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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Malmros wrote:
MoonMan wrote: Mary Malmros wrote: MoonMan wrote: Mary Malmros wrote: Sven Golly wrote: Mary Malmros wrote in newsaadnb1kYOQ02lrcRVn- : snip And you went ahead and signed a document that you claim was "totally incomprehensible", allowing someone (you don't know who) to demand bodily fluids of you (you don't know what) under some circulstances (you don't know when) and to use the results you don't know how? MoonMan! Buddy! Listen, I got a really hot deal on an Austrian slopeside property, you can get in on it if you act now! Actually the document is very specific about what they can test for, It's just almost impossible to work out (even with a pharmacopoeia) which retail products it applies to. And it specifies what sort of samples and when they can be taken and by whom. so perhaps I was exagerating when I said "totally incomprehensable" snip Take a look at http://www.bytheplanet.com/Products/...ti/Netipot.htm and try not to laugh TOO hard at the picture of the woman using the neti pot. Sorry I couldn't help it, it cheered up my morning no end. Chris *:-) Downhill Good, Uphill BAD! www.suffolkvikings.org.uk |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|