 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Masque wrote: |
edit: Gerry, your reply stated that people could ‘continue after 50’ not ‘join after 50’. You cannot be ambiguous with language when discussing legislation change. Which is why I accused you of dissembling. So find out why the limit was placed there in the first place. I’ve heard a story, I’m sure that many here will be interested in what you may discover. |
I also said:
| Quote: |
| and also raised the point that fitness is more important than age. |
No ambiguity in that part. 'fitness is more important than age'.
I know why the limit is there, I don't need to 'find out'. I also know that the limit is not a hard and fast one. David Goldsmith was also at the AGM when that was explained.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Gerry - quote, "No ambiguity in that part. 'fitness is more important than age'.
I know why the limit is there, I don't need to 'find out'. I also know that the limit is not a hard and fast one. David Goldsmith was also at the AGM when that was explained."
Well goodness me! That's informative, 'I know and GD knows' but screw you 'cos I aint tellin'
If ever a statement illustrates the point I'm making, that one does. Patronising git! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
No need for that, Masque. Aren't you glad to know that the rule is not a hard and fast one, and that I'm trying to get the limit removed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Masque
I did chat informally with 'a high-ranking member' of the Club about the age thing. I was told that it was there as part of an attempt to counter the image of scgb being a buch of old buffers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Terry Wells, the Club cannot win on this issue. If they have too many old reps they get accused of being an old farts' club and if they have too many young ones they get accuse of ageism.
I'm starting to form the opinion that some peoples' hatred of the club and me are entrenched and doctrinal. So it's a waste of time coming here to debate anything.
At my age I should know better than to waste me time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The most effective way the Ski Club can regenerate and rejuvenate itself is to facilitate communication, interaction and impromptu social mixing. This site, natives.co.uk and theboarder.co.uk are doing precisely that. It's what the Club was doing in 1903, 1913, 1923, 1933, 1943 and 1953. The Club's open forum in 2003 showed how many young skiers and boarders can be attracted by adopting open communication. The only thing that was missing from the communication was any word from the top of the Club except to inform us that it was all over!
Up to the early 1960s British ski society was predominantly wealthy, because skiing was expensive. Since the 1960s, skiing has become better value and its appeal has reached a much broader cross-section of society. The early 1960s is when the Club began to isolate itself from the popularity of the sport (viz. the Scottish scene and the Club's non-involvement) to pursue eccentric and esoteric activities which haven't really struck a chord with the everyday skier. The Club has become progressively defensive and cocooned from the mainstream, but the situation can be reversed.
The age of reps is a side issue, but Masque is quite right. Some people grow old in attitude in their 20s and 30s. Others can maintain a flexible youthful mind into old age. The internet, where no one needs know your age, will be the main recruitment arena for any large club in future, so the age of reps makes no difference. What matters is for the Club to be out there and mixing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And so the circle is squared:
Gerry, Good grief: Listen to yourself! The rule is not a "hard and fast one" (but it's still principle on the list), and you're trying to get the limit removed; Even after a 2002 AGM declared it moot! Do you realise just how facile this is? You’re being insulting and patronising to mine and the readers intelligence and I’m more than persuaded that you’re trying to serve too many masters in this argument.
If Terry’s explanation is correct, it yet again illustrates the tautology existent within the club. ‘We’ll make an issue go away by highlighting the issue’ ‘Ooo look boys, girls and you saggy-arsed boarder types, we’re not gonna let you be lead round the hill by an old farty; We have strong vibrant, virile and sexy club reps to show you the way but you may well get the old farty anyway ‘cos we’re lying to you’ . . . Puerile claptrap.
You gonna keep chasing your tail Gerry or are you going to face up to the need for a fundamental change in the club’s persona and not minor tweaks in a decrepit attitude to our sport? Spawn o’Masque doesn’t give a dam about who’s showing him hill as long as he;she or it can ‘walk the walk’ the club itself made ageism a part of the issue.
It’s spent too long inspecting its own fundament.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Masque, there is ambiguity in the Club's position here. On the one hand they state on the website that there is an age limit of 50 while on the other they let it be know that the limit isn't set in stone. It is this ambiguity I wish to address as well as not liking the limit in the first place.
I think your embarrassment at not reading this thread correctly has caused you to go off the rails a little.
<EDIT> removed unfair comment.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 23-09-04 7:59; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
I'm starting to form the opinion that some peoples' hatred of the club and me are entrenched and doctrinal. So it's a waste of time coming here to debate anything.
