 Poster: A snowHead
|
stoatsbrother,
| Quote: |
you started talking about members discussing their disagreements on snowHeads when the only disagreements in this thread were between people making trite generalisations about the club, and those defending the club. Sounds like stirring to me.
|
The discussion had moved on from the 'trite generalisations' as you put it. I don't like Club-bashing on here any more than you do and have said so on more than one occasion. However, a new point was being made - not originally by me, I was merely expressing my agreement with it, and again when Latchigo posted - as to the inappropriateness of Club members bashing one another on here, which is just as annoying, if not more so. I see no reason for my view on that, not the first to be expressed, to be labelled as 'stirring'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Hurtle, Boredsurfing, Agenterre, FFS!
So we have rumour, unsubstantiated accusations and aspersions. The only sustained internecine spats I can think of are between DG and PJSki/Tim Brown, and probably a few others laying into DG after some more of his dog-with-a-bone acts, and that's far from uniquely SCGB related. I can't remember specific "threats of violence" between anyone, other than possibly some DG/TimB banter. I'm fairly sure I can though remember some threats from Agenterre to someone else though (can't remember whether it was about SCGB or not - actually wasn't it against whitegold), but that was maybe beer-induced?
Frankly I'm completely pi$$ed off with this guilt by association - which you Hurtle are perpetuating. If you mean anything other than the DG/TB/PJSki spats when you refer to "personal attacks which are made by Ski Club members (on the Club or on other members of it) on this forum are unpleasant, unnecessary and extremely tiresome" then be specific. There was one occasion I can remember in which this forum was used by one (ex-?)member with a very specific grudge against the Club to have a serious go at it, but they've not posted since. That deleted thread this evening had nothing to do with the SCGB (it actually appears to tbe the one organisation in the country that is not), until associatedwith it by a  stirrer, and you. If you can't cite other instances, then yes...you're just stirring. IME, there are very few sticks onto the wrong end of which you can't firmly grasp - a strange trait for a lawyer!
As for the "club official" reference/smear, Boredsurfing, I once had a very confusing conversation with the only person I can think of in the SCGB who has anything like that profile. When it became clear that he had no idea whatsoever about what I was talking, he assured me that he was not that person. He could have been bluffing, but I don't think he's that good an actor - and subterfuge is not his style anyway. He also has his own login, which he used many months later to PM me on completely different issues. So no evidence that he hasn't sock pupets for public consumption, but evidence to the veracity of his story. So if you have a definite accusation - out with it and provide the evidence - or STFU!
I find all this personally insulting. I'm far from a sycophantic acolyte of the SCGB (as anyone at the last 3 AGMs could witness), but I really resent the continual sniping that goes on here. If it weren't so trivial, I sometimes wonder whether all this defamation would be actionable?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
The only sustained internecine spats I can think of are between DG and PJSki/Tim Brown, and probably a few others laying into DG after some more of his dog-with-a-bone acts, and that's far from uniquely SCGB related.
|
Yes, those are precisely the spats I have in mind - not least because there's one on the go this very day - which, when they are Club-related, bring the Club into disrepute. Why the hell shouldn't I criticise that kind of behaviour? Because you don't like it? And because every single Ski Club member or ex-member on here doesn't behave in a similar fashion? I think you're the one to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick if you think I am criticising the Club - I have never done so, by reference to the composition of its membership or otherwise, in fact quite the reverse. It saddens me when the Club is brought into disrepute by association. So quite why you feel personally insulted, at least by me, is puzzling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
So your criticism is not that "some Ski Club members unfortunately do not continue their disagreements in private", it's of two specific ones. That's guilt by association. And both you and Agenterre specifically said it was not DG you considered the principal "bad boy". But it's DG that is the principal instigator of SCGB-bashing threads - so what are those who disagree with them supposed to do? You've also talked about current threads having a go at the SCGB - but those two have not posted on it for over two weeks, so no it's not a current argument between them! I personally believe this place would be a better place without DG for a whole number of reasons (only a minority of which have anything to do with the SCGB), and it sounds like there is a similar view within the SCGB. That is the one way that would stop sustained anti-SCGB attacks, but I suppose that of course would be censorship and infringe freedom of speech  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
That's guilt by association.
|
What I said was that, when the spats are Club-related, they bring the Club into disrepute. I can't see that that's a contentious viewpoint, but still...
| Quote: |
You've also talked about current threads having a go at the SCGB
|
No I haven't. I have been talking about Club members having a go at one another. (You'll recall my contention that this thread had moved on to that issue.)
| Quote: |
those two have not posted on it for over two weeks
|
That is not correct.
| Quote: |
I personally believe this place would be a better place without DG for a whole number of reasons (only a minority of which have anything to do with the SCGB), and it sounds like there is a similar view within the SCGB. That is the one way that would stop sustained anti-SCGB attacks
|
I think that DG adds quite a lot of value to this place, some of his more annoying obsessions aside. And I certainly don't think that his departure would stop sustained anti-SCGB attacks. Attacks will continue a) from some of the original snowHeads, who simply can't get over having been excluded from the Club forum all those years ago and b) from those people who are genuinely convinced that the Club is exclusively composed of boorish, superannuated Hooray Henries. DG's posts sometimes fuel these folks' attacks, but sadly they'll go on anyway, whether he's here or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
GrahamN,
| Quote: |
I can't remember specific "threats of violence" between anyone, other than possibly some DG/TimB banter
|
If you call wishing death on a posters children 'banter' then fair enough.
