 Poster: A snowHead
|
This section of snowheads seemed to be initially created to have a (perhaps deserved) dig at the SCGB's decision to make the forum member only, and to inform the exluded what was going on there. It seems to have now evolved into taking serious swipes at the SCGB for what seems to be of little gain to Snowheads.
I find it is leaving me slightly disillusioned with Snowheads as a whole, which is a shame as it has the potential to be a very useful resource. It just makes Snowheads as a whole seem to have a petty agenda to get back at them, or is there some other reason to run them down? It just doesn't seem to benefit anyone (or does it?)
If you have a personal problem with the ski club/Reps, I don't see why you have to air your views publicly, especially if you are a ski club member (you don't have to be).
If you have a commercial problem with the ski club, can't you take it up with them?
If you are not a ski club member then what the ski club does will/should probably be of little interest, if you are then maybe the ski club is where you should direct your complaints not Snowheads.
Yes I am a ski club member so I do feel that there is are benefits to SCGB membership (even if you may not agree - that is your choice). No I don't ski in tweed, hang out with Rupert and Henry, nor live near wimbledon, etc, etc... oh and no, I haven't been talking to Gerry! 
I'm sure I'll get loads of grief for posting this, it may even be removed, however I'm just getting a little fed up with all the b!tching, so I thought I'd add my opinion on the matter (some b!tching of my own! ) - I suppose I could follow my own advice, afterall I don't have to contribute to/gain from here, but that would be rather disappointing. 
Why don't we try moving forward, and focus on Snowhead issues?? 
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Wed 6-10-04 8:07; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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.
|
| hibernia wrote: |
| ..... are satisfactorily resolved.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
stuarth, I certainly hope u do not get 'loads of grief for this', U are as welcome to rant as anyone else within these [virtual] walls. Although I will take issue with what you refer to as a 'rant'. What you have actually done is state an opinion and backed it up with a well-reasoned argument. If this is critical of snowHeads' policy in some way, then snowHeads will only benefit by considering it and in doing so hopefully allay your concerns to some degree.
The official policy of snowHeads is to accept all legally defensible opinion whether critical or complimentary and whether Admin, moderators or regulars personally agree or not.
I see no reason at all why your post should be removed and unless someone approaches a moderator or me with an objection regarding some aspect that I've not yet noticed, here it will stay.
... as will this section I'm afraid to tell you.
| stuarth wrote: |
This section seemed to be initially created to have a (perhaps deserved) dig at the SCGB's decision to make the forum member only |
Quite the reverse in fact, it was set up in response to the fact that the Piste was overrun with topics on the subject. The initial intention was to ring fence discussion of the scgb so as to allow those who were interested/involved to engage in it while those who weren't, could more easily ignore it.
The scgb is nationally the biggest, most influential organisation in our sport. They can and do affect a difference whether you are a member or not. Hence it is not just members who have an opinion on the scgb and furthermore it is not just members who have a right to express their opinion on the scgb.
Since snowHeads is the place on the net with the highest concentration of scgb members (and that includes the scgb's own site), it's only natural that there will be a fair amount of discussion of it. The fact that so much of that discussion is critical of scgb, though unfortunate, cannot really be blamed on snowHeads. I don't however, believe the answer is to try to censor that discussion.
To put it in context a little though, this forum represents less than 4% of the total posts at snowHeads and has not many more entries than the Suggestions/requests forum. I think snowHeads are thinking positively most of the time!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
admin,
| Quote: |
Since snowHeads is the place on the net with the highest concentration of scgb members
|
I think you might mean that snowheads has a higher number of Active SCGB members i.e those that post, rather than just read, after all the SCGB does have considerably more members than snowheads........ at the moment 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but according to the 'straw polls' that a number of scgb reps said they conducted last season, most scgb members barely use the website and few were even aware of the forum's existence.
