 Poster: A snowHead
|
Ski Club reps:
"First of all, check that the following entry criteria apply to you:
You are aged between 22 and 50. "
http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/item.asp?intCategoryID=1&intItemID=1746
I'm sorry but youth has boogerall to do with ski/board ability, social and organisational skills, bookkeeping or linguistics. Actually, I find it offensive that this is the very first item on the ‘qualifications’ requirements to be a ski rep.
It’s all people who make the ‘world go round’ and as much as David Goldsmith wants to engineer a change of social inclusiveness in the SCoGB from within, perhaps it’s time to draw a line underneath and look to create a better resource for us gravity addicts?
After all, even he, with all his experience and skill, can’t jump the first hoop to become a ‘Ski Rep’!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Masque, you're absolutely right. My butt (I'll accept the use of the colonial noun) is 51 years old.
The current president and chairman of the Ski Club of GB is - I'll shock you now - not a rep either. Sally Cartwright OBE should suffer no lack of objectivity as a result. Repping may be a religion (!) but it's not a culture. We're all skiers, and a national ski club is perhaps best controlled by people who are on a level with anyone from a Nevis Range novice to a Chamonix couloir-er.
Even better is that the club is genuinely controlled by its members, hiring and firing their elected committee/board of directors against a clear plan and performance criteria. I believe the BBC is one good model, but there are many cherished British mutual organisations that perform.
The key question, Masque, is whether political control of the Ski Club of Great Britain can be gently eased from the reps? Because you're absolutely right - the status quo is certainly rep-driven. Now I'm really in the political deep end!
I hasten to add that any enlightened rep - who genuinely represents the interests of all members, with a clear understanding of everyday skiers - is a political ally of mine.
I hope that's enough to chew on, but it's really not about moi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Masque, if I have anything to do with it, this age thing will be looked at again.
David Goldsmith:
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| I hasten to add that any enlightened rep - who genuinely represents the interests of all members, with a clear understanding of everyday skiers - is a political ally of mine. |
Any chance you could get such a rep to contribute to the Club forum which is devoted to these matters?
Maybe he/she will be more successful in persuading me that you are right than you have been?
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 7-10-04 18:29; 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.
|
Gerry. If there's a rep making anonymous postings - and that's news to me - then I guess they've made a decision not to blow their identity by registering their presence on the Club's forum (which automatically records members' names against postings).
I'm in no position to persuade anyone to do anything, even if I knew who you are talking about!
With respect, Gerry, you've made some pretty outspoken personal attacks on people in both forums so I can understand and sympathise with anyone who might want to express a view from behind a veil. Provided it's an honestly held view, expressed in good faith, I can't see any problem in that.
There's a long tradition of anonymous writing and anonymous sources in journalism and journals. Obviously this type of forum is more open to abuse, because we all 'self publish', but I think snowHeads are remarkably well behaved as a community. No one is forced to believe anything they read. Real names are always welcome, and arguably carry more clout, but there's a role for the anonymous too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Gerry, (quote) “Maybe he will be more successful in persuading me that you are right than you have been?”
Sorry Gerry I’m not trying to persuade you, I’m just using the clubs own rules to illustrate how ‘CLOSED’ the club appears to us puerile unwashed peering over the fence!
In reality, there’ll be few over 50’s aspiring to be a club rep, and their skills can be easily assessed, so why make it the no.1 restriction to becoming one? And truth be told, over 50’s are probably in a far better fiscal position to support the club than the ‘youff’ of today so why be unnecessarily ageist and p*ss them off? It just shows the paucity of thought throughout the entire visible part of the club, which is why, after 10 years of interest in the club, I’d still, rather cut off my nuts and BBQ them than join the existing cabal.
My thought is that . . . is it time to hang a ‘DNR’ notice to the front door of the SCGB and form an inclusive organisation of our own? After all there are 800+ contributors here, that’s a lot of fiscal leverage. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I'd sooner ski with someone of Masque/DG's age than a 20 year old rep, in a resort I've never been to. I know that a more mature person won't be wanting to show off their "skills" but to show me the mountain's features.
And I'd even say that of Masque on a board. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More mature? I like that, makes me feel like a fine whine.
Last edited by Then you can post your own questions or snow reports... on Tue 21-09-04 16:18; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Fox is being nice to me . . . he must want something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
If someone is choosing ski lessons, do they go for the youngest male instructor, or the oldest? Do they go for the one who looks like he's just come home from a great night out, or the one who is about to start a great day out?
Well, I guess the choice is to do with your reason for being there.
As long as the Ski Club of Great Britain calls itself a SKI club, then I'd want someone who was going to introduce me to the mountain. If my primary objective is to be introduced to the top shelf of the local bar, then I'd go for the Club 18-30 rep.
