cathy, I would give you a hefty +1 on that if I weren't so busy feeling cared for....
When I think of you three little words spring to mind... 'in the community'...
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
A tendency to post to those who argue against him (Lizzard this time) that he knows who they are...
When he starts claiming to know where I live I'll have him arrested.
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?
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
By the way, Masque is winding everyone up. His years of working for a Swiss cuckoo clock R&D department, coupled with years on JWAZ, and some testing moments on US freeways, have obviously taken him into another Zone. It's always the same filth, though.
Hang on a mo!
Quote:
It's always the same filth
. . . I always have fresh filth . . . these days it's less visceral, or is that viscous?, and I rarely leak into the forum as there are few reasons to except provocation . . . the sock weasel that left its scat in the OP is provocation. However I suppose I should behave . . . where's a sulk smillie when you need one
Comedy Goldsmith, If you'd have seen Anchorman you would have a) known the answer, b) seen a real journalist at work
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
SCGB FORUM AUDIT 00:01 hrs 10 JANUARY
As promised, here is the posting pattern for the SCGB forum over the past 7 days. I mentioned that there would be astonishing – if not globe-shattering - news, which is that the first two days (3-4 Jan) saw posts exceeding the 25 per day minimum for the first time. That is the minimum number of daily posts necessary to make an individual post ‘legal’ under the new ‘4% rule’.
The traffic then fell sharply again on 5 Jan and has not recovered, rendering ‘illegal’ all posts made during the past 5 days, including those posted by SCGB forum officials and council members who drew up the rules in the first place. It’s not uncommon for posters to exceed 20% to 30% of all posts in a day, since this offence will be committed simply by writing 3 or 4 posts.
At its busiest times before ‘MO Day’ in Feb 2004, when the SCGB forum closed to the general public, it was clocking hundreds of posts per day, but now sees fewer than a couple of dozen (about one per hour on average) on a typical day. Traffic levels are probably around 2% to 5% of what they were at that time.
3 Jan: 27 posters made 40 posts
4 Jan: 19 posters made 32 posts
5 Jan: 9 posters made 11 posts
6 Jan: 8 posters made 13 posts
7 Jan: 14 posters made 23 posts
8 Jan: 15 posters made 17 posts
9 Jan: 13 posters made 14 posts
Due to the futility of this exercise, it will cease until further notice. As a SCGB member, I cannot recall anything quite as absurd as the ‘4% rule’ since becoming a member in 1962. It is the equivalent of putting a tachometer on a tortoise or giving a giant panda a contraceptive.
BBC report:
Quote:
Among the most ridiculous laws listed by UKTV Gold were:
• It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27%)
• It could be regarded an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down (7%)
• Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned (5%)
• In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants (4%)
• The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen (3.5%)
• It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3%)
• It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour (3%).
As promised, here is the posting pattern for the SCGB forum over the past 7 days. I mentioned that there would be astonishing – if not globe-shattering - news, which is that the first two days (3-4 Jan) saw posts exceeding the 25 per day minimum for the first time. That is the minimum number of daily posts necessary to make an individual post ‘legal’ under the new ‘4% rule’.
The traffic then fell sharply again on 5 Jan and has not recovered, rendering ‘illegal’ all posts made during the past 5 days, including those posted by SCGB forum officials and council members who drew up the rules in the first place. It’s not uncommon for posters to exceed 20% to 30% of all posts in a day, since this offence will be committed simply by writing 3 or 4 posts.
At its busiest times before ‘MO Day’ in Feb 2004, when the SCGB forum closed to the general public, it was clocking hundreds of posts per day, but now sees fewer than a couple of dozen (about one per hour on average) on a typical day. Traffic levels are probably around 2% to 5% of what they were at that time.
3 Jan: 27 posters made 40 posts
4 Jan: 19 posters made 32 posts
5 Jan: 9 posters made 11 posts
6 Jan: 8 posters made 13 posts
7 Jan: 14 posters made 23 posts
8 Jan: 15 posters made 17 posts
9 Jan: 13 posters made 14 posts
Due to the futility of this exercise, it will cease until further notice. As a SCGB member, I cannot recall anything quite as absurd as the ‘4% rule’ since becoming a member in 1962. It is the equivalent of putting a tachometer on a tortoise or giving a giant panda a contraceptive.
BBC report:
Quote:
Among the most ridiculous laws listed by UKTV Gold were:
• It is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament (27%)
• It could be regarded an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down (7%)
• Eating mince pies on Christmas Day is banned (5%)
• In the UK, a pregnant woman can legally relieve herself anywhere she wants (4%)
• The head of any dead whale found on the British coast automatically becomes the property of the King, and the tail of the Queen (3.5%)
• It is illegal not to tell the tax man anything you do not want him to know, but legal not to tell him information you do not mind him knowing (3%)
• It is illegal to enter the Houses of Parliament wearing a suit of armour (3%).