As parent of those children I received an apology from the person making the threat.
No doubt in the corresponding thread to this in the SCGB Chat room this thread will be cut and paste selectively to perpetuate the anti sH feeling that some stoke up at our club.
Very very sad.
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Mon 1-06-09 8:38; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boredsurfing, now and then someone will make a post that is just plain wrong. I saw that specific thread and it was very wrong. One can do this stuff from the anonymous world of the interwebby thingy but it certainly doesn't make it any less hurtful. I remember another frequent, now departed, poster who made a post about another, now banned, posters child. I was shocked and horrified but you can see a pattern of folks that do that kind of thing leaving, or being forced to leave the forum.
Is this "pick on Hurtle" week? Some seem to bite, but I can't even see the bait 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hurtle wrote: |
| Quote: |
those two have not posted on it for over two weeks
|
That is not correct.
|
Yes it is. Last posts by DG on the "Green" thread, Sun 17th May just after midnight; last post by PJSki against DG Sat 16th May 15:03. Both over two weeks previous to your or my post. Last night's deleted thread had no reference by PJSki against DG or the SCGB. But fine.....whatever! Have a nice day.
Boredsurfing, sorry, I'd forgotten that one. But, despite it being offensive and tasteless, do you really think that "threat" any more seriously intended than e.g. FtS's extension of "Marry, Sh%g" to include murder?
I also see you've edited your 2nd para to completely change it's meaning - since I guess you've now seen that I'd already had a go at those engaging in similarly ill-founded criticisms over there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Frosty the Snowman, Good post.
I don't like to see the bullying here..as I see it.
GrahamN, I think your attacks are a bit too strong... you might rethink some of it, on reflection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JT, no I don't, but as I've said all I want to on this subject, and this is now becoming repetitive, I'm out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
Boredsurfing, sorry, I'd forgotten that one.
|
I and many others on here that evening who saw the thread and those post's were certainly under not under the impression that the 'threat ' was not serious.
Nor have they forgotten 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.
|
Does every SCGB thread have to resort to people talking about or threatening legal action? They then wonder why others don't have a great impression of the club.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, the general consensus is; we should, get back to, have stuck to, the original topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
sahsah, I don't think the original topic was of any relevance to Snowheads at all, there had been little or no interest in it for some time and I don't really know what your motive was for starting it. Any Ski Club Members can contribute to the lengthy debate on their forum if they wish. All it has led to is further opening of sores.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Colin B, Well said.
sahsah Perhaps you could explain the revelance to snowHeads? After all it is a matter between The Ski Club and Alpine Experience.
Does the fact that Google picks up snowHeads but NOT the club 'chat room' have any bearing on you giving the subject a wider 'airing'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I posted the original thread when AE made their comments on their blog. My question at the time was: 'Is this the start of a backlash against SKGB hosting off-piste tours by professional guiding operations'.....
I have no idea what the outcome was.....probably no 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Colin B, Boredsurfing, Strange that, I thought this was a forum for all things interesting to those who partake on snow! But, as you will see by my post numbers, I am new here; perhaps I missed the point of Snowheads. If you are not interested then why bother to comment!
and as Guvnor, made reference, why should I not think it would be of interest to other amateurs who group together and ski, I presume some SHs do venture off-piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
sahsah, There is a world of difference. The dispute between AE and the Ski Club was specifically around groups led off piste by Ski Club Reps. That is only relevant to members who can get information on the Ski Club Site/Forum (as I have and I suspect you have).
Non members either pay to go off piste with a guide or qualified instructor or go at risk alone trusting their own judgement/experience. Completely different situations on which the dispute has no bearing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Frosty the Snowman, JT, thanks.
Colin B, agreed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Colin B, Wrong, non-members can go with SCGB reps, the potential of an introduction to acquire new member. Since when did other amateurs only 'go it alone', the majority are groups of amateurs off-piste; the difference with the SCGB Reps is that they wear distinguishable jackets to be recognisable to members, hence guides can pick them out as amateurs. I hope your not naive enough that you think AEs guides are happy with all & sundry off-piste without paying. Look at St Anton; e.g. SCGB reps banned, no venturing off-piste in best area without a professional Guide!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Morrissey, at 50 - according to the news reports - you ain't so far away yourself. xxx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There was a thread on snowheads about this at the time Andreas made the comments, anyone got a reference to it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, alas the news reports are correct, I turned 50 on 22nd May. Couple that with the fact I have just left a hospital in Wiltshire for a very nasty throat virus it apears I may be in the right place. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Always use protection 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
sahsah, I am not sure if you have a horse in the race. I suspect you do given other posts.
I looked on SCGB just a moment ago. 245 posts on the topic.
A variety of views were expressed, notably that reps are not beyond criticism if they overstep the mark.
