :)
In reply to: I have no secret agendas, nor do my friends.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!! :shock:
In reply to: Maybe you do, Hate filling the world... and we all know that we could use more of that... :(
Interesting how you took a series of questions and turned them into something so negative.
Scary....
|
|
|
|
|
alwaysforward
Sep 28, 2003, 11:01 PM
Post #16 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2002
Posts: 979
|
stfu. This isn't any worse than the corporatization of the site.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Sep 28, 2003, 11:02 PM
Post #17 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
I cannot see for the life of me what the big deal is about. You don`t have to click on the banner ad. No one is forcing anything on anyone. It`s almost like if you were watching TV and an ad came on and you would be immediately impelled to rush out and buy whatever was advertised.
We are a climbing site and we do limit ourselves to climbing related advertising and if a religious group is involved in climbing then more power to them. Why can`t they advertise their presence on a climbing site. If they wish to garner more like minded members then who are we to refuse their dollars.
I see in society today a double standard of tolerance granted only to some. Choice being a much touted catch cry of those on the left of the political spectrum but it is choice only for those on that side of the spectrum. Any time that choice is put forward as an option of those opposed to the left then it is shouted down as being anti this or anti that.
Give me a break, the first time I read this post I thought that it was quite whiny, now I definitely think it is whiny and small minded.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Sep 28, 2003, 11:04 PM
Post #18 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
Russman, I think it is possible to eliminate the one objectionable ad, that is in conflict, and still have enough revenue from advertising.
Seems like there are many more desirable companies that can advertise on rockclimbing.com.
As difficult as it is in sales to gain contacts, there is still no substitute for integrity of the site.
As an aside, I did offer to help in this pursuit of advertisers,when I wasn't fully employed. Now it is no longer possible.
Perhaps there are some worthwhile sales people on this site who could benefit from helping rockclimbing.com gain advertising. If not try newspapers, or monster.com. :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 11:04 PM
Post #19 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
n/t
|
|
|
|
|
flying_dutchman
Sep 28, 2003, 11:16 PM
Post #20 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 20, 2002
Posts: 708
|
the rock in hell is probably choss
anyhow, why do people fear religion so much?
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Sep 28, 2003, 11:18 PM
Post #21 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
this thread is among the stupidest of them all.
in many ways rc.com is an asset to the greater climbing community. you should not care who the sponsors are. THEY are giving US money. WE then CHOOSE to support them or IGNORE them.
Spreading information (even, at times, disinformation) is a key capacity of any strong movement. Whether religious, environmental, or whatever. Whether you wish climbing was as pure as the pre-friend, pre-bolt days, or you fully support the Access Fund, you should recognize by now that rc.com is valuable.
I can't claim to be following the arguements or the arguers closely, but it seems odd to me that the two main arguements going on at this site right now seem to be separately complaining about both the lack of and presence of free speech. I have seen no indication that this site is intended to be an uncensored public forum.
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 11:21 PM
Post #22 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
n/t
|
|
|
|
|
bertman
Sep 28, 2003, 11:23 PM
Post #23 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 184
|
In reply to: ....After working with the Mohonk Preserve in raising funds, I learned that most people won't donate unless they see their names or some other tangible results....
Well, then, what would the point be in removing the incentive for people to donate?
In reply to: It only serves to possibly make those not at the top of the list feel inadequate, underpriviledged, and unimportant. Think about it while your pitching the deal.....
That's life. However, if they just removed the dollar amounts donated, people could still get recognition for their donations without "getting their feelings hurt by not being on top." I say just leave it how it is.
Other than that, I'm pretty disgusted with the fact that you guys have to whine when a christian group (who pays the same amount as any other advertiser) is allowed to advertise on a private site. Leave it alone, if they want to pay the money, they shouldnt be told their money isnt good enough, and besides, russman has the right to tell anyone, including them, that they should advertise elsewhere.
and flamer, I find your original post pretty insulting, myself, as I am a christian. I dont try to cram it down anyone's throat, but I dont see anything wrong with a religious climbing organization, nomatter what religion, trying to advertise on a climbing website. Just because you're anti-christian, doesnt meen it shouldnt be allowed. And who are you to judge any religion as a "cult". How do you know that what you believe isn't the "cult"?
|
|
|
|
|
hooker
Sep 28, 2003, 11:29 PM
Post #24 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 173
|
The Problem: RC.com claims part of censorship is coming from advertisers that don't want associations with "non-family" language.
At Issue: RC.com accepts advertising from Religious group with a clear, NON-climbing agenda.
The Question: Is this a conflict of interest and/or question of integrity?
The Entertainment: Those who think the thread is stupid or who feel threatened by the questions. No one has bashed any religion, Mormon or otherwise, but it is curious to see how a certain element feels the need to "defend".
The Reality; LDS is a prostelytizing group that has outwardly stated ambitions of growth. Why else would they knock on my door and try to convert me? This is not bashing, this is the truth.
Russman: why did you apologize? Because someone else's baggage made them misunderstand what you said? Your response to take it personally is confusing because the original thread never came close to amaking any accusations about you.
drkodos: good questions. I re-read your posts. There is definite insinuation regarding Mormon influence, but clearly non-judgmentally.
curt: keep us laughing!
|
|
|
|
|
drkodos
Sep 28, 2003, 11:36 PM
Post #25 of 161
(4849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 21, 2002
Posts: 2935
|
In reply to: anyhow, why do people fear religion so much?
Because most of the time it advocates not thinking, and just accepting.
Most religions do not like questioning, now do they? Let us look at the word FAITH.
Faith is primarilly defined as: Unquestioning belief.
That is why many people are threatened by religion and faith.
When you prevent people from asking questions, and learning and experiencing things on their own individual level, it tends to stifle the intellectual process.
People that think for themselves are threatened by this.
It is interesting to note that more people have been killed in the name of Christ, than any other single "Savior" on the market today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