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Lizzard wrote:
Quote:
A tendency to post to those who argue against him (Lizzard this time) that he knows who they are...
When he starts claiming to know where I live I'll have him arrested.
Joke of the century, with audience (one member) canned laughter popped in at the end by the author.
stoat of the dead wrote:
In this thread he has specifically ... impugned a decent man.
The man referred to - former chairman of the SCGB, Neil Britten - oversaw the series of legal threats against snowHeads in 2011. He previously represented the view of Council, at the November 2004 SCGB AGM, that the Club could not be involved in an open public chat forum because of legal (libel) liability. There was no resumption of the SCGB forum in the 8 ensuing years, including the 5 of his chairmanship. In no way have I impugned this perfectly decent man. I've simply pointed out that he was in the right place at the right time, when the wrong decisions were made. Neil Britten was on SCGB Council in Feb 2004, when MO Day occurred, having joined the Council just over 2 months earlier. He is at perfect liberty to challenge any of those facts, or present his own version/explanation of events.
PJSki wrote:
Face it, Comedy, you haven't got a clue and have resorted to making things up [the death of a third skier with a SCGB rep]. You seemingly have two people on your side, one says you're mad and the other keeps bring homosexuality into the debate.
I didn't make it up: the death of the third skier is confirmed on a cast iron kosher document, which I have seen. No more can be said about it, except that the authenticity of the document can - of course - be verified by the right people [this is highly unlikely]. As I've previously said, the Verbier-based journalist Doug Sager - who used to write for The Times - took the view back in 1989, in Skiing UK magazine (p.69, summer edition), that the death of one skier (24-year-old Aberdonian, Michael Mahaffy) was enough to seriously question whether unqualified people - such as SCGB reps - should be leading skiers off-piste in a quasi-professional/semi-amateur way. I was inclined to agree with him at the time, 23+ years ago.
-----------------------------------
I got back from work at Southbank Centre (one of this country's greatest, most creative and most diverse non-profit enterprises) last night, to find additional uncreative crap - above - on the thread. My instinctive reaction - rightly or wrongly - was to remove the feast of facts I've written for this thread over the past few weeks.
At some future stage, maybe all the stuff is retrievable. For the moment, there are better things to be getting on with.
Hasta la pista, baby
After all it is free
After all it is free
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
PJSki wrote:
Face it, Comedy, you haven't got a clue and have resorted to making things up [the death of a third skier with a SCGB rep]. You seemingly have two people on your side, one says you're mad and the other keeps bring homosexuality into the debate.
I didn't make it up: the death of the third skier is confirmed on a cast iron kosher document, which I have seen. No more can be said about it, except that the authenticity of the document can - of course - be verified by the right people [this is highly unlikely]. As I've previously said, the Verbier-based journalist Doug Sager - who used to write for The Times - took the view back in 1989, in Skiing UK magazine (p.69, summer edition), that the death of one skier (24-year-old Aberdonian, Michael Mahaffy) was enough to seriously question whether unqualified people - such as SCGB reps - should be leading skiers off-piste in a quasi-professional/semi-amateur way. I was inclined to agree with him at the time, 23+ years ago.
Yet according to you the information isn't in the public domain. Was it murder?
Michael Mahaffy is just some bloke. The authorities made no prosecution, so we must assume there was no fault. Was there even a civil claim? No there wasn't. But don't let all the facts be know, whatever you do, people might make their own minds up.
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.
admin wrote:
here are out posting totals for those days:
2013 01 03 1319
2013 01 04 1282
2013 01 05 946
2013 01 06 1110
2013 01 07 1422
2013 01 08 1656
2013 01 09 1572
nb: Nobody broke our 4% rule
Because we don't have one of those
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
to find additional uncreative crap - above - on the thread.
Sorry for the lack of creativity. Are you saying I should have made some figures up?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
I noticed, in Hampstead, yesterday that not only was Goldfish closed down, but a Police incident had closed the station preventing me taking the black run into Moorgate. Damn annoying, really.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Chasseur wrote:
Goldfish closed down
Only to the extent that I am not posting (anything of any worth) on snowHeads at the present time.
Chasseur wrote:
a Police incident had closed the station preventing me taking the black run into Moorgate.
I assume this is a witty reference to the Northern line of the Tube, which is black on the map. As a goldfish, I would never ski to Moorgate (whether closed down or not)
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.
Comedy Goldsmith wrote:
Only to the extent that I am not posting (anything of any worth) on snowHeads at the present time.
I dont think I ever have........
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Well... what a shame this has all finished.... i was enjoying it!
Comedy Goldsmith, IMO you have really damaged your credibility here.
By deleting all your posts (but still havnig them quoted by other snowheads anyway) really shows up your lack of confidence in anything you have written; which in-turn then demolishes any argument you were carrying.... shame really.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
WTF! . . . not an admirable choice of action.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
flangesax wrote:
Well... what a shame this has all finished.... i was enjoying it!
Comedy Goldsmith, IMO you have really damaged your credibility here.