At my age I should know better than to waste me time. |
Gerry, I'm sure you're aware that the majority of people here do not have an axe to grind, and as numbers grow, the disgruntled minority will become less vociferous as we go our separate ways.
No organisation is above constructive criticism, not least snowHeads itself (and I've done my share there, and received plenty of flak in return).
Hatred of the SCGB as an entity is probably inaccurate. As for Internet community likes and dislikes, often without knowing the first thing about the people concerned, well that's something all the outspoken have to live with at some stage or other.
As long as you give straight answers to straight questions, and don't come across as an apologist for all aspects of the Club, good and bad, you and the SCGB will get a fair hearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Masque, maybe in the cool light of day that the red mist may have lowered a little!!
Personally I do not believe that any club/organisation can possibly be so wide in its ethos that it meets the needs/requirements of absolutely eveybody that participates/may aspire to participate in the actiivity to which it is part. It just isn't possible. It obviously doesn't meet your own criteria, which you have stated very eloquently and passionately over a number of postings. But, the answer is simple - don't join. No-one is holding a gun to your head to do so.
It also doesn't meet any of my needs/criteria, so I haven't bothered to join either. But obviously enough people are joining/rejoining that it must be fulfilling the purpose that it determined for itself.
IMHO while there are many calls for change, in the final analysis there would be very little unanimity in the demands for change that people are making and more than likely there would be a number of contradictory viewpoints. There is often an assumption that "everyone else thinks like me, it's just those at the top that can't see it". But I would not believe this to be true for a second. There is also the question of how many existing members would be alienated by any changes that were enforced.
Let's get this into perspective, after all it is (primarily) a club for those interested in a recreational activity, there are far more important things in life to get worked up about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
PG, you are quite right most people on snowheads don't have an axe to grind. Sorry if I gave the impression I thought most did. Don't you find it strange that the biggest piles of abuse I have ever received has come from someone I was actually agreeing with?
Ray Zorro, wise words indeed!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry, Masque does get rather carried away at times. But he talks a helluva lot of sense on his good days! I look forward to his (more reasoned) contributions. He frequently comes out with a fascinating new angle on a topic.
In the very early days you contributed elsewhere in the forum, but for some time now, exclusively to SCGB topics. That doesn't help to dispel the view that you only drop in to champion the SCGB's cause! It's also bound to give you a lopsided impression of discussions taking place.
Let's not get carried away - the above hardly constitutes abuse. If you think it is, best to avoid participating in public forums! What's more, Masque invariably apologises if he goes over the top.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
PG, I do lurk in the other forums, occasionally chipping in. But I do see your point. You're also right that abuse is too strong a word. But it still felt like abuse from the receiving end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
So Gerry, to redress the balance a little, what do you think could do with either a face-lift, or perhaps even more drastic surgery, amputation even, at the SCGB - both in terms of structure and attitude?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Gerry, Not angry with you, it's just sheer frustration that you've missed my point, oh, and thinly veiled insults don't help either. I'm pointing out that the club has a congenital barrier attitude to ‘outsiders’.
As much as you’re trying to change that, I’m not impressed to discover that one of the simplest parts of this attitude to change hasn’t been implemented in the two years since it was apparently rescinded. If that’s the projected pace of change, good luck
Ray Zorro: There’s absolutely no reason at all why a club of this type cannot attempt to serve the entire sports community, and it ought to be trying if it wants to call itself ‘The Ski Club of Great Britain’ otherwise it just becomes an oxymoron. Over the years, each time I’ve had a thought and a look at joining, I’ve read and listened and I’ve watched this ‘dare I say it’ elitist/protectionist attitude manifest itself to a greater and greater extent. It may well be true that I was unlucky enough to meet the less than representative reps (but they certainly helped me form the opinion that some were in the club for their own benefit at the expense of others) . but I’ve watched the club become more and more self-serving. And if, as pointed out in another thread, it’s true that SCGB doesn’t even contribute to our sport’s competitors, then I’m more in mind that the club is a business not a social organisation. So who’s operating it and who benefits from the dividend? And what am I buying that I haven’t already sourced elsewhere?
I don’t believe it’s just “a club for those interested in a recreational activity” and that’s why your question “how many existing members would be alienated by any changes that were enforced” makes your first quote disingenuous.
Gerry, I’d like to laud your efforts but all I’ve heard is equivocation and ‘jam tomorrow’ over a simple little needless and divisive rule. From that I’d surmise that there’s a substantial barrier to change within the club.