I mean, if the ski club wants to reach a wider audience, then put two reps, or two couples in a resort. One couple being more mature, who, after showing round the mountain can recommend good restaurants, and the others that will show you the half pipe, then take you to the cheapest beer in town.
That way you will get people using the service.
(BTW, this idea is (C) WTFH, 2004. Any organistaion using it will be charged)
|
|
|
|
|
|
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, well, you could buy me a beer at the workers party on 16/10!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fox, I thought we'd planned out your future: Klosters with Prince Charles, who has committed the rest of his life to skiing and chasing a fox.
In that sense you'll be the Klosters rep, but he'll probably be shouting directions at you because he knows the area very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Fox, if I'm back and solvent I'll be happy to sub you a beer.
Gerry, "there are plenty of reps who are over 50!" . . . QED!
Yet read the first line - http://www.skiclub.co.uk/skiclub/news/item.asp?intCategoryID=1&intItemID=1746
This is my point, the club spends too much time (and it's structured to do so) with it's collective finger up it's butt rather than actually doing anything to become more inclusive in its outlook. It's a club alright and woa betide any poorly spoken or paid oik that wants to be an active participant. With the club's current state of persona, (nasty allegory deleted) must have a better spread rate than the club's membership.
I'm suggesting that the SCGB should be left to its own wallow and this ad-hoc society might start considering its future.
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Tue 21-09-04 19:05; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Masque, I already agreed with you that the age restriction has to go.
| Gerry wrote: |
| Masque, if I have anything to do with it, this age thing will be looked at again. |
| Masque wrote: |
| It's a club alright and woa betide any poor spoken or paid oik that wants to be an active participant. |
If you only knew, Masque, if you only knew!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Masque, your grotesque metaphor goes somewhat beyond the metaphorical 'snowball in hell' or perhaps 'piste in hell'. Is this really necessary?
I know you're trying to be original and outrageous, but snowHeads is a mixed audience that includes well-spoken people who are capable of understanding an argument written in moderate language.
What you are saying has been said before: that the Ski Club should be left to become an association of elderly balding men discussing the price of combs, but it is more constructive to build a parallel 'society' such as this to a strength of numbers. snowHeads can naturally assume control of the SCGB via purely constitutional means should they ultimately plan to subscribe and vote themselves into power.
So, whatever ambitions you have are probably complementary to those who would like the Ski Club to sit more comfortably within modern snowsports.
As a lover of literature you should know that the Ski Club of Great Britain owns one of the finest libraries in skiing. The founders of that library would have wished that it be used by people like you in the 21st century. Assets exist not to be disposed of or divied out to the surviving few. The Ski Club's natural destiny is to be relevant, active and fun - it has been that way by tradition, and can be that way in the future.
The Club's assets are there to be deployed for those who show the commitment to win a share. They're up for grabs, my dear boy.
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Wed 22-09-04 15:34; edited 2 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Masque, I'm not convinced that you have properly read what I've written. Your post of 3:00 pm for example:
| Masque wrote: |
Gerry,
| Quote: |
| “Maybe he will be more successful in persuading me that you are right than you have been?” |
Sorry Gerry I’m not trying to persuade you, I’m just using the clubs own rules to illustrate how ‘CLOSED’ the club appears to us puerile unwashed peering over the fence! |
The 'he' I'm referring to isn't actually you. I'm talking about the mythical rep that would agree with David's ideas about the repping service. I say 'he' but it could be a 'her' I suppose.
Also...
I've e-mailed the Club about making it clear that reps can continue after the age of 50 and also raised the point that fitness is more important than age.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Tue 21-09-04 18:31; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| With respect, Gerry, you've made some pretty outspoken personal attacks on people in both forums so I can understand and sympathise with anyone who might want to express a view from behind a veil. Provided it's an honestly held view, expressed in good faith, I can't see any problem in that. |
No personal attacks from me, David. I've stuck purely to the points and issues raised. Not once have I been rebuked for personal abuse on this site or the Ski Club's. However, snowheads moderators have had to act on my behalf more than once and without my prompting. I've also suffered personal abuse of a vulgar kind on the Club's forum.
I'm left wondering if some people perceive attacks on their points of view and their political activities as attacks on them personally?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Consider me admonished and I'll amend the post above (It's been a VVVVery long day), but you have to realise that from the outside (and it's a real big outside) the SCGB is is a much use as a chocolate teapot. We neither know, and because of that, care about its resources . . . it's a CLOSED book. So unless there is a complete sea change in the way it presents itself then it's as relevant today as the above metaphor and may as well call itself the Ski Museum of GB, which is what it's become, complete with ludicrous entrance fee.