By deleting all your posts (but still havnig them quoted by other snowheads anyway) really shows up your lack of confidence in anything you have written; which in-turn then demolishes any argument you were carrying.... shame really.
Perhaps (belatedly) Comedy Goldsmith has decided to follow the first rule of the Tea Club:
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Alastair Pink,
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
flangesax wrote:
Comedy Goldsmith, IMO you have really damaged your credibility here.
By deleting all your posts (but still havnig them quoted by other snowheads anyway) really shows up your lack of confidence in anything you have written; which in-turn then demolishes any argument you were carrying.... shame really.
Masque wrote:
WTF! . . . not an admirable choice of action.
You are, of course, absolutely right, except that I stand by everything that was deleted. If you look at the timing of admin's posting with quote (23:33 on 10 Jan), it coincided with the exact time I was busy deleting everything.
The action was simply one of annoyance, on return from an evening's work (as explained above).
I apologise for this 'drama queen behaviour', but understand that the process isn't irreversible. The world will continue to revolve, and gravity will continue to act upon skis.
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?
Quote:
The world will continue to revolve, and gravity will continue to act upon skis.
Comedy Goldsmith, acting in pique is also something to be avoided. You get a lot of lambast here . . . not always deserved but occasionally earned . . . a pause for a cuppa before a repeat, perhaps?
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Masque wrote:
. . . a pause for a cuppa before a repeat, perhaps?
Quite right, after all we are discussing the Tea Club as I posted above....
Alastair Pink, Aren't Tea Parties for little girls with no friends?
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Comedy Goldsmith, Not again...
David - please. This isn't good. I've said it before - I think you have a lot to offer this site.
But you really need to decide whether it is good for you.
The same pattern again and again -
cheery happy posts of great interest
then over-interpretation of data to suit your agenda and obsessions
you start ignoring direct pertinent questions
conversations becomes increasingly nasty - and that works in both directions
then toys-out-of-pram...
Is this making you happy?
After all it is free
After all it is free
That is quite untrue. I've got nothing to "offer this site" except an old cement mixer, an obsolete fuse box and a selection of used bricks.
Is it making me happy? I guess so ... in the silly, immature and irritating way that you describe.
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.
Comedy Goldsmith, read and really take on-board what Masque, and stoat of the dead, have written above
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
I've got nothing to "offer this site"
Agreed. The very slightly amusing stuff isn't worth the rest of it.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
If it make shim happy, we don't have to read 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.
blahblahblah wrote:
If it make shim happy, we don't have to read it.
Exactomundo.
Why do people confuse internet forums with real life.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Quote:
I've got nothing to "offer this site"
which is why I used that + button to ignore
but if he wants to delete all his posts, then I'm happy to unignore and leave my ignore list containing only stanton.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Leave me out of stanton
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
blahblahblah, +1
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Enough of this tedium. It's time for another nerve-tangling spot audit of the SCGB Chat Forum:
16 Jan: 9 posters made 11 posts
17 Jan: 8 posters made 8 posts
So, apart from a blip on 3-4 Jan (see above), when traffic exceeded the crucial level of 25 posts per day (which makes each one legal) ... all posters are continuing to break the new '4% rule'.
We're heading for the high season now, so hold your breath for the big rush.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
By the way ... to all the carpers and whingers:
This thread is now approaching 38,000 hits over 17 pages and 670 posts. It began on 18 December.
The legendary Dawn Chorus, in the Apres Zone, has had 16,000 hits over 48 pages and 1917 posts. It began on 20 Sep 2012.
Some people say they hate it, but the fact is that this thread - which is only one month old today - has been running red hot since it started. I wouldn't be surprised if Murdoch made a takeover bid.
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?
Admin, or Comedy Goldsmith... what is/was 'MO Day'?
wittenham, It was Members Only day. When the SCGB forum was made members only from being open to non members previously. This led to Snowheads being born to house the homeless.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
wittenham wrote:
Admin, or Comedy Goldsmith... what is/was 'MO Day'?
4 February 2004. The day that the SCGB closed its public ski forum and restricted access to members only (MO).
After all it is free
After all it is free
Since which point the ski club forum has been a tad moribund, whereas this one hasn't. Which was both entirely predictable and utterly unimportant.
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.
Utterly unimportant? The former has a (stated) 34,000 members and employs around 28 people. From your elevated (sic) perspective it's clearly unimportant - that's fine - but in the context of 21st century communication and survival ... I'd have thought that it's extremely im ... portant.
I suppose you could also describe the closure of HMV and Blockbuster as "unimportant", but business (since we're really talking about that) is all about being ahead of the curve. Maybe the ski resort that employs you has competitors. Would you be happy - and consider it "unimportant" - for it to be in the 'old school' in terms of communications and empathy with its target market?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Pedantica wrote:
blahblahblah, +1
+2
Personally, I find it interesting to compare snowHeads' performance against all the other snow related forums.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
Was it murder?