As it stands I’m currently repulsed by the club’s apparent ethos. Now I don’t know if that’s deliberate policy or just awful PR advice, but as societies like Snowheads develop surrounded by a fast changing sport and vacation industry, the club’s glacial ability to change may just render this thread moot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| PG wrote: |
| So Gerry, to redress the balance a little, what do you think could do with either a face-lift, or perhaps even more drastic surgery, amputation even, at the SCGB? |
Well I could do with a face-lift, for a start. As for amputation, please retain my typing fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Dan, I noticed that. Is SCUK to be a club owned by its members, or the owner of theboarder.co.uk?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Masque, I seem to recall on another thread that you were incensed, feeling that as a post menopausal male you were being excluded from Dark Summer's competition for a female skier and that they ought to be more inclusive. Don't get so worked up about these things - no-ones really out to get you.
Not sure why you felt that my comment that SCGB is (primarily) a club for those interested in a recreational activity was deceitful. It was early mentioned by someone far more qualified to comment than me http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=50107#50107 - see penultimate comment by Mr Goldsmith.
But surely, rather than moan from the outside, if you don't like the way things are, get in there and seek to change it. I'm sure it could do with a moderniser like you seem to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Ray Zorro wrote: |
| But surely, rather than moan from the outside, if you don't like the way things are, get in there and seek to change it. I'm sure it could do with a moderniser like you seem to be. |
As David Goldsmith has reminded us several times, the Club's mission statement from the early 1990s is to be "the spokesbody of British skiers".
If the SCGB wishes to represent British skiers (and possibly even darksiders!) then it should heed their views. Membership of a private club should not be a criterion of validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray says: ..."get in there and seek to change it."
This has been said to many modernisers, Ray, and many have taken the plunge. You have to know the inner workings of the Club to know that it's not quite that simple!
Remember that the new and highly controversial constitution of the Club demands around 1000 signatures just for a resolution to be tabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
If the SCGB wishes to represent British skiers (and possibly even darksiders!) then it should heed their views. Membership of a private club should not be a criterion of validity.
|
PG, surely the primary responsibility of any club is to its members. Why should it listen to anyone else if the needs of the members appear to be catered for? How can any club represent people that do not wish to join?
David Goldsmith, I much respect your stance and determination. When I suggested getting in there to change it, I thought that was also your preferred view http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?p=48810#48810
What niggles me is the culture of moaning that things aren't right, but people not being prepared to do anything about it. IMHO, you either do something to alter it, i.e. pay your membership and get in there to make it the club that the majority of members want (if it isn't already) or keep quiet, or start up something else that works - as U has done here.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Thu 23-09-04 10:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Zorro, Well in that case the SCGB should amend their mission statement!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Ray Zorro, As you're well aware that was me mooning Dark Summer. This is a bit different. It's about the way that the SCBG creates barriers to suit its internal politics, as DG points out above.
There are many thousands of wonderful open friendly people in the club, but as sure as skidmarks stink, there are others who are decidedly the reverse. I just wonder which faction is driving the bus. It could well be that the best thing that the club can do is to nail the boardroom door shut (with the committee inside) and start from scratch. But that’s not going to happen and in an organisation of this size and history there will be enough vested interest, tenure and cronyism to ensure that any desire for change in the general membership is smothered at birth.
Is it a club or a cash cow for some of the members?
I’m just saying that Snowheads should not drift amiably through the future but should gently and with great care, consider its path and role in snowsport. After all it is purely a voluntary, open and virtual club that in effect already has a nascent structure and a representative voting system.
I think that Gerry is trying too hard to be nice to me and the club at the same time, and as such his message became ambiguous. I was just using this stupid little rule to illustrate a general malaise that’s metastasised throughout the club. That he’s sincere is without question, I just wonder which will survive, his head or the wall he’s banging it against?
Last edited by snowHeads are a friendly bunch. on Thu 23-09-04 10:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Masque, is your real name Kevin Mcclean? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray Zorro, no I simply said "Join the struggle". Exactly how that struggle pans out we have to see. I'd suggest a manifesto - a plan for the Club - jointly written by SCGB members and non-members. There seems to be a huge measure of agreement on the way forward and what a national ski club can usefully offer its members. Simplicity and low-cost membership seem to be the key words.
As far as 'getting in there to change it' is concerned, the power of numbers and votes is needed. The voice and influence of snowHeads is dependent on the number of snowHeads. There's no point in 'getting in there' on a political level unless the Council candidates concerned have votes behind them.
