 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@stewart woodward, threads that reach 100 pages normally get locked as they slow the hamsters down 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Dav wrote: |
| lampbus wrote: |
The problem, and I think this is where Mr Goldsmith is basing his campaign from, is that they do more than just represent members - a large organisation will also carry influence, often implicit, and be seen to represent all skiers. (possibly all snowsporters, it will be hard to tell they are perceived by non-snowsporters).
|
You raise some fair points (I don't necessarily agree with them) but I have quoted the one above, as I've seen it mentioned a bit but not really seen where it has come from. Where does the Ski Club claim to represent all skiers?
I'm not looking to pick an argument on it, as I genuinely don't know if they claim it or not. If they do claim it, then I agree, it's a thoroughly bizarre and nonsensical claim. I just haven't seen it (yet). |
.
I think there is a tacit acceptance if no longer an overt proclamation, that SCGB represents the views of British skiers and boarders among those seeking to find information and broadcast it more widely. For instance, if you've ever watched the snow reports on the BBC or read an article in the press about skiing tourism, industry, snow conditions whatever, there is usually a quote from or a credit to SCGB. So I think within the media at least SCGB are the go to organisation for facts, information, quotes. Oh that it were  
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Layne, see above
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
^^ Not any more, DC is at nearly 150 pages - no slow down at all, hamsters I think have discovered some new IT trickery.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Shimmy Alcott, Fingers crossed then...........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GERRY AITKEN UPDATE
Three days ago I presented SCGB director Gerry Aitken with a reasonable set of ten (member's) questions relating to his fiduciary duties and other responsibilities as a director of Ski Club of Great Britain Ltd. A number of those questions are, of course, of equal pertinence to all the directors of the SCGB. Gerry is at liberty to address those questions on this forum - ideally using his sH username Gerry / @Gerry.
The ten questions appeared here:
Ten questions for Gerry Aitken
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=94856&start=3800#2673652
Unfortunately, Gerry's chosen to evade the questions by launching another personal attack on my integrity, on the closed (to me) SCGB chat forum ... presumably as some sort of diversionary tactic ...
What's the reason to stay with the Ski Club in 2015 & beyond? [page 2]
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/membersonly/snowtalk/discussion.aspx/Skiing-And-Snowboarding-general?discussionID=15013&page=2#.VNXVAixCjQo
| Gerry Aitken wrote: |
| All his questions about the Club have been answered, he just didn't like the answers. |
No, they have not been answered. The ten questions are on the table because none of them have been answered. That is the whole point. Just for example ... Perhaps the most important question is question 6 ...
6. What has Gerry Aitken personally done about accounting for the c.£100,000 SCGB environmental fund, which comprises charitable/quasi-charitable money and has been officially committed to a "long term tree-planting project"? It is essential that he, and the other SCGB directors, account for this money - its income and allocation over the past 10 years, accounted on an annualised basis.
This is the best we get from Gerry ...
| Gerry Aitken wrote: |
| innate stupidity |
A reference to yours truly. Fair enough - he'll have ongoing exposure to the stupidity.
| Gerry Aitken wrote: |
| His stock answer to everything: 'wind the club back to the 50s'. David really is a snob of monumental proportions because he absolutely hates the fact the Ski Club is now populated by ordinary people. |
Just for Gerry's info ... I work 'on the level' with large teams of people employed by non-profit multi-million charitable enterprises. These people, from all walks of life (cutting across all races and orientations) work on either zero income (volunteers) or 'London living' wages. I worked as a ski instructor in the 1970s for an organisation which arranged bus-based low-cost ski holidays for schoolkids on Cairngorm.
| Gerry Aitken wrote: |
| This is his sneaky and underhanded way of driving a wedge between the Ski Club and the greater snowsports community. It's the use of discrimination on the grounds of class, not illegal but very definitely nasty in the extreme. |
"Not illegal" - well that's a relief. Not true, in fact. A fucking lie, more to the point. Anyone who knows me (as distinct from this individual) is welcome to comment, either in my defence or Gerry's. Free speech is welcome here, thanks to the sH moderators (as distinct from the SCGB censors and gatekeepers).
If this guy Aitken wants to call me a "snob" he can do it to my face. Let's make it a 'club event' ... next month in central London. All are welcome to witness the debate. I'd suggest the following venue off Fleet Street ... established some time before the founding of the SCGB, namely just after the Great Fire of London ... and just around the corner from the home of the founder of the English dictionary. Samuel Johnson (and Charles Dickens, no doubt) used to enjoy a pint here ...