I challenge the need to try to change it. Even if it goes t*ts-up, those resourses will become available, yet sadly how relevant will they be with the approaching environmental meltdown? If you consider that only its history is what's worth its saving, then save the history and ditch the divisive infrastructure.
Gerry, I note you say "continue after the age of 50"! Your dissembling just illustrates the/your complete lack of candor or desire for change that the club in its public face exhibits!!!
JEEZUS . . . public relations R us! You really know how to win the argument – read the first post and try again! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Masque, you paint a bleak picture. But consider the fact that over 2000 people joined last year. That's a lot of people who don't agree with your opinion of the Ski Club. AND they join an even larger number.
The Club continues to evolve and grow all at the same time. The Eaton Square days and image are gone forever. But if your view has been coloured by the past, then you need to do more than just 'peer over the fence' to find that out.
I did, and I like what I found very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Gerry, Then take a breath, stand outside and try to take a long look at how the SCGB present yourself.
I'd be more interested in a proper breakdown of 'why' those people joined rather than 'Oo look, you're full of poo 'cos 2000 people joined last year'.
Tell me why they joined. Better yet, also tell me why I should join, tell me what you offer that's unique and/or competitive with resort sourced facilities.
And don't give me any cr*p about reps, the 7 I've met (over 10 years) were reptilian, skirt-chasing, arrogant freeloaders. Fer God’s sake, one even told me that boarders couldn’t be ‘full’ members (whatever the Hell that was supposed to mean).
Impress me with the changes that have happened for the better and tell me why I/we should become members.
Hint . . . to begin, why are we using this forum?
You’ll obviously realise that I have quite a negative viewpoint about the SCBG that’s been continuously reinforced over a decade. How long will it take the club to change that?
Codicil: Tell us why you’re a member (be honest now).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Masque, Bloody hell you did meet some bad reps! I don't know what to say apart from how sorry I am that they appear, from what you say, to be far below the high standards we set. I myself was prompted to become a rep by a rep, well a couple actually, that I felt were under achieving in one way or another. I even had a chat with one of them about me becoming a rep and his attitude was rather negative. BTW, He was in the room when I picked up my New Rep of the Year Award. Which was nice.
Why should you join?
Well there are the holidays, the magazine, the website, the discounts, the opportunity to meet new people though use of the repping service, the Summer and Northern Balls and the chance to make life long friends. You will also have to chance to engage with the club and try to rectify the faults you say it has.
Why did I join?
Well it was 1989, my second ever week skiing and there I was in Val T. I linked up with the rep, after having my arm twisted by a mate. The result was that I had a great time. I was a member for a number of years before having to stop skiing for a while. But shortly after taking it up again I rejoined the Ski Club.
Did I see a change in the Club in the intervening years?
Yes I did. The Club had changed and so had I. I was older for a start. But I was very impressed with the number of under 25's that were coming and skiing with the reps. still in the minority, but there nevertheless. some of them were even on those tray thing.
How long will it take the Club to change your negative view of it?
I don't know really. I depends on how willing you are to forgive the Club for MO day?
Why did the other people join?
Because what the Club has to offer appeals enough to make them want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry - Its not just MO day - its the whole culture of SCGB - do you not agree that it has a very negative perception particularly amongst young people. MO day was just a insight as to the Councils outdated attitudes towards the use of new technology. Until there are Council members who have a vision, and we are not talking of a 3.5% growth per annum of membership, then the whole thing is doomed. Its not a cool organisation to belong to. Would one wish to be associated with such an organisation? If I want to join an exclusive club then there are plenty of these in the west end of London. the SCGB is a prisoner of its past and does not want to change that. It certainly, in its present form, does not represent British skiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Prisoner of its past. Yeah right! Now it "lies and it steals, it lacks intellectual integrity". Just listen to yourselves.
David Goldsmith talks about snowheads taking over the Sc by constitutional means and yet not one even stood for the committee! Dream on 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beck Daross, there's a difference between taking over the Ski Club of Great Britain, and taking over its role as a representative community of snowsports lovers in the United Kingdom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
It's all a numbers game. If you want to run the country you need votes. If you want to run the village cricket club you need votes. If you want to run the USA you need notes.
Seriously, though, the Ski Club of Great Britain (which has been part of my life since about the time the Beatles were formed) was founded to be the representative body of British skiers (or UK skiers, as Fox correctly states).
Because the Club is controlled by an elected Council, with reps forming a significant voting network and political motivation - and a constitution demanding 5% of members signatures to put forward a resolution for change - there are two routes to achieve change:
1 A change in composition of the SCGB Council to snowHead-type people who wish to embrace the entire ski community, wherever they live and whatever they do.
