 Poster: A snowHead
|
I don't think I've ever had a pink gin. That's me out of the club, then. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| achilles wrote: |
| I don't think I've ever had a pink gin. That's me out of the club, then. |
Strange that the brand of gin is specified - but not the brand of bitters. I have never had the version in your recipe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
And you will remember ... that the club were clear that the data collection in 1993 was poor and approximate.
|
The Ski Club has never corrected its 1993 data. The data was collected by salaried managers who add numbers up, and accountants who add expenditure up. The Ski Club of Great Britain has never said its data collection in 1993 was "poor and approximate". Please provide a source for that extraordinary comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I am beginning to see boredsurfin's point from several pages ago.
This thread is now descending into point-scoring and gainsaying -which is a shame.
I thought the original discussion was quite interesting, but I cannot see much is being added now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Latchigo, I agree. This is getting to be an extremely worrying habit. (Agreeing with you, that is.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latchigo and Hurtle, here's a perfectly sensible way to get the thread back on track, based on Alastair Pink's opening posting:
| Quote: |
| "The policy for the terrain where reps and leaders can now ski off-piste states that off-piste skiing will generally be closer to the piste and only involve a short ski to return to the marked runs." [quoting SCGB letter] |
This statement, as we know from this discussion, has raised one or two questions of definition.
The Club will obviously wish to know from members what they feel about the situation and the Council will have hard decisions to take. So, if you - as SCGB members - were sitting in Council tomorrow night (there is usually a Council meeting immediately before the AGM) what would you decide? To stay with the above policy, or tighten it up?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latchigo, so what's your recipe for a pink gin, then? Clearly, if I am to stay in the SCGB, I've got to drink the stuff - so I may as well do it properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, I think that the policy will have to adhere strictly to the requirements of the Club's current insurers (presumably the Club can hardly, with a lawsuit pending, go shopping for alternative insurance cover at the moment.) I feel that, whatever the insurers, clearly and in terms, agree to cover, then that's fine - no need to restrict off-piste skiing more than is practically necessary. But the guidance has to be tightened up in any event: the present wording is so loose at to be absolutely useless, the reps could not possibly operate any policy safely on the basis of words like "generally be closer."
Thanks for re-railing (not sure that's English, but still) the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| .......Thanks for re-railing (not sure that's English, but still)......... |
I defer to you as senior snowheads pedant. Assuming laundryman also agrees, then the very fact you use an expression makes it correct English. You need have no fear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| Quote: |
here's a perfectly sensible way to get the thread back on track, based on Alastair Pink's opening posting:
|
Great idea and now for the next 20 pages ..................... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin, that's all very well. But what about my pink gin?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| The Club will obviously wish to know from members what they feel about the situation and the Council will have hard decisions to take. So, if you - as SCGB members - were sitting in Council tomorrow night (there is usually a Council meeting immediately before the AGM) what would you decide? To stay with the above policy, or tighten it up? |
I am in no position to make a decision. I would seek further clarification from those in charge first. I would then consider that in the light of points that have been made so far.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I'm going on the SCGB course this year and I have an ISIA stamp. The off-piste mountain safety course they do as part of the reps course is very similar (from what I can make out) to the off-piste/mountain safety module I had to pass as part of geting the ISIA stamp (so its a bit of a pain to have to pay out for it again, though the course does cover stuff I won't have covered - this is mainly the reps duties). Shame they couldn't do a conversion course for people who had already done that course and make it shorter (and cheaper). Still I'm sure I will enjoy it and you can never have too much info about off-piste skiing/avalanche awareness etc.
Incidentally as an ISIA holder I can lead off-piste, but not on glaciated terrain AFAIK only a fully qualified UIAGM guide (or whatever they're called these days) can do this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Latchigo, so what's your recipe for a pink gin, then? Clearly, if I am to stay in the SCGB, I've got to drink the stuff - so I may as well do it properly. |
I always thought you had to use Angostura bitters but had scope to vary the brand or type of gin. Never bothered swirling and then discarding the Angosturas either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Latchigo, Hmm thanks. Must find out what a dash is. All this is very embarrassing, and I shall be thrown out of the SCGB, at this rate.
boredsurfin, Hope to take you up on that one day. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Just stumbled in here - what the heck is this 20-pager about? Anyone got a summary? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It's a thread called Repping Forest
... where it's sometimes difficult to see the wood for the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
slikedges, Um. Sadly there was a fatal accident in Verbier with a SCGB rep. Resulting from this there may be legal action - but the accident and legal circumstnces are not clear. The SCGB has written a very vaguely worded letter which suggests that the off-piste skiing with the reps may be more limited in future. Off-piste skiers with the club are concerned about this - and will hope for clarification at the AGM tomorrow. David Goldsmith has a collection of SCGB annual reports going back 20 years  . Bode Swiller is enjoying himself - and it looks as though I should not be be a member of the SCGB, because I don't drink pink gins. Oh, and Hurtle does not wish to be senior pedant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Borrowing through the archives - I do find this breakdown from a previous piece of research.