Obviously there's a higher concentration of scgb members in the scgb itself but the ones that are on the net... are here! (well most of them)
oh... U know what I mean 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stuarth, I'm not quite sure how to respond to your posting except in the words of an American brat whose voice once echoed across Wimbledon:
"You cannot be serious!"
This country has a fundamental belief in free speech, and we have fought wars to retain it. There has also been a tradition in this country of people wishing to 'get rid of things', or sometimes 'get rid of people'. To what end?
You are asking "Can we get rid of this whole section?" Perhaps you'd like to take it further, such as: "Can we get rid of the internet?" [it causes far too much trouble].
The answer is obviously no. The internet is here not only to distribute information but to empower the ordinary person to express an opinion, free of editors, proprietors and rulers.
Please don't ask for the old rules to apply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| admin wrote: |
...To put it in context a little though, this forum represents less than 4% of the total posts at snowHeads and has not many more entries than the Suggestions/requests forum. I think snowHeads are thinking positively most of the time!
... |
4% of contributions, in a forum which should be surely be about skiing in general, seems a totally disproportianate obsession with one organization to me. FWIW, I agree with stuarth - the section should go (with any future discussion taking place in the Apres Zone). However as U have a clear interest in prominently venting your feelings about the Club, and U own the site, I realise that won't happen 
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
This country has a fundamental belief in free speech, and we have fought wars to retain it. |
I guess I am wandering OT, here. My meandering thoughts on this have nothing to do with the SCGB. Anyway... I am intrigued by you saying that. The right to free speech is of course enshrined in th American Constitution, but I am not aware of any such right in the UK. The law on slander and lible seems to say otherwise. And the rights of prominent people in France to their privacy (I think case law/Press Council regulation is tending that way here, too) suggests there is no over-ruling right to free speech in the EU. If there were a belief in free speech, then I would have expected the law to reflect that.
Equally, I cannot remember a fight to retain it. We were draggged into WW1 by the Entente Cordiale, I think. We entered WW2 over the invasion of Poland. And I can't remeber any subsequent conflict being about free speech - except, perhaps arguably, Iraq - if you supported regime change.
As I said, OT - but I wonder if you can support your quoted remark a little.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Nick, people have been obsessed with the Ski Club of Great Britain for 101 years.
This section exists because so many people wanted to obsess about the Club. The Club's own forum originally had no section specifically about the Club, but it was introduced because people wanted to obsess about the Club.
You should be pleased that people want to discuss the Club. People own their clubs and naturally want to talk about things they own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presumably, this section will wither away when Snowheads are so bored with the subject that no-one bothers to post on it any more.
A month or two ago, that outcome seemed inevitable. Curiously, stuarth, you're actually sustaining the forum by starting a new thread. Is your motive all that it seems?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I think you just served an ace, Jonny.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
I kind of got the response I was expecting - no I wasn't deliberately stirring!!  and no I didn't expect this section to go really, I just wanted to make a point...
(I quess I won't stop afterall!)
Whilst I get U's point that there was a good reason initially to fence this section off, it just seems a little odd that there is still a specific whole section devoted to having a go at the SCGB, why is this? We are mostly all members of other organisations (such as the UK!), share the same government etc, why is there not a forum specifically devoted to them, or more usefully organisations like banks and estate agents (on which topics I could post non-stop rants!! )
It seems perfectly resonable to have a discussions about SCGB policies, especially the MO day thing, which did affect non-members, though some of them seem more like a spleen venting or personal vendetta, that is never going to be resolved by discussion here.
In fact I disagree with the "free speech" thing, this is U's forum, not everyones, so it is up to him what is discussed here really, fortunately as he said above he is keeping it open to all comments (within legal reason), and I'm glad he gives me the oportunity to do so too.
All I'm saying is that in _my_ opinion singling the SCGB out for continued special 'attention' in _my_ eyes does nothing for the image of Snowheads.
It would also be a shame, if as you say the SCGB are the most influencial group in UK skiing, to have a non-amicable relationship between them and Snowheads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
It does seem to me that the prime place for discussing the SCGB is on the SCGB's own forum, as the running of the club is a matter for its members. However, as long as people want to discuss it here I see no harm in having a separate section - it does, as has been pointed out, keep the dicsussions away from other threads.