Ye Olde Cheshire Cheese
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Olde_Cheshire_Cheese
Over to Gerry for a proposed date and time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@David Goldsmith,
In my opinion you have already started to loose the argument when your resort to 'swearing'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stewart, you may or may not be right. I won't 'redact' (to use the fashionable expression) the word. It's there for a purpose, and it's part of non-snob common English. The sH mower (which some people find a bit prissy) doesn't allow it, but there's a trick for getting around that.
If the mods want it out, it will be adjusted.
The so-called 'most obscene word in the English language' (not that one - the c-word) was liberally used by DH Lawrence in the novel 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' in 1928. Banned by the UK government, it was eventually published by Penguin in 1960: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Chatterley%27s_Lover
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Swearing as as way of emphasising that someone has gone beyond the acceptable is very common in everyday usage. I don't see it in this context as being nastiness and its not a problem for me and not really a sign of losing the argument either.
I'd almost pay to see the verbal fisticuffs but we all know it isn't going to happen.
I'm not sure I can ever see the two sides being reconciled so not sure where it goes from here. At the end of the day, DG has my support for wanting to make things better but I can't help but wonder if lobbing grenades at the institution he wants to save is ever going to be the right way to achieve it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
I was reading that SCGB thread the other day and it was nice to read of SC members commenting on what they like about the Club. Such a shame that DG wants to spread his poison everywhere and ruin everyone's pleasure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
a shame that DG wants to spread his poison everywhere and ruin everyone's pleasure.
|
I can understand your take on this but somehow doubt that this is DG's objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
@olderscot, regardless of his objective - it's certainly a consequence of his actions. Owning our own business I have come across many unscrupulous people - this is not the way to deal with it. I'm afraid I do think DG needs mental help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| olderscot wrote: |
I'd almost pay to see the verbal fisticuffs but we all know it isn't going to happen.
I'm not sure I can ever see the two sides being reconciled so not sure where it goes from here. At the end of the day, DG has my support for wanting to make things better but I can't help but wonder if lobbing grenades at the institution he wants to save is ever going to be the right way to achieve it. |
The verbal fisticuffs were on show at AGMs in the past. It was all very civil until the meetings started - or more specifically until DG addressed the council.
I sensed some evasiveness in the answers but the responses from the floor were reminiscent of prime ministers question time. Harrumph!
"Where it goes from here" is anybody's guess.
I suspect :-
Leaders ban in France and Italy enforced.
Membership numbers decline. Members leave or die.
Plans for a new style club are put before the remaining membership.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
| ... I think there is a tacit acceptance if no longer an overt proclamation, that SCGB represents the views of British skiers and boarders among those seeking to find information and broadcast it more widely. For instance, if you've ever watched the snow reports on the BBC or read an article in the press about skiing tourism, industry, snow conditions whatever, there is usually a quote from or a credit to SCGB. So I think within the media at least SCGB are the go to organisation for facts, information, quotes. Oh that it were |
I think "the media" tend to do the easiest thing. The scgb presumably attempts to represent the interests of their members, but in my life at least that's never been most people I know who ride. If you think about it, who else would they call?
From what I've seen here the SCGB seem to be failing to represent their own membership, in that I don't believe their membership would support their elected officers masquerading on the internet in order to manipulate people. Such boorish behaviour would not be tolerated if the rank and file had to vote on it.
If you're a member, I wonder if are you really happy for your elected officials to engage in these internet spats? Do you really think that makes your club look attractive to outsiders? What do you think it achieves, precisely?
DG clearly has his issues, but he has very little to lose, unlike you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
How about a Chinese downhill to resolve the issue?
Start point would be the Schilthorn, finish would be at the Lauterbrunnen Valley directly below Murren.
Their choice if they want to make the ultimate sacrifice in order to win the argument 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Just in the interests of lightening things up a bit ...
Why did Gerry Aitken contact the Police?
[this is not another helmet thread]
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| philwig wrote: |
| Quote: |
| ... I think there is a tacit acceptance if no longer an overt proclamation, that SCGB represents the views of British skiers and boarders among those seeking to find information and broadcast it more widely. For instance, if you've ever watched the snow reports on the BBC or read an article in the press about skiing tourism, industry, snow conditions whatever, there is usually a quote from or a credit to SCGB. So I think within the media at least SCGB are the go to organisation for facts, information, quotes. Oh that it were |
I think "the media" tend to do the easiest thing. The scgb presumably attempts to represent the interests of their members, but in my life at least that's never been most people I know who ride. If you think about it, who else would they call?
