 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| You missed Chocolate buttons.... |
and Jelly Babies, no bash is complete without them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, thanks for providing the only actual solid news on this thread. Not sure why DG had to trail this meeting.
I guess DG is accurately reflecting modern journalism. It seems that first you say something is going to happen, then you say something has happened - but you don't actually know what, then you speculate needlessly and in an uninformed way about what might happen in the future, in a manner skewed by your own views and agenda.
The SKGBs admin has often been laughable amateur in my experience, dealing with membership issues and the forum especially. Freshtracks and the rep system exempted. Why they didn't forget any legal ideas years ago seems bizarre.
Hopefully we can all move on now, and that includes those snowHeads who seem to be prejudiced against the SKGB because of the actions of one or two reps/members who they have never actually met or had a drink with.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 16-01-14 9:20; 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.
|
| Hells Bells wrote: |
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| You missed Chocolate buttons.... |
and Jelly Babies, no bash is complete without them. |
 M+M's that's the way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
stoat of the surgery, now you're being ridiculous
1. The NEWS (your word) was that MacAdmin met McCEO. MacAdmin then fleshed out some useful and interesting detail. I don't know whether admin would ever have informed you that the meeting happened without a little 'modern journalism' (actually no different, in essence, to any other journalism conducted over the ages) as you put it. Perhaps we'll also hear from McCEO.
2. The NEWS came to you because Clouseau rang me and informed me (some weeks ago) that the meeting in Pall Mall was scheduled for Tue 14 Jan. Well done, Clouseau.
3. The NEWS may help to break down prejudices (from either camp) in time. We shall see. It appears that SCGB members and snowHeads are often one and the same ... such as your goodself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, The burning question is are they letting you re-join your club?
Will MacClouseau have another lead for you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boredsurfin wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith, The burning question is are they letting you re-join your club? |
No, the burning question is whether I'm to be refunded the balance of value of my 2012-3 annual subscription, since I was denied all the autumnal magazines and annual report (having been expelled "with immediate effect" on 30.9.2013). I'm not a penny-pinching sort of individual, but one's got to make a stand.
But your burning question is also smouldering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
boredsurfin, in a perverse way this forum has become the SCGB forum - there are more SCGB members posting here than over there I reckon. So, effectively, CG doesn't need to rejoin as effectively he's got back the very thing he enjoyed and was banned from.
Where's PJ by the way? Just askin'. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| I'm not a penny-pinching sort of individual, but one's got to make a stand. |
I'd vaguely assume that ejecting a member from the club isn't a standard sort of thing. Do their Ts&Cs actually say anything like 'its all our money now, neener neener'? That would seem a teeny bit unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bode Swiller, Best ask Clouseau the answer to the PJ and socks question 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| George Jones wrote: |
.....Fresh Tracks offerings are premium priced whereas Snowheads tend towards cheap and cheerful.
So not necessarily rivals. ...... |
Fresh Tracks are very structured (and usually expensive) holidays IME. That may well suit many, but it was the free-flowing nature of sH Bashes which attracted me. And the accommodation I have experienced at the EOSB, MSBs of yore, and BB have not been downmarket - even though the cost was. Wasn't so impressed with where I stayed at the SOPi - but the fabulous skiing did make up for it.
So FT and Bashes are very different - each appealing to its devotees. And I know some like both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
achilles, that chalet has been refurbished for this winter, but I don't think there are any plans for snowHeads to stay there again
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Serriadh wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| I'm not a penny-pinching sort of individual, but one's got to make a stand. |
I'd vaguely assume that ejecting a member from the club isn't a standard sort of thing. Do their Ts&Cs actually say anything like 'its all our money now, neener neener'? That would seem a teeny bit unreasonable. |
It does seem unreasonable, do they always do this when they eject people? maybe this is another example of them behaving badly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| blahblahblah wrote: |
| Serriadh wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| I'm not a penny-pinching sort of individual, but one's got to make a stand. |
I'd vaguely assume that ejecting a member from the club isn't a standard sort of thing. Do their Ts&Cs actually say anything like 'its all our money now, neener neener'? That would seem a teeny bit unreasonable. |
It does seem unreasonable, do they always do this when they eject people? maybe this is another example of them behaving badly. |
It'd be no different from the SCUK:
http://www.snowboardclub.co.uk/module-htmlpages-display-pid-7.html
"4. Membership Cancellation
SCUK reserves the right to cancel your membership at any time. This will normally be because you have infringed this agreement in some way, provided misleading/fraudulent information when you applied for membership or payment for your membership has not been received. We will always attempt to contact you to clarify the reasons for membership cancellation. SCUK are under no obligation to offer refunds on cancelled memberships, although we may choose to do so"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Why did they throw Goldsmith out - because he wouldn't wear a helmet?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| DB wrote: |
| Why did they throw Goldsmith out - because he wouldn't wear a helmet? |
Haha, probably acting like one!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
its a bit (lot) weird, stalkerish, this behaviour of DG.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
DB: "Why did they throw Goldsmith out - because he wouldn't wear a helmet?"
Shimmy Alcott: "its a bit (lot) weird, stalkerish, this behaviour of DG."
NB: I have never refused to wear a deer-stalker
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Comedy Goldsmith, I really doubt whether breaking down prejudices against the SKGB is your agenda. But I think they should pay you your sub back.