The time to delete this section will come when people stop posting to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Jonny Jones, Er, no. I thnk admin/U did by re-stirring the unique visitors pot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
stuarth, if you're upset that the Club is being attacked then support policies that will make it more popular. The more popular it is, the less it will be attacked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
Nick, people have been obsessed with the Ski Club of Great Britain for 101 years.
This section exists because so many people wanted to obsess about the Club. The Club's own forum originally had no section specifically about the Club, but it was introduced because people wanted to obsess about the Club.
You should be pleased that people want to discuss the Club. People own their clubs and naturally want to talk about things they own. |
Got your thoughts on that. What about the free speech thing?
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Wed 6-10-04 8:51; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
David Goldsmith, If you believed the club's policies were unfriendly, the positive action was to nominate someone more friendly to the Council. If you did, I guess he/she will be on the Council at the AGM, as the vacant positions had one nomination each, as I recall. In which case policies that in your view are more friendly may now ensue 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stuarth, A little bit of criticism never did anyone any harm. Might shake the dinosaurs out of their lethargy. A rather toothless species compared to some, I think U has little fear.
U's points on the use of stats for publicity purposes should be of concern to us all. If funds are drawn from businesses that advertise on the strength on the alleged size of the specialised wintersports public visiting a particular site, then those sums are not available for investment elsewhere, in particular to a site that is more modest in its claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
stuarth, this thread has gained 22 posts in two days. Congratulations!
| Quote: |
This section of snowheads .... seems to have now evolved into taking serious swipes at the SCGB for what seems to be of little gain to Snowheads.
I find it is leaving me slightly disillusioned with Snowheads as a whole, which is a shame as it has the potential to be a very useful resource. |
I think David Goldsmith summed it up: "You cannot be serious!"
I have not visited snowheads for 3 days. There were 103 posts in my "View posts since last visit" box. One of them was this one. One out of 103: harldy likely to alter the overall flavour of the place.
Anyway, we are mainly British here: we love a good moan. The weather, the state of the economy, kids today, modern music, modern art - need I go on? Down the pub tonight most of the conversations will be groups of drinkers throughtly enjoying a good moan.
If you don't like this section, then leave it alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick,
You’re being a little bit naughty! 
First of all, what got Britain into WW1 was the German unprovoked attack upon Belgium in an attempt to outflank the French defences. The UK had guaranteed the integrity of Belgium. What got Britain into WW2 was indeed the guarantee of Poland’s integrity but that was given when it became clear that Germany was intent on territorial expansion in Europe (though even then it seems Chamberlain tried to slide out of the commitment but the Cabinet forced him to adhere to it).
You seem to be confusing your rights and your freedoms. In Britain we have free speech (in so far as we do) because there is no law against it (in so far as there isn’t). We don’t need a law to permit it because there is no law to prevent it. That, historically, is (I think you will find) part of what it means to be English. The English have freedoms because they are English! We don’t need rights! The Scots etc just happened to get lucky by joining in. Americans do have a right to free speech, enshrined in the First Amendment, but they were feeling a bit uppity at the time and the entire constitution was heavily influenced by French misunderstandings of the British constitution (and Tom Paine, of course). It’s Europe that has and/or needs rights because they don’t (oops, I mean didn’t) have freedoms.
On the whole Britain has not taken too well to having its freedoms threatened by European despotisms becoming so powerful as to impose their arbitrary rules and ‘rights’ upon us. That is what David was clearly referring to, as I feel sure you must know perfectly well. Of course you are correct that current UK case law has developed/is developing rights for public figures to hide things from the public, but that is on the basis of EU law – effectively the European Court of Justice (so-called) imposing it’s judicial imperialism upon the UK.