From what I've seen here the SCGB seem to be failing to represent their own membership, in that I don't believe their membership would support their elected officers masquerading on the internet in order to manipulate people. Such boorish behaviour would not be tolerated if the rank and file had to vote on it.
If you're a member, I wonder if are you really happy for your elected officials to engage in these internet spats? Do you really think that makes your club look attractive to outsiders? What do you think it achieves, precisely?
DG clearly has his issues, but he has very little to lose, unlike you. |
I have nothing to lose, merely responding to the question as raised. Perhaps wind your neck in would also be an appropriate response to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
Why did Gerry Aitken contact the Police?
|
I'm going to guess you or Gerry Aitken are the only ones who can answer this. How would anyone else know?
PS. From a quick look at the 2014 accounts it strikes me that:
1. Memberships subscriptions pretty much cover the administration costs.
2. Freshtracks holiday sales contribute around £200K to profitability
3. All their other other activities generate less income than the cost of providing them, eating up most of the holiday profits.
Which suggests to me that their only real option in the face of declining membership is to reduce their administration costs and sell more holidays. Only time will tell how well that works out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| olderscot wrote: |
| Quote: |
Why did Gerry Aitken contact the Police?
|
I'm going to guess you or Gerry Aitken are the only ones who can answer this. How would anyone else know? |
That is a very fair response. Should Gerry wish to respond, that's up to him. His action, one presumes, was taken in the interests of the Ski Club of Great Britain.
As a quite separate matter, two former members of the SCGB Council decided to alert the Met Police to a financial concern at the SCGB some 20 years ago. Further information about that will be given in due course, given the manner in which the matter was dealt with and its possible relevance to current affairs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| halfhand wrote: |
| ..I have nothing to lose, merely responding to the question as raised. Perhaps wind your neck in would also be an appropriate response to you? |
I see that the art of deliberately misinterpreting text on the internet is alive and well. Bottom-posting with the entire post is just lazy and a little rude.
"The club" has quite a bit to lose from their poor media relations. DG in contrast has little to lose whatever he does or says.
As far as neck winding, a phrase I had to look up - thanks for educating me to that particular idiom, I think you'll find I've as much right as anyone to post here. If you don't want to discuss this, then perhaps you are in fact going to be frustrated here. See above.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@David Goldsmith, for clarity, when you say you presented Mr Aitken with the questions, you linked to the post earlier in this thread, but did you post the exact same questions anywhere else, either in cyberspace or by physical post to the official SCGB registered office ?
I would expect, as you apparently have no other direct means of communicating your questions, the snail mail would be your only option.
I do find you implication that, by posting them here, they have somehow been 'presented' to the intended person, a little odd. You could have posted them in my local village newsletter but that would fail to reach your intended audience; no not Mr Aitken but the readers of this forum who you are trying to rope in to force the SCGB to react. The assumption that Mr Aitken would or must see what you ask is an assumption and in many senses belittles your position. I sense your desperation. To expect him to reply in my village newsletter is as spurious as to expect him to reply here. You imply that he has replied on his own terms in his own appropriate forum and as you quote him from that, your position that it is closed to you is obviously false even if you need to have an inside ally to achieve that.
In this battle of wills, you both have things to loose or gain. I assume that the SCGB have thought about this and decided that you are still their lesser threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
^^^ yes, but... I think there is little doubt that Mr Aitken reads this thread, but I would suspect he doesn't read your village newsletter....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| allanm wrote: |
| ^^^ yes, but... I think there is little doubt that Mr Aitken reads this thread, but I would suspect he doesn't read your village newsletter.... |
Nonetheless, the point stands. If Mr Goldsmith truly wanted his questioned answered, he would direct them via mail/email/other direct transmission intended to reach Mr Aitken. Privately, if needs be.
The fact that the questions are posted on here demonstrates that Mr Goldsmith is only interested in grandstanding and making public his opinion on matters, over and above actually gaining an answer to the questions.
It kind of devalues the message, really. If anything despite some of Mr Goldsmith's valid questions, I'm more inclined to side with the SCGB rather than DG's bitter ramblings.
Personally I'm sad and a little bit worried to see someone so utterly livid, angry and hostile towards a private members'club that they aren't even allowed to join, let alone have an influence in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
That is my point...both fora are inappropriate and the only reason Mr G posts here is because it has a larger audience. This is an audience for his ego (an the best possible use of the word) and as a way of blackmailing a response from the SCGB.
