A Snow and ski forum. SkiBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SkiBanter forum » Skiing Newsgroups » Alpine Skiing (moderated)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hans Knauss flunks



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 22nd 04, 06:07 PM
Monique Y. Mudama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2004-12-22, MattB penned:

In that case we should test everyone to be sure they got a good night's
sleep too. Just think, if I'm sleepy because my baby was teething all night
I just might accidentally take you out on the hill. Very dangerous.


I would bet that sleep deprivation accounts for a *lot* of accidents, on
mountain and off.

I agree with your point, though -- there are so many conditions that can
adversely affect performance, from lack of sleep to emotional state to poorly
fitting boots, that it doesn't make sense to pick out a few and agonize over
them. Better to encourage people to recognize when they're not in good shape
and take responsibility for staying out of obvious harm's way.

--
monique
Longmont, CO

Ads
  #22  
Old December 22nd 04, 06:36 PM
MattB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:
On 2004-12-22, MattB penned:

In that case we should test everyone to be sure they got a good night's
sleep too. Just think, if I'm sleepy because my baby was teething all night
I just might accidentally take you out on the hill. Very dangerous.



I would bet that sleep deprivation accounts for a *lot* of accidents, on
mountain and off.

I agree with your point, though -- there are so many conditions that can
adversely affect performance, from lack of sleep to emotional state to poorly
fitting boots, that it doesn't make sense to pick out a few and agonize over
them. Better to encourage people to recognize when they're not in good shape
and take responsibility for staying out of obvious harm's way.


I mentioned sleep deprivation because I've become very familiar with
it's effects over the last year and a half. It can wreck me worse than a
bad hangover.
I think the biggest thing would be to make people know they are
accountable for their actions, and then actually make them accountable.
That's a huge problem in our society - immediately trying to find
someone or something on which to place blame (or sue).
But that's another rant...

Matt

  #23  
Old December 23rd 04, 04:16 AM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TexasSkiNut wrote:

[merciful snip]
I would have laughed, had my allergist not had me try a saline nasal
rinse a few times. It was supposed to become a daily ritual. Let's
just say that I didn't find it to be a "soothing and pleasant
practice", nor did it make a positive impact on my situation. Each
time I tried it, my nose burned for the rest of the day. I tried it
with just water and that wasn't a whole lot better.


Got a trick for that, too -- add a little baking soda to the saline.

It's not a "soothing and pleasant practice" as I experience it, but I'm
pleased with the results. I have heard that the saline nasal rinse
doesn't do the job nearly as well.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

  #24  
Old December 23rd 04, 04:19 AM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MattB wrote:

Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2004-12-22, MattB penned:

In that case we should test everyone to be sure they got a good night's
sleep too. Just think, if I'm sleepy because my baby was teething all
night
I just might accidentally take you out on the hill. Very dangerous.




I would bet that sleep deprivation accounts for a *lot* of accidents, on
mountain and off.

I agree with your point, though -- there are so many conditions that can
adversely affect performance, from lack of sleep to emotional state to
poorly
fitting boots, that it doesn't make sense to pick out a few and
agonize over
them. Better to encourage people to recognize when they're not in
good shape
and take responsibility for staying out of obvious harm's way.


I mentioned sleep deprivation because I've become very familiar with
it's effects over the last year and a half. It can wreck me worse than a
bad hangover.
I think the biggest thing would be to make people know they are
accountable for their actions, and then actually make them accountable.


Isn't that what the responsibility code is supposed to be all about?
Articulating to people that they're responsible for being in control,
for refraining from unsafe actions that will endanger themselves and
others, etc.?

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

  #25  
Old December 23rd 04, 05:15 AM
Janet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MattB wrote:
snip

Interesting. I'm generally much more concerned with drinkers than
tokers. From my observations if someone over indulges in pot they head
down to the lodge (more cautiously than usual) to chill and maybe eat
some pizza. The overdone drinker on the other hand becomes more daring
and willing to take risks. Much more dangerous IMO. As far as pot
potency today, people just need to adjust serving sizes, and I think
many do. Imagine if beer and wine were replaced with whiskey and vodka.
Would you still drink a 12 Oz. serving? I wouldn't.


Not necessesarily. I've had close encounters with smokers and drinkers.
yes, the snowboarders who had been smoking were much more laid back than
the aggressive drinkers. However, they were so laid back that they
didn't see us stopped on the side of the slope even though they had a
clear view of us for at least 100 yards. They were headed directly for
us. They were so laid back, relaxed, chilled whatever that it didn't
register in their minds that we were there. Fortunately we had the
presence of mind to take eveasive action as they brushed by us saying
"sorry dude, didn't see you there...."

And yes, if we hadn't done something to avoid a serious collision,
someone (probably not them) could have gotten hurt...