Primary Reasons for new members joining the club
1st - Reps 35%
Joint 2nd - Freshtracks and Insurance 11% each
Joint 4th - Website and Information 9% each
6th - Tour Op Discounts 8%
7th - Ski Club Travel Service 3%
Joint 8th - Magazine, social reasons and UK shops 2% each
This comes from a long SCGB thread, where some others - not I - attempt to explain what they feel David's errors in numerical interpretation are. This was after I became beyond caring about such things... I could go to the bother of digging up where it was pointed out that the 1993 numbers were on a totally different basis - but I don't think it will change David's opinion.
Ok - the net cost of the reps is hugely less than the net cost of the magazine per new member who gave them as the prime reason for joining. Discuss... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stoatsbrother, Aha! Good clue. Thank you.
Hurtle, Most Thorough Pedant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm...2 good summaries me thinks but it's achilles' that's just saved me half an hours reading! Thank you achilles, and don't mind me guys, I'm going to slink quietly out again...
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
stoatsbrother, the provenance of those percentages deserves some investigation. They were never officially published by the Ski Club.
As someone who's been involved in market and opinion research, I'd want to know if the respondents were self-selecting ... or whether the sample was a proper random or quota sample.
Having served on Council I do know that those percentages are at huge variance to a pukka research exercise which the Club carried out in the mid-1980s. Journalism and information were given a very high score at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
David Goldsmith, I agree - and you will remember - no doubt - that I was the first person who supported your suggestion that the MRI data be published.
However we also were unable - as you also will remember - to get figures for 1993 on a comparable basis to 2005 etc etc. So let's not be too selective and totally ignore this evidence just because it may disagree with what either of us may wish to promote?
The mid 80s were... 20 years ago... when we had 4 tv channels, fewer ski mags, no internet etc etc etc. Fings has changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
stoatsbrother, achilles, oi, you two. The proposition I was denying, was that I was always right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Bode Swiller is enjoying himself |
Yes/no. I do enjoy a joke (and many fall on stony ground) but there is a very serious issue or two at the heart of this and, we must never forget, someone actually died and that will in turn have had an impact on many other people. It was certainly an unnecessary and untimely death and when you sweep away all the political posturing and chaff on here there's still a bigger debate to be had - what the SCGB does next could affect you or people close to you. Can you really take an OK skier, train them for a couple of weeks, hand them a uniform and a resort slot and let them loose? I say OK on piste but very iffy off. Soon, I'm sure, the Verbier detail will come out and it staggers me that it hasn't yet after 20 pages.
By the way PJSki, what name did you post under before? Just a hunch. And why hide?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
| Fings has changed. |
Indeed
Chirpy Cockneys. Dontcha just luv em !!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
stoatsbrother,
| Quote: |
the net cost of the reps is hugely less than the net cost of the magazine per new member who gave them as the prime reason for joining. Discuss...
|
No ta. Thanks for asking, though. Besides, when I post something serious, in answer to a question, or on topic (you know, something controversial like that) I always get ignored anyway. Didn't anyone like my answer to DG's re-railing question? Didn't anyone read the stuff in the Graun following the Australian elections? ...oh, sorry, wrong thread...
Blah, blah. Back to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Bode Swiller, Very fair point. You're right, of course.  In fact, you are probably saying that you don't agree with my proposition and that reps should be curtailed from taking skiers off-piste, whatever the Club's insurers think?
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Wed 28-11-07 16:30; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| stoatsbrother wrote: |
However we also were unable - as you also will remember - to get figures for 1993 on a comparable basis to 2005 ... |
I've quoted data which is perfectly comparable. The Club has never said otherwise. The whole point of publishing annual reports is that they constitute data which is presented on a consistent basis. Otherwise there'd be no way of making year-on-year comparisons.
So I don't accept the word "we" in your sentence above. By all means write to the Club for the Membership Research Initiative results. Members took part in the exercise and paid for the exercise and would probably find the data interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Seriously, I do think that the topic on to which you re-railed us, David Goldsmith, is a lot more interesting than membership data comparison. But that's perhaps because I am sadly innumerate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Bode Swiller, Very fair point. You're right, of course. In fact, you are probably saying that you don't agree with my proposition and that reps should be curtailed from taking skiers off-piste, whatever the Club's insurers think? |
I reckon the insurers will have the biggest say. There are ways of playing it though. I made a suggestion maybe 17 pages ago (!) that the individual resorts literally need manuals of where reps can/cannot go, having checked the conditions in the normal way. In other words, procedures that satisfy the insurer and the club's duty of care to members/guests. There shouldn't be just one level of rep either. By the way, just checked with the wife and, incredibly, I'm not always right. News to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
David Goldsmith, a recent member of the council - as far as I recall - said otherwise - and few people other than you were really interested in reports from 13 years ago... But were the figures to be correct - what would you say?
Bode Swiller, Agree with what you say - and I suspect something is already in progress for this - in fact didn't someone say there already was a list in some resorts of runs which were off limits. I very much agree with what you say about different levels of reps. And it isn't so much about skiing ability as attitude set and leadership skills IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Bode Swiller wrote: |
| I reckon the insurers will have the biggest say. |
No way. The day the Club's controlled by outside forces is certainly the day I quit. The Ski Club of British Insurers would clearly be right up your piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, are you saying that the Club's ability to get liability insurance doesn't affect this issue? 
Bode Swiller, whilst I don't necessarily disagree with you, I think that the priority for tomorrow is to sort out what is insured and what isn't. The rest will follow. It will probably have to follow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