But no matter. The important thing is to maintain interest in the scgb section of snowheads. So, thanks! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Terry Wells, The freedom of speech thing was just musing . David and I have since been in touch about it. Not sure that we ever did have freedom of speech in England - if you spoke against the king - or perhaps even more seriously, the local lord, you were in for a pretty rough time. Heresy could be a bit of a problem, too. And I don't think we ever did go to war over it, though I agree that in taking on Hitler, we did, effectively, stop an appalling huge infingement on free speech - and much else. Rather ironic that we did not take on the co-invader of Poland, and another appalling dictatordhip, the Soviet Union, but wound up as its ally - though I can understand why it happened.
As for WWI, the Belgian cause can be argued - it was the ostensible reason for war. I'll dig in a little more when I get a roundtuit (in short supply these days). I had thought that was done as part of the invasion of France, to whom we had alliance via the Entente Cordiale. But let's not loose sleep over it.
And I guess I should be grateful you love the SCGB so much you think it needs its own section
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| Rather ironic that we did not take on the co-invader of Poland, and another appalling dictatordhip, the Soviet Union, but wound up as its ally - though I can understand why it happened. |
But we did! Patton wanted to do it quick, but it was done slow (- though we almost declared war on the USSR in 1940, albeit over Finland). We won. And Russia has now resumed its place in the European family after having saved France by its sacrifices in WW1.
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
| if you spoke against the king - or perhaps even more seriously, the local lord, you were in for a pretty rough time. |
But, not necessarily according to law. It’s not like those places that have laws forbidding disrespect or whatever towards the government! Mind you, I expect Blunkett only needs time.
The Entente Cordiale was not a guarantee of France (arguably, more a matter of refraining from punch-ups with the frogs – oh well, all good things must end). Think you’ll find the UK was fairly reluctant to be involved with defending France until Germany pressed the point by invading Belgium, and thereby, effectively, threatened, dominance of Europe and therefore English freedom.
But it is I who should be grateful to you for such assiduous attention to the scgb section.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Terry Wells wrote: |
| ...But, not necessarily according to law. .. |
Well, treason covered almost anything you liked (if you were the boss).
| Quote: |
| Think you’ll find the UK was fairly reluctant to be involved with defending France until Germany pressed the point by invading Belgium, and thereby, effectively, threatened, dominance of Europe and therefore English freedom... |
Seems to be a little capricious to imply that Britain's freedom would not be threatened by the invasion of France, but would be by the invasion of Belgium. I'd like to think that there was some good reason for it all. I've been in France and Belgium lately on un-related matters. Stopped a couple of nights at Ypres, drove over the Somme. Got me thinking about WW1 - and feeling depressed.
| Quote: |
| ..But it is I who should be grateful to you for such assiduous attention to the scgb section |
You are converting me; I am delighted to see the Club bringing you joy
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
[quote="Nick Zotov
Well, treason covered almost anything you liked (if you were the boss).
[/quote]
Only up to a point Nick. Obviously arbitrary rule has not been unknown in Britain, but that does not make it a way of life. Perhaps you watched the recent TV programmes on the 14th century? The Peasants Revolt established that there are limits to what even kings can do – well, in England at least.
| Nick Zotov wrote: |
Seems to be a little capricious to imply that Britain's freedom would not be threatened by the invasion of France, but would be by the invasion of Belgium. |
Not really, France and Germany having a bundle along their frontiers didn’t necessarily impact upon the UK at all. The point about ‘plucky little Belgium’ is that (a) not only was it’s integrity specifically guaranteed by Britain and therefore there was an obligation to defend it, but also (b) the British guarantee was intended to ensure that no German blow against France would be likely to threaten the destruction of France: a German outflanking strike through Belgium would, and did, create that danger, which is why the BEF had to be despatched. A German domination of French ports would have created an infinitely greater threat to Britain.
Mind you, when I consider the lively joys of St Anton compared to some French ski resorts perhaps we may have been hasty. 
But you right – WW1 is depressing.
Fortunately we have the scgb section to maintain our spirits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