Janet

  #26  
Old December 23rd 04, 06:47 AM
Monique Y. Mudama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 2004-12-23, AstroPax penned:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:19:47 -0600, Mary Malmros
wrote:

refraining from unsafe actions that will endanger themselves


Bwaaahaaahaahaa. What a bunch of BS.

So WTF, I'm not supposed to ever "endanger" myself?

Sounds as if someone is living a boring life.


There's some selective quoting for ya.

The key point was "and others."

--
monique
Longmont, CO

  #27  
Old December 23rd 04, 12:33 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Janet wrote:
MattB wrote:
snip


Interesting. I'm generally much more concerned with drinkers than
tokers. From my observations if someone over indulges in pot they head
down to the lodge (more cautiously than usual) to chill and maybe eat
some pizza. The overdone drinker on the other hand becomes more daring
and willing to take risks. Much more dangerous IMO. As far as pot
potency today, people just need to adjust serving sizes, and I think
many do. Imagine if beer and wine were replaced with whiskey and
vodka. Would you still drink a 12 Oz. serving? I wouldn't.


Not necessesarily. I've had close encounters with smokers and drinkers.
yes, the snowboarders who had been smoking were much more laid back than
the aggressive drinkers.


Getting back to the original topic, though -- these anecdotes raise a
valid question. Why would anyone even think about testing World Cup
racers for performance-de-enhancing drugs such as alcohol and marijuana,
when they're only doing their thing on closed courses, and the general
public isn't tested at all? You're at much more risk from the drunk,
drugged OR sleep-deprived Joe Average on the chairlift next to you than
you are from Hans Knauss.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

  #28  
Old December 23rd 04, 12:41 PM
Mary Malmros
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

AstroPax wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 22:19:47 -0600, Mary Malmros
wrote:


refraining from unsafe actions that will endanger themselves



Bwaaahaaahaahaa. What a bunch of BS.

So WTF, I'm not supposed to ever "endanger" myself?


You're supposed to acknowledge that if you do, you have to suck up the
consequences.

Sounds as if someone is living a boring life.


Yeah, one key symptom is the need to pick nits.

--
Mary Malmros
Some days you're the windshield, other days you're the bug.

  #30  
Old December 23rd 04, 02:20 PM
MoonMan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Mary Malmros wrote:
MoonMan wrote:
Monique Y. Mudama wrote:

On 2004-12-21, MoonMan penned:

What invasion of privacy?

If I want to race at an national (or for that matter International)
level I have to agree to drug testing. No one is forcing me to do
this it is my choice!

Yes, and if I want to get a job lately, I have to pee in a cup and
subject myself to all sorts of questions. If I don't want to do
that, I can just ... um ... not get a job.

Way to miss the point.



What any job? I think that would be illegal here and stupidly
expensive and unreliable at that.


Where's "here"? It's sure 'nuff legal in these United States, and
widely practiced in corporate America. In fact, here's a good one for
you -- Nortel Networks, a company based in Canada, started mandating
drug testing for all new employees AND all contractors in 1999 -- that
is, for its US employees and contractors. Not the Canadians. Know
why? It's illegal there. That's one example; there are plenty of
others. Lucent started doing the same thing in around the same
timeframe, for example.


England

There where news stories about companies wanting to test employees, but they
where mainly based on how unreliable the tests where, even the companies
that supply them admit they are only indicative, but the results found by
the reporters whern't even that good.



Stupidly expensive? Yes indeed. But they still do it. Some
numbskull at Company A becomes convinced that "drug testing" is a
good idea. Can't articulate what they should test for. Can't state
what it is that _all_ the company's employees do on the job that
makes this necessary or even desirable -- some of them are stuffing
envelopes, some of them are writing software, some of them are
answering phones, some of them are driving forklifts, but they all
gotta prove that they're drug-free! Can't say what they'll do if
someone tests positive. Can't describe how confidentiality will be
maintained. But they're gonna require "drug testing". And, just
like the loyalty oaths in Catch-22, it escalates. To be _really_
drug-free, Company A then demands that all of their vendors also be
drug-free. So Companies B, C and D need to do the same. And on
and on and on.


sound like religious conviction to me or just arse covering.


There are testing companies making a great deal of money out of this.
Chances of making it go away at this point are slim to none.

There are News stories about changing the law to allow headteachers
to require drug tests at schools though.

Mind you what is an interview if it's not subjecting yourself to all
sorts of questions?


Any HR rep will tell you that there are many questions you aren't
allowed to ask in an interview.

I still don't see the invasion of privacy though.


Then you won't mind if I go to your house and go through your sock
drawer looking for drugs, right?


Well I would suggest going out for a beer would be more fun

Mind you the only people legally allowed to search my sock drawer without my
permission would be the police ( well and customs and excise here in the
UK ) and they would need justification.


--
Chris *:-)

Downhill Good, Uphill BAD!

www.suffolkvikings.org.uk

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SkiBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.