As such, I, and you, are being used, not informed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
@lampbus, I totally agree with you. It's been commented on before but it is clear that Mr Goldsmith holds the members of snowheads in utter contempt with his continual manipulation of a chat forum to push forward his own personal grievances. That he has yet to even acknowledge such, let alone apologise for it, speaks volumes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi lampbus
Gerry Aitken definitely monitors this thread, as one of his postings of yesterday evening links to the URL
To clarify, I have 'read only' access to the SCGB forum - I'm blocked from posting to it. I therefore can't respond to his postings, except by posting here, though he's at liberty to post here if he wants to keep the discussion in one place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
^^ Sock on SCGB..? Aren't they doing reduced membership for beginners?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
^^ Sock on SCGB..?
|
Oh come on. He'd be spotted in thirty seconds, can't keep his ego out of it. Or were you fooled by Karl Marx?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| Dav wrote: |
| ... it is clear that Mr Goldsmith holds the members of snowheads in utter contempt with his continual manipulation of a chat forum to push forward his own personal grievances. |
Dav,
I absolutely reject that. You have my assurance that I hold no one "in contempt", let alone "utter contempt".
I've been writing about skiing since 1976 - for the first 20 years exclusively in print (magazines and newspapers), and since then increasingly (and now exclusively) online. For 10 of those 39 years (1984 onwards) I worked mainly for the Ski Club of Great Britain ... on its magazine (mainly for editor Elisabeth Hussey) which attained a circulation (40% paid newsstand, 60% membership) of over 28,000 during that period. Moving forward to 2015 ... this thread has a variable hit rate - sometimes over 1000 per day, so there are hundreds following it. It would be pretty weird if any "contempt" was involved in that communication/interaction. This is social media, in the full glare of hundreds of eyes with anyone equally free to express opinion (or offence).
There's no doubt what the SCGB was founded to achieve and communicate - it's all on the record and very obvious from what sits in libraries and archives. At its height it was an internationally renowned and highly influential organisation. That is why the Ski Club's membership accounted for over 30% of British skiers by the 1950s/early 1960s. Yes, I do have contempt for the unbridled commercial abuse of recent decades, and other indifference to what was created ... because it's so far removed from what was proven to be so popular and relevant to British skiers. The SCGB has been almost deliberately shrunk to a tiny fraction of what it was, to satisfy the agenda of a tiny minority and elite.
So ... where's the real "contempt" in that outcome?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@David Goldsmith, what makes you think that today's skier is the same creature as the wealthy elite type who was taking out Saga Club membership in 1950? Could it be that the club has a better idea of its changing demographic than you do, perchance? You arrogant old fossil.
And no, I am not going to apologise for calling you an arrogant old fossil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Am I the only one that finds Lizzard's posts more pointless and irritating than DG's? (in this thread anyway)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Lizzard wrote: |
@David Goldsmith, what makes you think that today's skier is the same creature as the wealthy elite type who was taking out Saga Club membership in 1950? Could it be that the club has a better idea of its changing demographic than you do, perchance? You arrogant old fossil.
And no, I am not going to apologise for calling you an arrogant old fossil. |
You're welcome to call me an arrogant old fossil, since I've been buried in Highgate Cemetery since 1883 and was notably arrogant in my time/prime [though it has to be said that Marxism is back on the agenda in London right now, thanks to international property speculators driving the proletariat to the desperation of homelessness and poverty]
I'll deal with your enquiry in due course, though why you would want any information from someone you also call a "lunatic" is your own conundrum. Oh yes, "the club has a phenomenal understanding of its changing demographic" (to adapt your words) ... in the same way that the skipper of the Titanic had a world-leading scientific intelligence of icebergs.
Are you actually reading what's being written here? The SCGB is 10% (maximum) of the size it was in the 1950s, relative to its 'demographic'.
You could have worked that out for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Quote: |
The fact that the questions are posted on here demonstrates that Mr Goldsmith is only interested in grandstanding and making public his opinion on matters, over and above actually gaining an answer to the questions.
|
I suspect he has power issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
It kind of devalues the message, really. If anything despite some of Mr Goldsmith's valid questions, I'm more inclined to side with the SCGB rather than DG's bitter ramblings.
Personally I'm sad and a little bit worried to see someone so utterly livid, angry and hostile towards a private members'club that they aren't even allowed to join, let alone have an influence in.