The big question you have to ask yourself is: If the Club is executing its "primary responsibility", as you put it, why are its members not enthusiastically recommending it to their friends? Historically the Club grew by word of mouth. Now we have the even more powerful 'word of internet'. Ryanair has grown through a combination of the two, based on low price and relevance. I've stated before that only 2-3 per cent of British skiers belong to our Club now, compared to 25 per cent in the 1950s and early 1960s. So word of mouth could multiply that membership quite easily with the right membership package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
David Goldsmith, well I hope that people do feel motivated to join the struggle with you, and wish you well in your endeavour.
Personally, I am in the 97-98% because, while I enjoy skiing, I have no interest in joining a ski club, in the same way, I enjoy walking but wouldn't join a national walking association. To be honest, the club could change all it liked, but at the moment I can't really think of a reason why I would feel motivated to join. Hence I would never feel in a position to criticise it. But circumstances change and who knows what is round the corner. I recognise that probably I am in the minority on this site - I just enjoy the banter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Quote: |
Is it a club or a cash cow for some of the members?
|
Masque, I don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm a member (and a rep), though last time I checked my bank balance there wasn't money pouring in from the SCGB coffers.
When I did the reps' course there was a great debate about why the 50 age limit was in effect; the general feeling was that most people thought this was rather stupid and that attitude and fitness were more important. I don't agree with everything Gerry states, but he has already made it extremely clear that he also disagrees with this rule and would change it if he was in a position to do so.
There was also a lot of discussion about other aspects of the club - encouraging more youngsters, more boarders, new media, etc. Is the club perfect? No it's not; but I do feel it is trying to improve things.
Like Gerry, I've spoken to a lot of members whilst repping myself, or when skiing with other reps. The vast majority seem to be perfectly happy with what they get for their money. Most had used the website for news and information (normally resort info and snow reports - I know those are often slagged off here, but a lot of members find them useful) but weren't interested in the Forum. Personally I thought the way MO was handled was an image disaster. But it created Snowheads!
Obviously there is still an image problem, judging by a lot of the posts here (and other non members I've spoken to). Before joining I thought the SCGB was full of arrogant Hooray Henries. A few of those exist, but they are very much in the minority. Yes the club could do more to change this perception; however I think it is a fiendly and inclusive club, for people who want to join a ski club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| cathy coins wrote: |
| Beck Daross, why should anyone on snowHeads be remotely interested in SCGB, never mind get elected to Council. |
In that case stop banging on about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Red Dave wrote: |
| Masque, I don't understand what you're getting at here. |
I think Masque needs to learn to be more tolerant of people who agree with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
I'd love to have a discussion on the semantics of 'agree' and/or the psychological triggers in language, but regrettably I've my head being hammered to mush by a set of tech drawings and the last time I used my O'level (that's placing me) in the subject was when I took the exam! Another time perhaps, but trust me ‘anger management’ is the last thing I need.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Anger management is crap masque your not allowed to punch them
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Have a care Ms Cathy Coins with your 372 posts, Beck Daross may be a timid poster. Joined up way back on Mar 3rd but took 4months to make first post. But it was a stormer of an entrance wasn't it? Trying to pin u brain down to accusing the Ski Club of wrongdoing.
At least he or she has started arguing with someone other than u brain now. I think that can be seen as a step forward.
It seems to me (from my standpoint of lowly lurker that I generally am) that the one place on this site that you find people being uncivil to each other is in the ski club section (where you find it on almost every thread).
So much for the 'Bonhommie de Neige' 
I'll shut up again now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Saques, beware the agent provocateur?! Good advice.
.... particularly in these threads. The issue of libel and the threat to discussion forums of this type has been much debated elsewhere on snowHeads. It would be ironic if a snowHead erred on the wrong side of caution, providing a third party with sufficient cause to take action.
Let's make the moderators' job easy folks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to support PG and I Saques, as 'The Voice of Reason' here. Gerry and Beck put the SCGB case firmly, consistently and unswervingly, but I'd like to point out that most other people put the anti-SCGB in very similar terms. You'd all be very distressed if there was no one to argue with
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cathy, it's 500 and then 2000 I think
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
why don't you contribute more in the general discussion threads? As far as I can see, you've only posted under the SCGB threads - why? If you're not interested in general ski discussion but only in SCGB discussions aren't you better off discussing those on the SCGB forum?
An alcohol-fuelled comment is my only excuse.....
Do I get a title when I reach 400, or do I have to wait for 500? I'll have to keep posting more drivel 