2 A sufficient body of SCGB members actively voting for change via a resolution (which is calmer than revolution).
Skiers are independent-minded people, whether they are snowHeads or SCGB members, or both. If they can see the benefits of change, they will unite to achieve it.
There is no point in snowHeads doing anything as a community until the numbers are there. It could take time for the numbers to grow. In the meantime, who knows, the Ski Club (which I support because of its history and potential) may genuinely decide to be a much more inclusive organisation.
I believe that's what the founders wanted, and anyone who works for the Club essentially acts in honour of the founders. Those who work for the Club would enjoy a real sense of fulfilment in achieving substantial membership growth. It would do wonders for the Club's independence from commercial influence, too, because membership revenue is the key to independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As much as i hate to say it i agree Cathy it does seem that your not allowed an opinion if it doesn't comply unless it complies with the company line
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
bootneck, I think you're reaching the same conclusion I &, I'm sure a few others, came to months ago....I've just given up now, it's not worth it. I thought it was a shame though cos you started off in SCGB forum (a few weeks back?) so enthusiastic & eager & it's clear from your recent posts that you're getting disillusioned....
I do think that there is a problem though that Gerry is making most of the pro-SCGB posts & we get to think he IS the SCGB. But he is only one ski rep that happens to be quite vocal. It would be nice if there were more 'official' SCGB voices to give a more reasoned view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I'm not getting dissilusioned it makes me even more determined to get ideas for change and make things better for all concerned well most of us anyway looking at some replies to peoples posts
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Beck Daross - Oh forgive me for the temerity to say the truth ( not even mentioning the right of an opinion! ) Sackcloth and ashes! Now where is the smiley for irony!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Masque wrote: |
Gerry, I note you say "continue after the age of 50"! Your dissembling just illustrates the/your complete lack of candor or desire for change that the club in its public face exhibits!!!
JEEZUS . . . public relations R us! You really know how to win the argument – read the first post and try again! |
What argument is that then? The one where you said the age limit was wrong and I agreed with you? Is that the argument I didn't manage to win?
Christ, how did I manage to lose that one!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 wrote: |
| Christ, how did I manage to lose that one! |
No, must not rise to this... must not rise to this... must not rise to this...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Ommmmm Ommmmm Ommmmm
Will everyone just keep calm please 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Right, just so you all understand my position. I emailed the club and told the that I think the age limit should be thrown in the bin. I believe anyone who would make a good rep should be given the opportunity to become one regardless of their age.
I stated my intent on this issue in my very first post in this thread:
"Masque, if I have anything to do with it, this age thing will be looked at again."
If I have anything to do with it, this age thing WILL be looked at again and thrown in the bin. Actually, the 50 limit isn't a hard and fast rule anyway. This was stated at the AGM in 2002.
It comes to something when someone argues with you for agreeing with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gerry, I think Masque, must have been in shock and didn't realise you were agreeing with him.
now come on every body nice deep breaths please 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf, I don't know about him being in SHOCK, but he sure wasn't IN his reading glasses.
Now, if you could just explain alexpresland's 'contribution'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Gerry,
| Quote: |
Now, if you could just explain alexpresland's 'contribution'?
|
Don't be daft acts of God I can sometimes accomplish, what you ask is impossible 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m real strapped for time right now so I’ll get the thread back on track:
My original point is the SCGB presents itself in a ‘closed’ manner, it offers lots of goodies to the member, but you’re gonna have to join to access them. It even makes stupid and arbitrary rule limitations to its primary information resource yet breaks them at a whim.
The club’s raison dêtre has either been lost or skewed to suit a particular group within it.
As for those goodies it offers? Well let’s be brutal, there’s nowt but shared membership that can’t be resourced with application and time. The club just makes it a little easier for those of us who’d rather have other priorities than source our ski related activities through our own efforts. But of course we can’t see those member’s personalities ‘cos the one place that they’re expressed are closed to non-members. QED
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 wasn’t suggesting that the ‘SlushNuts’ community attempt a coup on the SCGB, I’m more inclined to consider that we keep in mind the growing fiscal leverage that our collective can exert on skiing and holiday retailers and look to our own future as a resource for gravity addicts.
I do not believe that the SCGB can break out of its self created straight-jacket of public exclusion and as such have made themselves redundant to our sport. Apparently it doesn’t even support our ski athletes.
My opinion (and this is purely subjective and without evidence) is that there are a number of people who have a lot of fun at the expense of the general membership in providing a less than onerous information and guiding service. Basically there’s no such thing a free lunch, it’s that some of you are eating smuggled Beluga the rest are having a ‘club sandwich’.
And if this 'hard and fast rule' was recinded in 2002, just what the hell is it doing first on the qualificationd requirements two years later? I'm not accusing you, but there's a strong whiff of BS floating around in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