Off piste has been extensively discussed within the SCGB. There are a variety of views but only one official policy is sanctioned.
Correct me if I am wrong but I suspect your horse is a hobby horse and that this members comment is not far off the mark :-
'I cant help but feel that this from their web site explains, but it depends which side of the fence you sit.
"To be a professional in the mountains takes many years of training and experience and the fact that the Reps are taking people off piste and for no cost is disrespectful to the qualified professionals working here, and to the Ski Club Members as well." '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latchigo, Very much depends on the rep, as we know some are more personable than others, likewise some are more qualified than others.
For example, the rep I skied with this past season is also a qualified high mountain guide.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Boredsurfing wrote: |
Latchigo, Very much depends on the rep, as we know some are more personable than others, likewise some are more qualified than others.
For example, the rep I skied with this past season is also a qualified high mountain guide. |
Not sure what you mean. What depends on the rep ? Official ski club policy ?
While it is true that reps are matched to resorts according to how good they are, it does not give them leeway to break the official club policy on off piste.
There is a lot more on the SCGB site including posts from a member who was at the centre of it. Some very different accounts of what actually happened too.
I imagine there have been discussions between the club and the rep concerned.
I also imagine that AE have individuals who are annoyed that an apology was given.
Would they, as observers, know more of the story than the members and reps concerned ? I suspect not.
They may have legitimate concerns and the club would be right to review them. The club may prefer to do so privately for the time being though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Latchigo, What I meant was that AFAIK some reps are qualified as high mountain guides as well as being fully trained ski club reps BUT others are only fully trained as ski club reps. Therefore generalisations cannot be made as some reps are more qualified on paper than others.
As I said earlier the subject of this thread really is a matter between the club and AE, I do not believe any further discussion on here has any point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
You lot are bonkers 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Boredsurfing, agreed entirely. But I think it's important that Latchigo's comments and quotes are put in context (and now I've calmed down, hopefully this review will be farily dispassionate). BTW, I am a fairly disinterested observer in this: I am not involved in this incident in any way, and have never skied with a rep in VdI (although have been on one Freshtracks holiday there), but I am a keen off-piste skier and do not want to see the club of which I am a member taking undue flak for its authorised activities that are of value to me.
That thread changed in tone very substantially over its course. At the start there was fairly strong criticism of the rep concerned, from members who clearly were not witnesses. Latchigo's quote comes from that period (18th March). The tenor of those criticisms was that Reps should stick to the rules and if they are overstepped then there should be sanctions - all laudable and correct statements, but with an underlying assumption that the rules actually had been broken. There was then an eye-witness account from David Peerless (he registered over here to present his story in the earlier thread), who was neither the rep concerned, nor skiing with their group, but was involved in the events under discussion. This essentially exonerated the rep and claimed major inaccuracies in the AE story. This was then subject to some fairly robust challenge. Eventually there was reference to other eye-witness accounts corroborating DP's version of events, the challenge to that version largely evaporated, and the AE "apology" appeared very soon after - although clearly they are still not happy. There were also clearly discussions between the Club and AE - reported by AE.
Unfortunately though, as the Club seems to have a policy of communicating as little as possible with its members, we know nothing of the Club's official position on all this, and what action it has been taking on behalf of its members.
I hope that clarifies the position for non-members who may be reading this and do not have the benefit ( ) of access to the SCGB forum.
I expect to be taking steps to overcome my possibly irrational dislike of VdI in the next season or two, but as a result of this I doubt I'll be putting any business AE's way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| GrahamN wrote: |
Unfortunately though, as the Club seems to have a policy of communicating as little as possible with its members, we know nothing of the Club's official position on all this, and what action it has been taking on behalf of its members.
|
A public trial of the rep by the Club may not be the best way to proceed especially if he was exonerated in the end. Same applies if he was guilty IMO.
I agree the Club could be more forthcoming on other occasions, though possible litigation has been an issue sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Latchigo wrote: |
| A public trial of the rep by the Club may not be the best way to proceed especially if he was exonerated in the end. Same applies if he was guilty IMO. |
Quite agree. But a "Don't worry guys, we're on the case and sorting this out", followed by a summary of the conclusion eventually reached wouldn't have gone amis. But this is really not a matter for further discussion here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Latchigo wrote: |
| While it is true that reps are matched to resorts according to how good they are, it does not give them leeway to break the official club policy on off piste. |
It might be said that "official club policy on off piste" is itself very much open to interpretation - likely not a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Latchigo wrote: |
,
Correct me if I am wrong but I suspect your horse is a hobby horse and that this members comment is not far off the mark :-
'I cant help but feel that this from their web site explains, but it depends which side of the fence you sit.
"To be a professional in the mountains takes many years of training and experience and the fact that the Reps are taking people off piste and for no cost is disrespectful to the qualified professionals working here, and to the Ski Club Members as well." ' |
That just made me laugh when I first read it over there. Who do AE guides think they are? IMO being a professional does not give them the right do determine that amateurs should not be able to continue to do for free, what they charge for (go skiing off-piste). But, if they disguise their true meaning with 'disrespect' it is just a bit more subtle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