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| lampbus wrote: |
That is my point...both fora are inappropriate and the only reason Mr G posts here is because it has a larger audience. This is an audience for his ego (an the best possible use of the word) and as a way of blackmailing a response from the SCGB.
As such, I, and you, are being used, not informed. |
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DG keeps harping on about how the Ski Club has such a lower percentage of UK skiers compared to it's apparent 'heyday' in the 50's & 60's. This argument is baffling - in those days skiing would more likely have been the preserve of the Upper Classes and Elite who may well have rather enjoyed being part of a rather exclusive club (as I'm sure it was in those days). Nowadays the vast majority of 'British skiers' are far more likely to be week a year (at max) types who would no more consider joining a ski club as they would join a 'sitting on the beach in Spain' club! And why on earth should they, it would be of no benefit to them. These people see skiing as a nice holiday, no more no less, and why not.
The Ski Club (and indeed Snowheads) is more likely to appeal to those of us who ski more regularly (or at least aspire to) and in some way consider ourselves 'skiers' or 'snowboarders'.
On another note can someone explain to me why DG is so concerned about the going's on of an organisation of which he is not and never will be a member? This is a genuine question as it really perplexes me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@philipb, I think he reveals a bit of his motives in the post above where he outlines his CV - where he appears to have been particularly involved with the SCGB publications. He has invested a lot in it, and is sad to see it shrink or go in other directions.
Whether those changes are due to some illegal activity are immaterial in that context, like Shimmy Alcott says, its a (loss of) power issue.
David, it would be really nice if you could be a respected deliverer of news and information in the recreational snowsports world; but to me, you are not. You do bring something to the table, but it is currently not significant enough to fight the sort of fight you have picked. I could try on your behalf, but I am even less significant in that role. You need a new strategy which dose not rely on you having to say 'Do you know who I am?' (Or more like 'Do you know who I was?') because that immediately informs us (and the SCGB) that you are (with the best of intentions, like the rest of us) ... a nobody.
If I met you on the piste, I wouldn't know you, but I would treat you as a fellow skier, a fellow human, a fellow nobody - and that is just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| philipb wrote: |
| DG keeps harping on about how the Ski Club has such a lower percentage of UK skiers compared to it's apparent 'heyday' in the 50's & 60's. This argument is baffling - in those days skiing would more likely have been the preserve of the Upper Classes and Elite who may well have rather enjoyed being part of a rather exclusive club (as I'm sure it was in those days). Nowadays the vast majority of 'British skiers' are far more likely to be week a year (at max) types who would no more consider joining a ski club as they would join a 'sitting on the beach in Spain' club! And why on earth should they, it would be of no benefit to them. |
philipb, I've worked on all this (with other writers, graphic designers etc.) a great deal - mainly back in the 1980s, when the 'UK skier demographic' was essentially the same as it is today - mainstream. We were working towards the SCGB focusing on its magazine, plus information services. Couple that with online communication (networking) and you have an extremely viable model for a 21st century ski club that can have a 50,000+ UK membership and low membership cost. But it won't work with a high subscription price and irrelevant/unused services to the bulk of the membership (which is why the SCGB is where it is).
| philipb wrote: |
On another note can someone explain to me why DG is so concerned about the going's on of an organisation of which he is not and never will be a member? This is a genuine question as it really perplexes me! |
As of 6 January the SCGB has issued documentary proof of my membership for 2015 - 100%. I've been a SCGB member for 35 years out of the past 53 years. I'm not surprised you're perplexed!
| lampbus wrote: |
| I think he reveals a bit of his motives in the post above where he outlines his CV - where he appears to have been particularly involved with the SCGB publications. He has invested a lot in it, and is sad to see it shrink or go in other directions. |
Yes, that's absolutely correct. I obviously hope that this is seen as a worthy motive. It's really quite straightforward.
| lampbus wrote: |
David, it would be really nice if you could be a respected deliverer of news and information in the recreational snowsports world; but to me, you are not. |
lampbus, I'm off to work now, but have popped up a link on SKI.HUB [below] which may be of interest. I can't justify the time to link-monkey all day at the moment, but hope to kick SKI.HUB back into daily action in due course.
"ONCE IN 20 YEARS" SKIING IN THE PEAK DISTRICT
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SKI.HUB/permalink/1569182856701814/
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads  on Sun 8-02-15 14:48; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Should we run a book on who has the 1st post on pg100 