If Graham wanted people to know about this meeting, he could have done so. You might have jeopardized a commercial or other joint initiative by seeking to show how much more than the rest of us you knew, teasing us gently with your superior information. Unless Graham actually asked you to do this I'd say this isn't really the act of a friend. If he did ask you, I'd have preferred it direct from him.
Shimmy Alcott, indeed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
stoat of the dead, Made some assumptions there! I reckon if Admin wasn't happy about this thread it would have not seen the light of day after all it is Admins party/pub/house as the hackneyed old simile goes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
boredsurfin, I don't think so. He's let some pretty anti-snowHeads threads run before. So I wouldn't assume either way - hence my wording.
I'd prefer this info from the horse's mouth, not the other end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Hells Bells wrote: |
| achilles, that chalet has been refurbished for this winter, but I don't think there are any plans for snowHeads to stay there again |
To be fair, the holiday was great, and the accommodation adequate - it just wasn't as top notch has that for the BB and the EOSB. Wasn't having a moan; more reflecting that the BB and the EOSB have shown that Bash accommodation can be first class without being expensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| stoat of the dead wrote: |
boredsurfin, I don't think so. He's let some pretty anti-snowHeads threads run before. So I wouldn't assume either way - hence my wording.
I'd prefer this info from the horse's mouth, not the other end. |
Now that is funny ! Of course it would appear he was actually dining on Caviar and Champagne when the 'news' broke!
More likely Admin offered to buy lunch if the ski club would let DG back in -- I guess he didn't get to pay for lunch?
As Clousseau appears to have been engaged, can someone ask him to reveal who the plonker was who told DG in the first place? Cos they must have known he couldn't resist kicking up some back bottom releases from the horse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Agenterre, my guess would be someone from SCGB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My confidential and anonymous sauce for the lunch exclusive was neither a plonker nor a plongeur. That's as much as I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
To some people, 10 years ago it was known as Slushnuts...
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
stoat of the dead: "If Graham wanted people to know about this meeting, he could have done so. You might have jeopardized a commercial or other joint initiative ... I'd say this isn't really the act of a friend ... I'd have preferred it direct from him ... I'd prefer this info from the horse's mouth, not the other end."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's fairly evident by now that, on principle, I prefer to let people have their say Even having been challenged by the police regarding a topic before now. whether it's pro or anti me or pro or anti snowHeads or pro or anti prose or Aunties for that matter.
I have also asserted, at times vigorously, my right to have my own say in response to my critics - that said, sometimes it's easier to just sit back and let them make themselves look silly 
Anyway, David made me aware that he 'knew' of this meeting, and I simply asked him to try not to go anywhere with it that might make it harder for us to have a friendly conversation. He didn't and we did - the rest is entertainment
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
admin
Police. Rly?
Bean spill pls?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
^ ^ +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The big question is how many chocolate buttons are on the table?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
I wonder if the word "pleb" was involved
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
It was a topic that someone took offence to on racial grounds.
My opinion was that while I could accept that they, personally, had felt offence, there did not appear to be any intended offence or abuse directed at them. Nor did I feel the posts were abusive in general nature and although their 'humour' did play on a racial stereotype, I didn't believe that stereotype was intrinsically demeaning. (after all, is it racist to refer to the English as wearing bowler hats and eating roast beef?)
Further, rather interestingly, someone of virtually the same racial origins had argued on the topic against the offended party which gave weight, in my mind, to the idea that comments had merely pricked the sensitivities of the offended party rather than being intrinsically insulting to the racial group they were 'defending'.
However, they chose to take their issue 'off forum'.
I received a call from a police officer who explained that, whatever the intention or actual nature of a comment, if someone was offended by it then it was by law, offensive and my letting it stand in public meant I was inciting or encouraging racial unrest or something in a public place and I was to be treated in similar regard to the EDL marching on Mosques.
So... essentially, if a Mexican looked at Mr Pieholeo,'s post above and 'took racial offence' at the mention of spilled beans - well Mr Pieholeo's beans would have put him in the crapper as surely as if they were sugarfree gumibears.
Well, I respectfully suggested that this was rubbish and expressed my distaste for anti-racist-tokenism being used by lazy (or stupid) wouldbe-do-gooders as a dangerous distraction from the difficult but important task of dealing properly with real racism in its many forms.
He said, "Yes but it's the law."
So, I accepted that although on principle I would prefer to see such a thing through to the courts and argue my point, I haven't the time or the resources to do so and I agreed that I would bow to his authority and remove the topic. However, in the interests of transparency, I requested that he email details of the relevant legislation that I could provide as explanation for the topic's removal.
I expected this to be immediately forthcoming (well he seemed so sure) but some hours later, I received an email explaining that their legal bods had decided that technically, because the comments were not in a public place, they were not, after all, against the law. I assume, they were referring to the principle more commonly referred to as "what happens in the Aprés Zone stays in the Aprés Zone"
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
admin, interesting. Was the offended party a doctor, by any chance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Silly Pedantica, doctors are a 'class' not a 'race'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin, duh. I didn't want to specify the racial background of the person I thought it might be. But that person is a doctor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Yeah I know
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm trying to think of a joke that could involve a doctor, a policeman and a lawyer going into a pub.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
