>>But wouldn't you expect to see things like that at a site called
>>"bondage.com"? Would you go to a site with that name if such things
offended
>>you, unless of course you were doing it for the purposes of research as an
>>investigative reporter?
>Excellent question, Charlie. Talley, if you just showed up at an event one
day with
>this decal on your car, I really wouldn't care. I'd roll my eyes or
something.
Hey, that's "Brooks" to you, please. It's not my fault my email sends it
backwards.
>But Rich U. brought up some other good points about sites and impressing
the locals.
Absolutely. And between Rich and a thoughtfull note from Jerry Mouton, I've
decided against it, for the time being. Primary on the "impressing the
locals" angle.
>And Darren mentioned all those laws.
Those, I'm not worried about. The site itself can worry about the impact of
the (more or less dead) CDA and other laws. There are all sorts of complex
issues there that I really don't think apply to someone looking at taking
sponsorship money for (g-rated) promotion.
>If you don't have a moral problem with bondage.com, I don't see what the
problem is.
>I'm sensing that you do have a problem, though, maybe in the back of your
head,
>otherwise you wouldn't have asked. Even if you say you have no ability to
gauge what's
>"proper" and what isn't, if you like tattoos, are you going to ask EVERYONE
what they
>think about tattoos before you got one?
Nah, I've got no problem with it. I do programming work for it, after all
-- and you should see the things I sometimes see in the course of debugging
<shudders>. If only I could beam some of those images into the minds of
people in my class while they're in mid-run....
I wouldn't (didn't) ask anyone before getting a tattoo -- but this is a bit
different than that. It's not about personal expression or affirming my
individuality (those that know me will realize that's not really in
question)... it's about getting someone else to pick up the tab for parts in
return for advertising, and exposing people of diverse backgrounds and
opinions to something they may object to, and (most importantly, as it turns
out) casting a reflection on autocrossing in general and our little group in
particular.
I originally posted the note just because, as I said, I'm terrible at
judging how people are going to react to things. I'm heartened that nobody
really said that they'd be shocked/offended too horribly.
But another good reason for posting the note was to explore the possible
unintended consequences, which Rich and Jerry believe would be deleterious
for the local sport. I see a good point there, and I'm not *so* intent on
beating that pesky supercharged Civic that I'm going to jeopardize
everyone's fun to do so.
If more sponsorships from content-oriented .com's appears, or if a bunch of
hooters/steel kittens/condom sponsorships appear, I'll probably reconsider.
Or if I just get anxious and greedy. But for the time being at least I'm
pretty much convinced it's not worth it. Thank you to everyone who
expressed an opinion, publicly or privately.
>Most people's opinions are seriously flawed to begin with, so who cares.
I couldn't agree more!
Cheers
-b
|